Next Article in Journal
Changing Levels of Myokines after Aerobic Training and Resistance Training in Post-Menopausal Obese Females: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Previous Article in Journal
Is this a Real Choice? Critical Exploration of the Social License to Operate in the Oil Extraction Context of the Ecuadorian Amazon
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 20
10.3390/su12208418
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Socially Responsible Consumption: A Segmentation of Spanish Consumers

by
María Manuela Palacios-González
1,* and
Antonio Chamorro-Mera
2
1
Department of Financial Economics and Accounting, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain
2
Department of Business Management and Sociology, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(20), 8418; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208418
Submission received: 30 July 2020 / Revised: 20 September 2020 / Accepted: 9 October 2020 / Published: 13 October 2020
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The fight against the environmental and social problems faced by humanity requires a change in the consumption system. A new consumer is required, who takes into consideration that their acts are part of the cause of these problems, but also part of the solution to them. In order to design effective campaigns to promote socially responsible consumption, it is valuable to understand the profile of consumers who are most likely to act in this way. The objective of this work is to identify and describe segments of consumers according to their degree and type of socially responsible behavior. To do this, a survey of 415 Spanish consumers was conducted, using a multidimensional scale to measure socially responsible consumption. Four segments were identified: highly responsible, sensitive to origin, moderately responsible, and indifferent. Moreover, the individuals from these segments do not differ from each other due to their sociodemographic characteristics, but rather due to their attitudes towards these problems. Emotional engagement and the perception of personal effectiveness are the variables that differentiate the individuals in each segment, whereas the perception of personal gain is insignificant.

1. Introduction

The need and urgency to change the current consumption model is increasingly forming part of the political agenda. The United Nations made this clear in 2012 at the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development when it promoted the concept of the green economy as an alternative to the economic system based on the excessive and inefficient consumption of energy and scarce natural resources [1]. This idea was reinforced by the United Nations itself in the declaration on the 2015–2030 Sustainable Development Goals in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Encouraging this new consumption model is also one of the key elements of the European Union’s economic policy. This is clear, for example, in the communication “A resource-efficient Europe—Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy” [2], stating that “to achieve a resource-efficient Europe, we need to make technological improvements, a significant transition in energy, industrial, agricultural, and transport systems, and changes in behavior as producers and consumers”. This message is also present in the Communication “Closing the loop—An EU action plan for the Circular Economy” [3] on promoting a circular economy based on meeting the needs of customers while reducing the consumption and waste of raw materials, water, and energy by extending the life of products.
Achieving the transition towards a green and circular economy implies socially responsible consumption becoming generalized and the responsible consumer segment ceasing to be a minority segment in the market. We can understand a socially responsible consumer to be someone who translates their concern for social and environmental problems into their purchasing and consumption actions. They take into account not only traditional purchasing criteria (price, quality, etc.), but also the social and environmental aspects linked to the product and the company that produces and markets it. This consumer segment is made up of those people who consider the welfare of the stakeholders who may be affected by their purchasing decisions [4]. The actions of socially responsible consumption are very diverse. They can range from rejection to companies linked to bad labor practices or products with a high negative impact on the natural environment, to the preference for eco-designed products or solidarity products that donate an amount of money to social causes and charities. Socially responsible consumption also includes the rejection of mass consumption practices.
However, how can we meet this challenge in the coming years? Even if consumers recognize that socially responsible consumption is worthwhile, it is difficult for them to practice it in everyday consumption [5,6]. Among other similar measures, information and awareness campaigns on the social and environmental impact of consumption are essential.
Knowledge about the socially responsible attitudes and behaviors of consumers will help public administrations and non-profit organizations to effectively design their campaigns in order to raise awareness and promote responsible consumption. They will be able to identify the profile of individuals with a greater predisposition to act, as well as the variables that influence this predisposition. Similarly, companies wishing to position themselves as socially responsible companies and brands will understand the aspects that are important when designing their communication policy.
This research is intended to contribute to this knowledge. Its objective is to identify and describe segments of consumers with different attitudes and behaviors in terms of socially responsible consumption.
According to the reviews of the literature on green marketing by Chamorro et al. [7] and McDonagh and Prothero [8], segmentation of consumers according to their environmental awareness has been an attractive topic for academia since the 1990s. A vast majority of these studies have focused on specific environmental issues or behavioral domains, such as climate change (Hine et al. [9] identified over 25 climate change studies employing segmentation methodology), energy (e.g., [10]), waste management and recycling practices (e.g., [11]), travel and transport behaviors (e.g., [12,13]), food waste (e.g., [14]), or choice of grocery store format (e.g., [5]). There are abundant studies on the segmentation of consumers according to their behavior or intentions to buy organic or sustainable food (e.g., [15,16,17,18,19]). To a lesser extent, studies have been carried out that analyze pro-environmental behavior in a global way, taking into account different types of environmental actions (e.g., [20,21]).
Some of the environmental segmentation models have been based on a small set of profiling variables and/or focused on a single topic or domain, which may lead to poorly differentiated and unidimensional models [20]; therefore, new studies with other approaches are necessary. In our research, socially responsible consumption is understood as an extension of green consumption. As we have defined previously, it is a concept that must include actions of different types and does not only refer to environmental behaviors.
So, this research stems from the idea that socially responsible behavior is multidimensional [4,22,23,24]; therefore, there is not one unique type of socially responsible consumer. A consumer may have a high, average. or low commitment to social, ethical, and environmental problems, but it is also true that they can have different levels of commitment according to the different dimensions. For example, they may be highly aware of the need to purchase or reject certain products, but have a low predisposition to reducing their volume of consumption.
In this respect, our research aims to apply the multidimensional scale of socially responsible consumption by François-Lecompte and Robert [4] in Spain and to verify if the same dimensions of responsible consumption are obtained. Although similar research has been carried out in recent decades [25,26,27,28], new studies are necessary because the attitudes and behaviors of consumers to these issues are not universal (generalizable to all geographical and cultural contexts) and are also dynamic (evolve over time).
In addition, our goal is to identify consumer segments with different responsible consumer behaviors. Of the studies that have applied the François-Lecompte and Robert scale, only the investigations by François-Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29] and by González et al. [26] conducted some type of consumer segmentation analysis. However, neither of these two previous studies included attitudinal variables to describe the individuals in each segment. In our study, in addition to sociodemographic variables, we introduce variables that have been found to be relevant in studies on ecological behaviors, such as perception of personal gain, perceived consumer effectiveness, or emotional engagement.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Scales to Measure Socially Responsible Consumption

The concepts of socially responsible consumption and consumers are very broad, as they can refer to various types of action and behavior linked to social, labor, ethical, and environmental issues. For this reason, the scales that have been proposed to measure socially responsible consumption are very heterogeneous in both the approach to the items with which they are measured and the number of items used to measure them [4,22,23,24,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. Some scales have focused on ethical issues and others only on environmental issues, such as participation in recycling processes or purchasing organic products. However, multidimensional scales have also been developed on the basis that different types of action or behavior should be measured in addition to focusing on different types of social and environmental problems.
For example, Morh and Webb [22] measured the willingness of consumers to purchase in a socially responsible manner through the Socially Responsible Purchase and Disposal Scale, formed by 26 items grouped into three factors: (1) influence on consumer purchasing of the company’s philanthropic activities, hiring practices, and treatment of employees; (2) consumer recycling; and (3) consumers’ avoidance and reduction of usage of products that harm the environment.
François-Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29] and François-Lecompte and Robert [4] propose the Socially Responsible Consumption Scale, formed by 20 items that measure aspects related to five dimensions of responsible consumption: purchasing of products linked to social causes, purchasing from small businesses, purchasing based on local origin, consideration of the company’s responsible behavior, and the consumption volume.
Moreover, Yan and She [23] developed the Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior Scale, adapted to the cultural context of China and formed by 34 items grouped into nine factors: environmental protection, animal protection, energy conservation, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, supporting national brands, monitoring misconduct and claiming consumers’ rights, moderate consumption, supporting socially responsible businesses, resisting irresponsible businesses.
Durif et al. [24] developed the Socially Responsible Consumer Scale, formed by 49 items grouped into eight factors: (1) citizen behavior; (2) behavior focusing on protection of the environment; (3) recycling behavior; (4) composting behavior; (5) local consumption behavior; (6) behavior taking into account animal protection; (7) deconsumption behavior; (8) sustainable transport behavior.
Although they are similar scales, for this study, we have chosen to use the scale created in France by François-Lecompte and Roberts [4] and François-Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29]. This scale was considered appropriate because it is multidimensional, and has subsequently been contrasted by other researchers in other countries, such as D’Astous and Legendre [25] in Canada, González et al. [26] in France, Anuar et al. [27] in Malaysia, and Pérez-Barea et al. [28] in Spain.

2.2. The Profile of the Socially Responsible Consumer

Of the previous investigations, only References [29] and [26] applied a segmentation methodology to the scale of socially responsible consumption. Francois-Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29] identified five segments: “those who are worried”, “the skeptics”, “those who are against department stores or anti-distribution”, “the boycotters”, and “those who are not worried”. These authors affirm that sociodemographic variables play an important role in the field of socially responsible consumption, especially age, gender, or professional category.
Gonzalez et al. [26] carried out a segmentation of consumers based on their level of socially responsible consumption and identified four groups: “socially responsible consumers”, “consumers who prefer to buy local products (locals)”, “consumers who prefer to buy products with cause (good causers)”, and “indifferent consumers”. The responsible consumers have a high level of socially responsible consumption, while the “indifferent consumers” have a low level of socially responsible consumption. The “locals” prefer to buy local and French products, but present a medium or low level in other dimensions, while the “good causes” are in favor of buying products with a cause, as well as practicing other forms of socially responsible consumption, such as reducing their volume of consumption and buying products taking into account the behavior of the company that manufactures them. Subsequently, these authors describe the individuals of each segment according to personal and social values using Desjeux’s [44] proposal.
From the two studies cited and from other studies on specific environmental or ethical behaviors, some conclusions can be drawn about the sociodemographic and attitudinal variables that can help to identify the profile of consumers with different levels of socially responsible consumption.
The review of the existing research shows that it is difficult to identify a sociodemographic profile for the socially responsible consumer. These variables are not good explanatory variables of this type of behavior. The results are very diverse and even contradictory for most of these variables.
With regard to gender, some research links socially responsible behavior to women [4,24,37,38,40,45,46,47,48,49,50]. However, there are also other studies that have not found an influence of gender on this behavior [42,51,52,53].
In terms of age, some research shows that socially responsible behavior tends to increase with the individual’s age [4,24,37,38,51,54,55,56]. However, other studies find that it is young people who most possess this behavior [47,48,50,57]. Finally, there are also other studies in which age was unrelated to this behavior [42,46,58].
With regard to income level, several research works associate socially responsible behavior with a high income level [59]. However, other studies show that people with a lower income behave in a more socially responsible manner [37,38,48,54]. Finally, there are also studies that find no significant differences in the relationship between this variable and socially responsible behavior [24,42,49,56].
In terms of level of education, some research reveals that individuals with a high level of education behave in a more socially responsible manner [37,38,56]. However, other studies link this behavior to low levels of education [54]. There are also studies that do not link this variable to socially responsible behavior [51].
Finally, with regard to political orientation, several research works find that socially responsible consumption is linked to liberal policies [35,37,38].
In contrast to the sociodemographic variables, the literature review obtains clearer results in relation to the attitudinal variables. Although different terminology is used, the most analyzed attitudes were the concern, the perception of personal gain, and the perception of the effectiveness of the action.
Concern is a way of measuring cognitive attitude, which refers to the individual’s opinions or beliefs on the severity and consequences of social, ethical, and environmental problems. In the field of socially responsible consumption, it can be measured through the subjective assessment that the individual gives to issues such as the severity of climate change, the need for urgent action to solve the problem of plastic waste, or the importance of guaranteeing dignified salaries for workers in underdeveloped countries. This variable has sometimes been measured as emotional engagement or attitude. In these cases, the individual’s feelings of indignation, suffering, or frustration caused by social, ethical, and environmental problems are assessed. Thus, the examples given above can be measured as emotional commitment by asking the individual to assess expressions such as “I am scared by the consequences of climate change in the coming years”, “I am outraged that governments do not prohibit the use of plastic packaging”, or “I feel outraged when I hear news about labor exploitation in the third world.”
Throughout the literature, near unanimity is found with regard to the positive influence of concern on socially responsible behavior. As an example, it is worth mentioning the research of Antil [35], Ellen [60], Roberts [37], Straughan and Roberts [38], Martínez and Fraj [61], De Pelsmacker et al. [62], De Pelsmacker and Janssens [63], Akehurst et al. [42], and Izaguirre-Olaizola et al. [64].
The perception of personal gain can be defined as the individual’s subjective assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of socially responsible behavior. It is possible to ask about this perception in a positive sense, indicating the expected gains, but most research has defined this variable through items worded in a negative sense, so that they reflect feelings of being harmed (such as paying higher prices or the need to spend more time on the purchasing process). In the review of the literature, it can be observed that those individuals who show a high perception of personal gain tend to behave in a socially responsible way to a greater extent than those who show a low perception [35,60,62,63,65].
Perceived consumer effectiveness is the consumer’s belief in the ability of their individual actions to solve a certain social or environmental problem. This variable is related to empowerment of consumers and can be measured by evaluating expressions like “as consumers, we can do a lot to care for the environment.” There is usually unanimity with regard to the fact that individuals who possess a high level of perceived consumer effectiveness behave in a more socially responsible manner or have a greater intention to do so [25,34,35,37,38,39,42,56,60,62,64,65,66,67,68,69].

3. Methodology

In order to achieve the objective of the research, a survey was carried out among Spaniards over 18 years of age (Table 1) using face-to-face and online questionnaires. A non-probability convenience sampling method was used and 415 valid questionnaires were obtained. The face-to-face survey (83.13% of the sample) was carried out through personal interviews at the respondents’ homes in various provinces of the Spanish state. The online survey (16.87%) was distributed through the researchers ‘and various pollsters’ social networks in order to reach users from other regions of the country.
The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample are similar to the Spanish population (Table 2). The only exception is age, as a higher percentage of young people participated in the study compared to the age distribution of the national population.
To measure socially responsible consumption, the scale created by François-Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29] and François-Lecompte and Roberts [4] was used. This scale reflects the multidimensional nature of the socially responsible consumption construct and has been validated in other subsequent studies [25,26,27,28]. The fact of having been applied by other experts, some of them in environments similar to ours, provides content validity to the scale. It uses 20 items to measure five different dimensions of responsible consumption: purchasing of products linked to social causes, purchasing from small companies and shops, purchasing based on local sourcing, consideration of the company’s responsible behavior, and reducing the purchase volume.
A scale consisting of twelve items was used to measure concern. Seven of these items are obtained from the scale used by Maloney et al. [70] to measure the individual’s emotional engagement towards environmental issues. Another three were obtained from those used by Izaguirre-Olaizola et al. [64] to measure attitude towards social problems, and the other two items were created expressly for this research in order to include references to the social problems of disadvantaged groups and today’s consumerist society.
A scale of four items was used to measure perception of personal gain based on the work of Ellen [60], reflecting efforts made to consume in a socially responsible manner. In the case of perceived consumer effectiveness, a scale formed by four items was also used, similar to those used by Roberts [37] and Izaguirre-Olaizola et al. [64].

4. Results

4.1. Analysis of the Measurement Scales

The principal component factor analysis applied to the socially responsible consumption variable allowed the 20 items to be reduced to five factors, explaining 69.18% of their variance (Table 3). It was not necessary to eliminate any of the items initially proposed; the factors coincide with the five theoretical dimensions of the scale and the results obtained in the studies of François- Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29], François-Lecompte and Roberts [4], González et al. [26], and Pérez-Barea et al. [28].
The KMO value is 0.846, a value which, according to the Kaiser scale [71], is deemed good. The Bartlett test of sphericity (BTS) offers a value of 4.631, with a significance of 0.000. Assessment of the reliability of this scale was carried out through Cronbach’s alpha, whose value is 0.885, which is above the minimum level of 0.7 established by Nunnally [72].
Table 4 reflects the results of the factor analysis applied to the concern scale. This variable was reduced to two dimensions, explaining 58.69% of its variance, and it was not necessary to eliminate any items from the initial scale. The KMO value is 0.908 and BTS value is 2.309, with a significance of 0.000. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.899, which is above the minimum level of 0.7 established by Nunnally [72]. The “injustice” dimension covers those items containing the feelings shown by consumers towards environmental problems and social injustices. The “globalization” dimension reflects these feelings towards the globalization policies of companies and the repercussions that they have on our society.
With regard to the perception of personal gain variable, the factor analysis carried out reduces this variable to one dimension (Table 5), explaining 58.40% of its variance, and it was not necessary to eliminate any items. The KMO value (0.744) and BTS value (405, with a significance of 0.000) are acceptable. Cronbach’s alpha is at a good level (0.761).
The factor analysis applied to the perceived consumer effectiveness variable led us to eliminate one of the four items and a single factor was obtained as a result, explaining 69.96% of its variance (Table 6). The KMO value is 0.68, the BTS value is 374 (with a significance of 0.000), and Cronbach’s alpha is 0.78.

4.2. Segmentation

In order to identify the existing segments, a cluster analysis was carried out with the five dimensions that summarize the “socially responsible consumption” variable. The mean factor scores from the five dimensions extracted from factor analysis were used in segmentation analysis. A non-hierarchical classification (k-means clustering) method was used. After evaluating the dendrograms, the final value used was k = 4.
Table 7 contains the four identified segments. They are differentiated not only due to their level of socially responsible consumption, but also due to the dimension of this to which they are most committed.
The “highly responsible consumers” segment represents 41% of respondents and has the highest level of socially responsible consumption. The people comprising it try to only purchase what they really need, and they also try to purchase products from companies with a good social reputation. For these people, compared to the other dimensions of socially responsible consumption, it is not as important to purchase from small businesses.
The “responsible consumers and sensitive to origin” group (23% of the sample) also shows a high level of socially responsible consumption. These are people who place great importance on purchasing products that come from their own region and/or country. However, they place very little importance on reducing their volume of consumption.
The “moderately responsible consumer” segment (15% of the sample) has an average level of socially responsible consumption. These people try to purchase products that allocate a part of their price to social or environmental causes, and they also seek to purchase from small businesses. However, this segment does not place importance on the origin of the products.
The “indifferent consumers” group (21%) possesses the lowest level of socially responsible consumption, both in overall terms and with regard to each of the five dimensions.
Having identified these segments, each is described below according to sociodemographic variables and attitudes towards the social responsibility of consumers. Regarding the first, the Chi-square test shows that there are only statistically significant differences between the segments in terms of the education level variable (Table 8). The “moderately responsible consumer” segment covers the consumers with the highest level of education (university and post-university studies), whilst there are no significant differences between the other three segments.
Table 9 shows the analysis of variance (ANOVA) carried out to describe the segments depending on concern, perception of personal gain, and perceived consumer effectiveness. Statistically significant differences are obtained between the segments for the two concern dimensions and for perceived consumer effectiveness, but not for perception of personal gain.
The “highly responsible consumer” segment presents very high levels of indignation about injustice and also shows high levels of concern about globalization. These consumers also believe that individuals can influence companies to become more responsible through their purchasing decisions, as shown in their high level of perceived consumer effectiveness.
In contrast, the “indifferent consumers” segment shows very low levels in the two concern dimensions and in relation to perceived consumer effectiveness. The other two segments, “responsible consumer sensitive to origin” and “moderately responsible consumer”, have average values for these three dimensions where the differences between segments are statistically significant.

5. Discussions

The results of this study firstly reveal that socially responsible behavior is a multidimensional variable, as initially proposed in the works of François-Lecompte in 2006, and later confirmed by González et al. [26] and Pérez-Barea et al. [28]. This fact implies that consumers may show their social commitment in different ways, not placing the same importance on all the types of action that allow them to show this in purchasing decisions. In other words, consumer behavior will not be homogeneous and, therefore, there will be different consumer segments not only in relation to their level of commitment and action for social and environmental issues, but also with regard to which aspects or dimensions of social responsibility they most take into account in their purchasing decisions. It could be argued that socially responsible consumption has various nuances and definitions according to the specific consumer.
In the study carried out, four consumer segments with different behaviors towards socially responsible consumption were identified. These are segments that, with certain nuances, are similar to those obtained in the studies of François-Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29] and in González et al. [26] among French consumers.
Of all the sociodemographic variables analyzed, only education level was found to be significant, it being identified that individuals who possess a higher level of education will show socially responsible behavior to a greater extent, as observed in previous studies [37,38,56]. In contrast, the results of this study reveal that gender does not influence socially responsible behavior (in keeping with the results obtained by [42,51,52,53]), nor does age (as in the studies by [42,46,58]) or level of income (as suggested by [24,42,49,56]).
The study also involved testing the effect of some attitudinal variables, allowing us to conclude that we can work on these to increase responsible consumption. Significant differences were observed for the concern and perceived consumer effectiveness variables.
The consumer segments with greater socially responsible behavior also have a high level of concern, as observed in previous studies [35,37,38,42,60,62,63,64]. Likewise, these segments are also formed by individuals who possess a high level of perceived consumer effectiveness, as seen in the results obtained in previous studies [25,34,35,37,38,39,42,56,60,62,64,66]. However, the level of perception of personal gain was not found to be relevant, which is a result that contradicts that obtained in previous studies, such as Antil [35], Ellen [60], De Pelsmacker et al. [62] and De Pelsmacker and Janssens [63].

6. Conclusions and Managerial Implications

It can be argued that three of the four Spanish consumer segments identified in the study translate, in one way or another, their social and environmental concerns into their consumption decisions. Given the size of each of these three segments, it can be confirmed that the potential market of socially responsible consumers may amount to 79% of the sample. That is, only two out of every ten consumers do not usually take any social responsibility criteria into account when making their decisions. We can therefore say that there is a suitable social context for promoting socially responsible consumption.
However, in order to start involving individuals who would be part of the indifferent consumer segment and increasing the level of engagement of individuals who would be part of the medium- and moderate-level segments, effective information and awareness campaigns are required. Knowledge of the profile of the most socially responsible consumers (about their sociodemographic and attitudinal characteristics) provides information that may be very useful to companies (business marketing), public administrations, and NGOs (social marketing) when designing their campaigns to promote responsible consumption. This information can especially influence the type of message, the type of language, and the arguments that are included in the promotional campaign, depending on the target audience or segment we want to target.
The results obtained reflect that the identified segments of socially responsible consumers are not differentiated by their sociodemographic characteristics, but by their attitudinal characteristics. This finding confirms the traditional belief that demographic variables are not good explanatory variables of ethical and environmental behavior [34,42]. In contrast, the attitudes and beliefs of individuals do have an effect on their real behavior. According to our study, it can be argued that the level of emotional engagement and the perception of personal gain act as inhibiting factors or barriers to socially responsible consumption. The segments showing greater socially responsible behavior have a higher emotional engagement with the topic and a higher perception of their personal capacity to solve social problems (perceived consumer effectiveness). This suggests to us that awareness campaigns should appeal to these two variables in their message.
First, the message in communication campaigns should be designed to generate feelings of indignation and suffering about the severity of social injustices and environmental problems. This would increase their level of emotional engagement. By using this focus, the message would be applying a “sick baby” communication strategy [73].
Second, the message in campaigns to promote socially responsible consumption should also be designed to highlight the important role of individual consumption choices in solving social and environmental problems. The message should empower the consumer in a way that increases their perception of personal effectiveness. That is, the message must revolve around the idea that the consumer is part of the problem, but also part of the solution. Now it is necessary that the message is not focused on increasing concern, but on increasing the intention of a change in consumer behavior [74]. It is necessary to move from a concerned consumer to a pro-active consumer.
The results of the study can be considered an indicative description of socially responsible consumption in Spain and can serve as a basis for future research. As a limitation of the research, it has already been indicated that the sample has a biased profile towards young people. The results must be assessed taking into account the sample size and the use of a non-probability sampling method, making it difficult for it to be generalized to the entire Spanish population or extrapolated to other countries. In addition, as occurs in all studies on this topic, there is a “socially correct response bias”, which means that some responses giving a positive valuation of socially responsible consumption are overvalued. As previously mentioned, new studies on socially responsible consumption are necessary in order to complement the results of this research. As socially responsible behavior is not universal, it may be interesting to replicate this study in other cultural contexts and countries. In other geographical contexts, it should be checked whether the same five dimensions of the socially responsible consumption scale are obtained and if the characteristics and size of the consumer segments are similar to those obtained in this study. It may also be interesting to include in the study new variables to classify the consumer, such as the place of residence (urban or rural), the level of materialism, or the consumer’s religious beliefs. Finally, as socially responsible behavior is dynamic, it may be interesting to replicate this study in other periods of time, because many responsible behaviors, especially those that involve financial sacrifice, can be affected by economic crises or booms. On the other hand, in the future, other actions and formats of responsible consumption different from those included in the François-Lecompte and Roberts scale may acquire more importance, so new approaches to the items and dimensions of socially responsible consumption may be necessary. Perhaps elements related to the circular economy and the sharing economy, such as repairing products, buying second-hand products, or sharing goods and services with other consumers, can be included in a scale for measuring socially responsible consumption.

Author Contributions

All authors actively contributed to the various phases of the research, such as the design of the study, the data collection, the analysis of the results, the extraction of conclusions, and the writing of the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by Junta de Extremadura and FEDER under the grant GR18027.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. United Nations Environment Programme. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. 2011. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=126&menu=35 (accessed on 29 July 2020).
  2. European Commission. A Resource-Efficient Europe—Flagship Initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy. 2011. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/a-resource-efficient-europe-flagship (accessed on 29 July 2020).
  3. European Commission. ClosIng the Loop: An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. 2015. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1.0012.03/DOC_1&format=HTML&lang=EN&parentUrn=COM:2015:614:FIN (accessed on 29 July 2020).
  4. François-Lecompte, A.; Roberts, J.A. Developing a measure of socially responsible consumption in France. Mark. Manag. J. 2006, 16, 50–66. [Google Scholar]
  5. Lee, J.-M.; Kim, H.-J.; Rha, J.-Y. Shopping for Society? Consumers’ Value Conflicts in Socially Responsible Consumption Affected by Retail Regulation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Schlaile, M.P.; Klein, K.; Böck, W. From bounded morality to consumer social responsibility: A transdisciplinary approach to socially responsible consumption and its obstacles. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 149, 561–588. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chamorro, A.; Rubio, S.; Miranda, F.J. Characteristics of research on green marketing. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2009, 18, 223–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. McDonagh, P.; Prothero, A. Sustainability marketing research: Past, present and future. J. Mark. Manag. 2014, 30, 1186–1219. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hine, D.W.; Reser, J.P.; Morrison, M.; Phillips, W.J.; Nunn, P.; Cooksey, R. Audience segmentation and climate change communication: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2014, 5, 441–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sütterlin, B.; Brunner, T.A.; Siegrist, M. Who puts the most energy into energy conservation? A segmentation of energy consumers based on energyrelated characteristics. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 8137–8152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Barr, S.; Guilbert, S.; Metcalfe, A.; Riley, M.; Robinson, G.M.; Tudor, T.L. Beyond recycling: An integrated approach for understanding municipal waste management. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 39, 67–77. [Google Scholar]
  12. Barr, S.; Prillwitz, J. Green travellers? Exploring the spatial context of sustainable mobility styles. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 32, 798–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Saleem, M.A.; Eagle, L.; Low, D. Market segmentation based on eco-socially conscious consumers’ behavioral intentions: Evidence from an emerging economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Delley, M.; Brunner, T.A. Foodwaste within Swiss households: A segmentation of the population and suggestions for preventive measure. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. De Graaf, S.; Vanhonacker, F.; Van Loo, E.J.; Bijttebier, J.; Lauwers, L.; Tuyttens, F.A.M.; Verbeke, W. Market Opportunities for Animal-Friendly Milk in Different Consumer Segments. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Boccia, F.; Sarno, V. Socially responsible food behaviour: Perspectives from empirical evaluations. Food Res. Int. 2019, 121, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kamenidou, I.C.; Mamalis, S.A.; Pavlidis, S.; Bara, E.-Z.G. Segmenting the Generation Z Cohort University Students Based on Sustainable Food Consumption. Behaviour: A Preliminary Study”. Sustainability 2019, 11, 837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Park, J.; Bonn, M.A.; Cho, M. Sustainable and Religion Food Consumer Segmentation: Focusing on Korean Temple Food Restaurants”. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Funk, A.; Sütterlinb, B.; Siegrist, M. Consumer Segmentation based on stated Environmentally-friendly Behaviour in the Food Domain. Sustain. Prod. Consum 2020, 25, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Poortinga, W.; Darnton, A. Segmenting for sustainability: The development of a sustainability segmentation model from a Welsh sample. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. González, E.M.; Felix, R.; Carrete, L.; Centeno, E.; Castaño, R. Green shades: A segmentation approach based on ecological consumer behaviour in an emerging economy. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2015, 23, 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mohr, L.A.; Webb, D.J. The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. J. Consum. Aff. 2005, 39, 121–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yan, J.; She, Q. Developing a trichotomy model to measure socially responsible behaviour in China. Int. J. Market. Res. 2011, 53, 253–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Durif, F.; Boivin, C.; Rajaobelina, L.; François-Lecompte, A. Socially Responsible Consumers: Profile and Implications for Marketing Strategy. Int. Rev. Bus. Res. Pap. 2011, 7, 215–224. [Google Scholar]
  25. D´Astous, A.; Legendre, A. Understanding Consumers’ Ethical Justifications: A Scale for Appraising Consumers’ Reasons for Not Behaving Ethically. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 87, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. González, C.; Korchia, M.; Menuet, L.; Urbain, C. How do Socially Responsible Consumers Consider Consumption? An Approach with the Free Associations Method. Rech. Appl. Mark. 2009, 24, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Anuar, M.M.; Omar, K.; Ismail, R.; Omar, M.W. The Influence of Materialism on Socially Responsible Consumption. J. Glob. Bus. Econ. 2014, 8, 75–80. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pérez-Barea, J.J.; Montero-Simó, M.J.; Araque-Padilla, R. Measurement of socially responsible consumption: Lecompte’s scale Spanish version validation. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 2015, 12, 37–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. François-Lecompte, A.; Valette-Florence, P. Mieux connaître le consommateur socialement responsable. Decis. Mark. 2006, 41, 67–79. [Google Scholar]
  30. Berkowitz, L.; Daniels, L.R. Affecting the salience of the social responsibility norm: Effects of past help on the response to dependency relationships. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1964, 68, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Berkowitz, L.; Lutterman, K.G. The traditional socially responsible personality. Public Opin. Q. 1968, 32, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Anderson, W.T.; Cunningham, W.H. The Socially Conscious Consumer. J. Mark. 1972, 36, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Anderson, W.; Henion, K.; Cox, E. Socially vs. ecologically concerned consumers. Am. Mark. Assoc. 1974, 36, 304–311. [Google Scholar]
  34. Webster, F.E. Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer. J. Consum. Res. 1975, 2, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Antil, J.H. Socially Responsible Consumers: Profiles and Implications for Public Policy. J. Macromark. 1984, 4, 18–39. [Google Scholar]
  36. Roberts, J.A. Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward? Bus. Horiz. 1996, 39, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Roberts, J.A. Green consumers in the 1990s: Profiles and Implications for Advertising. J. Bus. Res. 1996, 36, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Straughan, R.D.; Roberts, J.A. Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer behaviour in the new millennium. J. Consum. Mark. 1999, 16, 558–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Webb, D.J.; Mohr, L.A.; Harris, K.E. A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61, 91–98. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lee, K. Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2008, 26, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lee, K.; Shin, D. Consumers’ responses to CSR activities: The linkage between increased awareness and purchase intention. Public Relat. Rev. 2010, 36, 193–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Akehurst, G.; Alfonso, C.; Martins Gonçalves, H. Re-examining green purchase behaviour and the green consumer profile: New evidences. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 972–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sudbury-Riley, L.; Kohlbacher, F. Ethically minded consumer behaviour: Scale review, development, and validation. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2697–2710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Desjeux, D. La Consummation; Presses Universitaires de France: Paris, France, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  45. Roberts, J.A. Sex differences in socially responsible consumers’ behaviour. Psychol. Rep. 1993, 73, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ross, W.T.; Robertson, D.C. A typology of situational factors: Impact on salesperson decision-making about ethical issues. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 46, 213–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sankaran, S.; Bui, T. Ethical attitudes among accounting majors: An empirical study. J. Am. Acad. Bus. 2003, 3, 71–77. [Google Scholar]
  48. Singh, N. Exploring socially responsible behaviour of Indian consumers: An empirical investigation. Soc. Responsib. J. 2009, 5, 200–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, A.; Wooliscroft, B. Diffusion of innovation: The case of ethical tourism behaviour. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2711–2720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lee, J.; Cho, M. New insights into socially responsible consumers: The role of personal values. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lund, D.B. An empirical examination of marketing professionals’ ethical behaviour in differing situations. J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 24, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Radtke, R.R. The effects of gender and setting on accountants’ ethically sensitive decisions. J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 24, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Carrigan, M.; Attalla, A. The myth of the ethical consumer - do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 560–578. [Google Scholar]
  54. Muncy, J.A.; Vitell, S.J. Consumers Ethics: An Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of the final Consumers. J. Bus. Res. 1992, 24, 297–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kim, S.Y.; Chun, S.Y. A study of marketing ethics in Korea: What do Koreans care about? Int. J. Manag. 2003, 20, 377–383. [Google Scholar]
  56. Zhao, H.; Gao, Q.; Wu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, X. What affects green consumer behaviour in China? A case study from Qingdao. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 143–151. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hunt, T.G.; Jennings, D.F. Ethics and Performance: A Simulation Analysis of Team Decision Making. J. Bus. Ethics 1997, 16, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Glover, S.H.; Bumpus, M.A.; Logan, J.E.; Ciesla, J.R. Re-examining the influence of individual values on ethical decision making. J. Bus. Ethics 1997, 16, 1319–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ritter, A.M.; Borchardt, M.; Vaccaro, G.L.R.; Pereira, G.M.; Almedia, F. Motivations for promoting the consumption of green products in an emerging country: Exploring attitudes of Brazilian consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 507–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ellen, P.S. Do we know what we need to know? Objective and subjective knowledge effects on pro-ecological behaviours. J. Bus. Res. 1994, 30, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Martínez, E.; Fraj, E. El comportamiento ecológico de los individuos explicado a través de sus características psicográficas: Un estudio empírico. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2004, 13, 149–168. [Google Scholar]
  62. De Pelsmacker, P.; Janssens, W.; Mielants, C. Consumer values and fair-trade beliefs, attitudes and buying behaviour. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 2005, 2, 50–69. [Google Scholar]
  63. De Pelsmacker, P.; Janssens, W. A model for fair trade buying behaviour: The role of perceived quantity and quality of information and of product-specific attitudes. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 75, 361–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Izaguirre-Olaizola, J.; Fernández-Saínz, A.; Vicente-Molina, M.A. Antecedentes y barreras a la compra de productos ecológicos. Univers. Bus. Rev. 2013, 38, 108–127. [Google Scholar]
  65. Lee, M.Y.; Jackson, V.; Miller-Spillman, K.A.; Ferrell, E. Female consumer´s intention to be involved in fair-trade product consumption in the U.S.: The role of previous experience, product features, and perceived benefits. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 23, 91–98. [Google Scholar]
  66. Kinnear, T.C.; Taylor, J.R.; Ahmed, S.A. Ecologically concerned consumers: Who are they? J. Mark. 1974, 38, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Han, H.; Yoon, H.J. Hotel customers’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention: Impact of key constructs on decision in green consumerism. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 45, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kabadayi, E.T.; Dursun, I.; Alan, A.K.; Tuğer, A.T. Green purchase intention of young Turkish consumers: Effects of consumer´s guilt, self-monitoring and perceived consumer effectiveness. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 207, 165–174. [Google Scholar]
  69. Taljaard, H.; Sonnenberg, N.C.; Jacobs, B.M. Factors motivating male consumers’ eco-friendly apparel acquisition in the South African emerging market. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Maloney, M.P.; Ward, M.P.; Braucht, G.N. A revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am. Psychol. 1975, 30, 787–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kaiser, H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  73. Obermiller, C. The baby is sick/the baby is well: A test of environmental communication appeals. J. Advert. 1995, 24, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bañegil, T.M.; Chamorro, A. El comportamiento de compra de productos ecológicos: Una propuesta modelo. Estud. Sobre Consumo 2002, 62, 49–62. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Technical data for the study.
Table 1. Technical data for the study.
Tecnical Dates
Population: Consumers over the age of 18.
Sample size: 415 consumers.
Geographical scope: Spain
Sampling: Non-probabilistic, convenience.
Survey type: Face-to-face and online.
Table
Table 2. Description of the sample.
Table 2. Description of the sample.
GenderMenWomen
44%56%
Age18–35 years36–45 years46–55 years>55 years
47%19.5%24%9.5%
Level of educationNon-universityUniversityPost-university
48%35%17%
Income<1000 euros1000–2000 euros>2000 euros
51%34%15%
Political orientationLeft or center-leftCenterRight or center-right
46%30%34%
Table
Table 3. Factor analysis of socially responsible consumption.
Table 3. Factor analysis of socially responsible consumption.
ItemsCompany BehaviorOriginProducts Linked to CausesSmall BusinessesVolume of Consumption
I purchase some products that allocate a proportion of their price to a good social cause, such as cancer prevention.0.21170.16550.79940.06220.0988
I purchase some products that allocate a proportion of their price to third-world humanitarian causes.0.24370.08000.84180.04200.0786
I purchase some organic products.0.01460.08380.73120.1726−0.0201
I purchase some fair trade products.0.08550.02430.66500.3207−0.0251
I avoid making all my purchases at superstores.0.16770.06750.08510.57220.2179
I purchase from small businesses (bakeries, butchers, etc.) as often as I possibly can.0.22910.16150.13740.82890.0313
I contribute to the survival of small businesses in my neighborhood through my purchases.0.15450.13230.13790.83620.0823
To the extent of my possibilities, I purchase directly from producers, farmers, and craftsmen.0.05740.14470.35410.53920.0865
When I have to choose between a Spanish product and a foreign product, I choose Spanish.0.07800.89290.05710.10020.0776
I prefer to purchase food produced in Spain. 0.14930.89410.09770.05810.1434
I try to purchase fruit and vegetables produced in my region.0.17170.79100.14710.11200.1101
I try to purchase from Spanish establishments.0.21860.76120.08580.23000.0068
I try not to purchase products from companies that employ child labor.0.79720.14660.09550.17790.0854
I try not to purchase products from companies that do not respect their employees.0.86190.08930.15240.18560.0917
I try not to purchase products from companies or establishments with a bad social reputation.0.86540.12640.05150.08260.0532
I try not to purchase products from companies that severely harm the environment.0.79920.17810.14450.14180.1470
I try not to purchase products from companies linked to unethical behavior.0.81220.15040.18610.12240.1530
I try to only purchase the products that I really need.0.16910.1369−0.03390.04000.7855
In general, I try to consume less.0.08700.09850.04650.09620.8341
I try not to purchase things that I can make myself (for example, meals, domestic repairs, etc.).0.09630.03340.08320.17250.7045
Table
Table 4. Factor analysis of concern.
Table 4. Factor analysis of concern.
ItemsInjusticeGlobalization
I suffer every time a humanitarian disaster happens in the world even though it does not directly affect me.0.82900.1080
I feel outraged by the deterioration of the environment.0.75330.2998
I worry about the potential effects of pollution on both my family and I.0.66290.1945
When I think about social injustices, I feel frustrated because I cannot do anything.0.70010.2416
I am very sensitive to the problems of disadvantaged groups.0.71550.2634
I feel outraged when I think about how governments are doing nothing to fight against social injustice.0.60970.3928
I feel outraged when I think about the unethical behavior of companies.0.60190.4913
I worry about the effects of globalization.0.35600.6931
I am outraged at the policies of multinationals in developing countries.0.42650.6477
I worry about the disappearance of small neighborhood shops.0.14820.7438
I am outraged by the working conditions of employees in department stores.0.17220.7916
I do not feel comfortable with today’s consumerist society.0.22660.6770
Table
Table 5. Factor analysis of the perception of personal gain.
Table 5. Factor analysis of the perception of personal gain.
ItemsPerception of Personal Gain
Behaving in a socially responsible manner means giving up certain comforts.0.7332
Behaving in a socially responsible manner means paying higher prices.0.7246
Behaving in a socially responsible manner means dedicating more time to making purchases.0.7751
Generally, behaving in a socially responsible manner requires more effort.0.8201
Table
Table 6. Factor analysis of perceived consumer effectiveness.
Table 6. Factor analysis of perceived consumer effectiveness.
ItemsPerceived Consumer Effectiveness
My individual actions can be important in promoting sustainable and fair development.0.7790
As individuals, our purchasing and consumption decisions influence companies to become more ethical and socially responsible.0.8722
I believe that, as citizens, we can influence world events if we organize ourselves.0.8552
Table
Table 7. Segment of socially responsible consumers.
Table 7. Segment of socially responsible consumers.
Highly Responsible Consumer (41.06%)Responsible Consumer Sensitive to Origin (22.71%)Moderately Responsible Consumer (15.46%)Indifferent Consumer (20.77%)
Average value of the socially responsible consumption items (*)5.465.164.843.99
Company behavior0.44660.28280.3775−1.4728
Origin0.33300.5270−1.4987−0.1189
Products linked to a social cause0.03340.08400.2623−0.3531
Small businesses−0.21110.28160.4416−0.2190
Volume of consumption0.6155−1.1249−0.04290.0448
(*) Rating scale from 1 to 7.
Table
Table 8. Description of the segments according to sociodemographic variables (%).
Table 8. Description of the segments according to sociodemographic variables (%).
Highly Responsible ConsumerResponsible Consumer Sensitive to OriginModerately Responsible ConsumerIndifferent Consumer
GenderMale55.2951.0660.9459.30
Female44.7148.9439.0640.70
AgeUnder 3538.8255.3253.1350.00
Between 36 and 45 years of age21.1815.9621.8817.44
Between 46 and 55 years of age28.2418.0918.7525.58
Over 5611.7610.646.256.98
Level of education *Non-university51.7651.0628.1353.49
University33.5335.1150.0027.91
Post-university14.7113.8321.8818.60
Level of personal net income per month Less than 1000 EUR47.0258.2444.4457.83
Between 1000–2000 EUR38.1025.2742.8628.92
Over 2000 EUR14.8816.4812.7013.25
Political orientationLeft41.5043.3057.4046.40
Center31.5028.9026.2031.00
Right27.0027.8016.4022.60
* Values are significant at a 0.05 level.
Table
Table 9. Description of the segments depending on attitudes and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test.
Table 9. Description of the segments depending on attitudes and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test.
Highly Responsible ConsumerResponsible Consumer Sensitive to OriginModerately Responsible ConsumerIndifferent ConsumerFP
Concern (Injustices) *0.1325−0.00380.0920−0.31954.19130.0061
Concern (Globalization) *0.2232−0.0606-0.1009−0.29465.82990.0007
Perception of Personal Gain−0.06010.1137−0.02350.02110.63100.5954
Perceived Consumer Effectiveness *0.15910.04880.0251−0.37515.74550.0007
* Values are significant at a 0.01 level; Bold: highest values.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Palacios-González, M.M.; Chamorro-Mera, A. Analysis of Socially Responsible Consumption: A Segmentation of Spanish Consumers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208418

AMA Style

Palacios-González MM, Chamorro-Mera A. Analysis of Socially Responsible Consumption: A Segmentation of Spanish Consumers. Sustainability. 2020; 12(20):8418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208418

Chicago/Turabian Style

Palacios-González, María Manuela, and Antonio Chamorro-Mera. 2020. "Analysis of Socially Responsible Consumption: A Segmentation of Spanish Consumers" Sustainability 12, no. 20: 8418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208418

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop