Consumers Towards the Goals of Sustainable Development: Attitudes and Typology

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to determine the level of knowledge of the categories of sustainable development and consumers’ attitudes towards concept, assumptions, and principles of sustainable development in Polish society. The article also attempts to distinguish homogeneous clusters of consumers, based on their attitudes toward the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The text is based on the results of the original empirical research carried out by the authors in November 2020 on a sample of 1045 adult consumers from all over Poland. The research used an online survey technique. To determine the types of consumers, 17 diagnostic variables (goals of sustainable development) were adopted. Cluster analysis was used to distinguish the types of consumers, whereas the number of clusters was determined using the hierarchical Ward method with the square of the Euclidean distance. The individual objects were classified into clusters with the help of the non-hierarchical k-means method. The conducted analyses enabled the authors to distinguish three relatively homogeneous types of consumers based on their attitudes towards the sustainable development goals, namely: informed apologists, moderate supporters, and uninformed critics. The consumer types described in the article may constitute the basis for market segmentation for companies offering consumer goods and services. The article also presents the level of awareness of the sustainable development goals in Polish society and the level of their acceptance. In addition, the presented research results conducted in Poland may constitute the basis for implementation of similar research in other countries. In the case of many countries and societies, there is a lack of knowledge about the types of consumers based on their attitudes towards the idea of sustainable development; therefore, it can be concluded that the presented research results contribute to the theory of consumer behavior.

1. Introduction

With an increase in material well-being in developed countries, humankind began to feel overly clear on an increasing scale towards the negative effects of rapid industrialization, that could not be ignored any longer. As a consequence, at the end of the 1980s, a postulate was formulated to replace untrammeled growth with sustainable economic development. This idea was at first ignored by the economic circles but took a real shape after the 2008 financial crisis, at the UN conference “Rio + 20” organized in 2012 [1,2]. According to the principles of sustainable development adopted by the United Nations, all people should strive to meet their needs in a way as to preserve, protect, and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem, without endangering the ability to meet the needs of future generations and without exceeding the long-term limits of the Earth’s ecosystem capacity [3,4]. Such satisfaction of needs primarily means consumption, which should be sustainable, namely: realized in a common, highly moral partnership of market entities: producers, service providers, retailers, and consumers. To achieve such state of reality, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) must be widely known and socially accepted. People must be aware of the United Nations’ goals, accept them as their own, and then work together to achieve them. Without knowledge and deeper reflection on the necessity to achieve SDGs, implementation of the latter will remain just another unfulfilled idea.

This article aims to determine the knowledge level of the categories of sustainable development (including sustainable consumption) and consumer attitudes towards the concept, assumptions, and principles of sustainable development, with particular emphasis on the differences in individual generations of respondents. The authors also intend to distinguish relatively homogeneous consumer clusters, based on their acceptance of 17 SDGs, which are direct successors of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), also commonly known as Agenda 2030 [5]. Having in mind the purpose of the work, three research hypotheses were put forward:

H1. 

Most consumers have not come across the term and principles of sustainable development yet.

H2. 

Individual consumer generations differ in their approach to the Sustainable Development Goals.

H3. 

The sustainability goals related to ecology have the greatest awareness and acceptance.

The article makes several contributions to the closely related streams of sustainable development research. First, it contributes to the literature on both sustainable development as well as market and consumption behavior of different consumer generations (BB, X, Y, Z). Second, it complements the research on social awareness and acceptance of SDGs. Third, this study contributes to the literature on the use of cluster analysis to measure and report socio-economic problems. It must be noted that the body of literature on consumer attitudes towards SDGs is relatively scarce, in particular, there is a lack of detailed country case studies. Therefore, this article aims at bridging this knowledge gap. The text may be of interest to both scientists and practitioners interested in implementing the idea of Earth’s sustainable development, as well as all those who want to raise the social awareness of SDGs (governmental and non-governmental organizations, social groups, and movements).

The article is structured as follows: after presenting the literature background, the research approach (including research methods and data) is presented, then the results are discussed and the conclusions are put forward.

2. Theoretical Background

SDGs were adopted on 25 September 2015 by the United Nations as a way to “stimulate action over the next fifteen years in areas of critical importance for humanity and the planet” [4] (p. 1). The purpose of their implementation was to eradicate poverty in all its forms and dimensions, foster peace in conditions of greater freedom, ensure equality for all people and respect for their rights, as well as rehabilitate and protect the already severely damaged ecosystem of the Earth. SDGs and related tasks were considered indivisible and interdependent to ensure a balance between the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social, and environmental [4].

One of the basic conditions for the application of each goal, whether by a small enterprise, a large corporation, or the whole society, is the knowledge and acceptability of the goal by all stakeholders [6]. Only when all stakeholders share the same common conviction that the goal is right and necessary to implement, the action can lead to planned achievement [7]. Half of the time allotted to achieving SDGs has now passed [8]. Therefore, researchers ask how many of SDGs are known to the public? How many are accepted? What is the state of knowledge of how to implement them? Which goals are most often accompanied with the largest information gaps? Which goals find it the most difficult to gain a universal, social acceptance? [8,9].

The literature provides many results of research by institutions (including [10,11,12,13]) and scientists on the implementation of the idea of sustainable development by using conventional means and strategies (e.g., [14,15,16,17]), and with the adoption of previously unused cutting-edge solutions, such as artificial intelligence [18]. The forecasts and predictions made based on these studies do not bring optimistic conclusions. Mayer and Hedden argued that by 2030, with current political priorities, the world will show only limited progress in achieving SDGs. Their research showed that among the analyzed variables related to sustainable development (9 indicators for 186 countries, which gives a total of 1674 national indicators), a mere 43.2% of target values were achieved by 2015. These researchers predicted that by 2030 the target values will be attained only for 53.8% of the national variables. In African countries, these values will be even lower [8]. Therefore, decisive action is required, both at the level of political and business elites, and at the level of the individuals—people who make up society. Given the aims of the article, the issues of the necessary changes in political priorities, especially in the context of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, are not to be discussed here. All attention is going to be focused on assessing the level of SDG awareness and acceptance by consumers—individuals who can contribute to achieving the goals through informed, sustainable consumption.

Research on the level of SDG awareness and acceptance among consumers is relatively sparse and fragmented. An important summary of research on sustainable consumer behaviors covering the last 20 years and the factors determining such behavior was presented by Trudel [19]. The author described four areas of research that dominated: (1) cognitive barriers, (2) the self, (3) social influence, and (4) product characteristics. On the other hand, the impact of the idea of sustainable development on the differentiation of consumer behavior was studied by the team of Maciejewski [20,21]. The conducted research allowed, among all, to determine that the most common sustainable behaviors undertaken by consumers include avoiding overconsumption [22,23], showing concerns about healthy eating, as well as segregating and recycling waste. It should be noted that educating consumers and shaping their sustainable behavior should be primarily in the area of economical use of electricity, gas, and water resources.

Attitudes towards sustainable development and sustainable behavior of young individuals from Generations Z (18–24 years old) and Y (25–39) were studied by Zalega [2]. His analyses showed that young people often engage in pro-environmental behavior as part of sustainable behavior. Consumers’ gender, age, monthly disposable income, or place of residence is not insignificant for their propensity to behave sustainably [24]. Zrałek presented an extensive study on the challenges of sustainable consumption for which she developed a model of the impact of the perceived difficulty and effectiveness of sustainable behaviors on the prevalence of these behaviors [25]. Gadeikienė’s team [26] studied the transfer of sustainable consumption behaviors from the workplace to private life, noting that these behaviors focus only on spreading between domains, such as water or energy. Moreover, studies showed that the workplace should be considered a driver that can stimulate or reverse sustainable behavior both in the workplace and in private life.

The literature also presents the results of research on the awareness and knowledge of the sustainable development goals in individual communities, e.g., studies of university communities in Nigeria [5] or Italy [27]. Research in Nigeria has shown that despite the positive attitudes toward SDGs, knowledge about them is very low. Only when curricula change, SDGs will start to be broadly implemented. Interestingly, the level of knowledge of Italian students about SDGs was also very low, despite considerable interest in SDGs shown during the study and declared positive attitudes towards the idea. Therefore, regardless of whether the research concerns the community of a developing country or the one that belongs to the group of the world’s largest economies [28], without appropriate promotion of the SDG legitimacy and including information about them in education programs [29], it is hard to expect their achievement within a given period by 2030.

The presented literature review highlights the need to undertake comprehensive research on the awareness, knowledge, and acceptance of SDGs by individuals and society. Effective information and education campaigns can only be carried out after identifying existing information gaps. After people recognize SDGs as legitimate goals and accept them as their own, the public should be provided with knowledge and equipped with the necessary competencies for implementation of the SDGs (Figure 1). Only then can we expect balanced behavior of individuals that leads to the achievement of the goals. However, it is going to be a long-term process in which the individual will have to develop new patterns of behavior.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Sample and Data Collection

For the empirical part of this article, the primary survey research was carried out with the use of an original questionnaire. The research was quantitative, but the questionnaire also included two qualitative questions. The questions concerned the understanding of the concept of sustainable development by consumers. An online survey technique was used to reach out to the inhabitants of all regions of Poland. The research was conducted in the second half of November 2020. Thus, it takes into account potential changes in consumer behavior resulting from the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic. The part of the questionnaire used in the article contained seven substantive questions related to the subject of sustainable development, as well as seven specific questions describing the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the respondents and their personality traits.

The Ariadna Nationwide Research Panel was used in the research [30]. A research sample was drawn from among 300,000 panel members at random. The sample size was set at 1067 individuals, with a confidence level of 95%, a fraction size of 0.5, and maximum error at 3%. A 3% error is considered acceptable in social research. When designing the research, the research costs were also taken into account and were covered by public funds as part of the research project funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland. It is also important to stress the key role of population homogeneity, not population size, in determining the sample size. The sample size may decrease as the homogeneity of the population increases, based on its selected features [31]. As a result of the research, 1045 completely and correctly completed questionnaires were obtained, which were qualified for further analyses, carried out with the IBM SPSS Statistics 27 statistical package.

The research sample was characterized by a majority of women (53.4%). The distribution by age group, including Generations Z (18–24 years), Y (25–39), X (40–59), and Baby Boomers (60–80), was almost even at 25% in each group. The characteristics of the research sample are included in

Table 1. Characteristics of the research sample (N = 1045).

Specification		Research Sample
		In Numbers	In %
Gender	female	558	53.4
	male	487	46.6
Age	18–24	252	24.1
	25–39	259	24.8
	40–59	266	25.5
	60–80	268	25.6
Education	primary	28	2.7
	vocational	97	9.3
	secondary	492	47.1
	higher	428	41.0
Place of residence	village	245	23.4
	town up to 50k inhabitants	233	22.3
	town between 51k and 200k inhabitants	243	23.3
	town over 200k inhabitants	324	31.0
Subjective assessment of own financial situation	very bad	33	3.2
	bad	100	9.6
	sufficient	453	43.3
	good	421	40.3
	very good	38	3.6

Source: own research.

.

The sample was dominated by individuals with secondary (47.1%) and higher education (41.0%), and the respondents most often came from large urban centers with more than 200,000 inhabitants (31.0%). The respondents most often described their financial situation as average (43.3%) or good (40.3%)—Table 1.

3.2. Measures

To distinguish relatively homogeneous clusters of respondents, a specially constructed, five-point Likert scale was used. The scale contained questions regarding acceptance of individual sustainable development goals, where 1 meant that a given goal is completely illegitimate, and 5 completely legitimate. The reliability of the developed scale was confirmed using the Cronbach’s alpha test, which showed a value of 0.974. Nunnally and Bernstein [32] propose an acceptable level of Cronbach’s alpha at a level not lower than 0.7; therefore, according to the proposed approach, the scale should be considered reliable. Reliability is understood in terms of the accuracy of the measurement obtained using a scale. It indicates the consistency of individual items within the scale and the ability to measure a given phenomenon.

To identify types (of relatively homogeneous groups) of consumers based on their attitude towards the sustainable development goals, cluster analysis (CA) was employed. CA is a useful method in the study of consumer behavior [33] (pp. 344–347). Correctly performed cluster analysis makes it possible to divide a data set into disjoint groups (clusters) that are internally consistent and as diverse as possible among themselves. It allows a better understanding of the information contained in them and their synthetic characteristics [34]. While developing the typology, the research process designed by Kusińska [35] (pp. 88–89) was used. In the first step, variables were selected to establish the typology, constituting specific criteria. In the second step, the so-called delimitation, consumers were grouped based on the selected criterion using cluster analysis. Finally, the obtained results were assessed and verified. The characteristics of consumer profiles were developed based on the created clusters. The description of the profiles also accounted for the social, demographic, and economic characteristics of the respondents.

Employing the measurement scale mentioned, a cluster analysis was performed in two steps. First, Ward’s hierarchical cluster analysis was carried out, using the square of the Euclidean distance. By analyzing the agglomeration coefficient and the acquired dendrogram, the target number of three distinguished clusters was obtained [36]. Then, a non-hierarchical analysis was carried out, using the k-means cluster analysis, which is less sensitive to abnormal observations but requires an ex ante number of distinguished clusters [37]. In the first step of the k-means method, initial cluster centers were established. As a result of iterations, individual observations were assigned to clusters. Further, the final cluster centers were determined and distances between them were calculated. In the next step, the results obtained were subject to the analysis of variance (ANOVA). The k-means analysis was concluded by determining the number of observations in each cluster. The use of both methods is due to methodological limitations [38]. The non-hierarchical analysis is less sensitive to outlier observations and invalid variables, which allows better results to be obtained. However, it requires a target number of extracted groups of individuals, and this number is not predetermined. To obtain this information, one should first use hierarchical cluster analysis [39]. Therefore, the applied two-stage process enables better, more substantive results to be achieved. Subsequently, a typology of consumers was established based on 17 diagnostic variables. The selected types were subjectively named by the authors to reflect the behavioral characteristics of the individuals assigned to them in the best way.

4. Results

Only 27.8% of respondents came across the idea of sustainable development. The most aware of this concept were the youngest respondents from the 18–24 age group (30.2%). The older the respondents were, the fewer of them came across this notion. The sustainable development was not a new concept for slightly more than a quarter of respondents aged 60–80.

The respondents were asked to briefly explain how they understand the concept of sustainable development—no matter if they have already known this idea or came across it for the first time. The obtained results were classified based on the 10 most frequently selected keywords. A detailed breakdown of the obtained results is presented in

Table 2. Frequency of keywords in respondents’ descriptions of sustainability (in %).

Specification	Have Never Heard about Sustainability (N = 752)	Have Already Heard about Sustainability (N = 283)
Ecology	49.47	55.83
Cannot say/hard to say	35.37	19.43
Equality	10.37	12.72
Economic growth	10.24	10.95
Life quality	5.19	18.02
Future generations	2.93	14.84
Personally negative view	1.20	1.06
No hunger	1.06	2.47
Idealistic	0.80	2.12
Education	0.27	1.06
Other	0.93	1.77

Note: values do not add up to 100% as more than one keyword may have been assigned to a given statement. Source: own research.

.

The respondents, who have not come across the term “sustainable development” so far, indicated that they were unable to describe this term (35.4% of the subgroup) in any way about 1.5 times more often than the respondents familiar with this term. Interestingly, despite the declarations of knowledge of the “sustainability” idea by less than 28% of respondents, almost 20% of them were unable to explain how it should be understood. It is not surprising that the respondents generally indicated ecological issues related to saving natural resources (nearly half of the respondents). About 10% of respondents, who have not come across this term so far, suggested that sustainability can be associated with aspects of economic growth (most often taking place without hurting the Earth whatsoever) and its uniformity across the globe. A particular understanding of equality (in the meaning of equality between men and women) was very rarely mentioned.

In the case of respondents familiar with sustainable development, 18% of them pointed to the importance of ensuring decent living conditions, especially in the poorest countries, and almost 15% to the need of managing resources in such a way as not to compromise the needs of future generations (additionally combining this goal with life quality). On the other hand, combating hunger (which was rather understood in terms of eradicating poverty as part of economic growth) or equal access to education was mentioned very rarely (Table 2).

Most of the respondents were not aware of the fact that under the umbrella concept of sustainable development there were 17 specific goals. In general, the respondents were aware of the goals related to the broadly understood ecological action—clean water, counteracting climate change, but also combating hunger. On the other hand, only about 41% of respondents were aware of the goals of gender equality, and less than 3 percentage points more of the goals of sustainable urban development. A detailed breakdown of the respondents’ age groups is presented in

Table 3. Percentage of respondents who knew that a given target constitutes a sustainability goal (in %, N = 1045).

Specification	Research Sample	Age Group
		18–24	25–39	40–59	60–80
1. No Poverty	43.8	41.3	42.9	45.9	45.1
2. Zero Hunger	55.6	53.6	51.4	58.6	58.6
3. Good Health and Well-Being	47.5	48.0	44.0	49.2	48.5
4. Quality Education	49.5	46.0	45.9	52.3	53.4
5. Gender Equality	41.3	37.7	35.1	42.9	49.3
6. Clean Water and Sanitation	60.3	56.7	52.9	62.8	68.3
7. Affordable and Clean Energy	48.5	44.8	45.6	50.4	53.0
8. Decent Work and Economic Growth	51.1	49.6	45.6	51.5	57.5
9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure	49.5	46.0	47.9	50.0	53.7
10. Reduced Inequality	49.9	46.0	46.7	52.3	54.1
11. Sustainable Cities and Communities	43.9	40.1	43.6	43.2	48.5
12. Responsible Consumption and Production	48.2	48.0	44.4	48.1	52.2
13. Climate Action	64.8	59.1	58.3	67.3	73.9
14. Life Below Water	63.3	56.7	57.9	67.3	70.9
15. Life on Land	67.8	63.5	60.6	70.7	76.1
16. Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions	39.2	36.5	36.7	42.1	41.4
17. Partnerships to achieve the Goal	53.7	51.2	48.3	58.3	56.7

Source: own research.

.

Analyzing the respondents’ answers by age, it can be concluded that the awareness of the specific sustainable development goals increases with the age of the respondents, although in the case of some goals there is less awareness among individuals in the 25–39 age group as opposed to the youngest respondents. This situation occurs, for example, for the goals of sustainable consumption or decent working and living conditions. On the other hand, attention is drawn to the almost equal percentages of responses to the poverty eradication goal. Relatively low declarations were also recorded for the goal of peace, justice, and strong institutions (around 40%, Table 3).

The respondents were also asked to mark on a 5-point Likert scale how legitimate individual goals were in their opinion, where 1 meant completely illegitimate, and 5 completely legitimate. For each goal, both in the total sample and broken down by age, the dominant response was 5, while the medians did not fall below 4. In the overall sample, on average, the respondents gave the highest ratings to the legitimacy of the goals related to the protection of biodiversity, clean water, and combating hunger (the mean around 4.50). The gender equality goal was rated the lowest (4.12). Details are presented in

Table 4. Respondents’ views on the legitimacy of sustainability goals (N = 1045).

Specification	Research Sample			Age Group
				18–24			25–39			40–59			60–80
	M	Me	SD	M	Me	SD	M	Me	SD	M	Me	SD	M	Me	SD
1. No Poverty	4.37	5	0.89	4.22	5	0.93	4.16	4	0.95	4.48	5	0.80	4.59	5	0.79
2. Zero Hunger	4.46	5	0.86	4.31	5	0.96	4.25	5	0.91	4.56	5	0.79	4.69	5	0.69
3. Good Health and Well-Being	4.27	5	0.91	4.08	4	0.98	4.11	4	0.89	4.37	5	0.88	4.50	5	0.81
4. Quality Education	4.36	5	0.86	4.19	4	0.93	4.24	4	0.86	4.47	5	0.80	4.51	5	0.79
5. Gender Equality	4.12	5	1.09	3.96	4	1.16	3.93	4	1.05	4.13	5	1.11	4.43	5	0.96
6. Clean Water and Sanitation	4.50	5	0.83	4.29	5	0.96	4.34	5	0.85	4.64	5	0.75	4.73	5	0.65
7. Affordable and Clean Energy	4.36	5	0.87	4.10	4	1.00	4.22	4	0.85	4.54	5	0.79	4.57	5	0.75
8. Decent Work and Economic Growth	4.36	5	0.88	4.18	5	0.98	4.17	4	0.90	4.50	5	0.80	4.56	5	0.77
9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure	4.27	5	0.89	4.05	4	0.98	4.10	4	0.89	4.40	5	0.82	4.51	5	0.79
10. Reduced Inequality	4.26	5	0.94	4.04	4	1.03	4.05	4	0.98	4.41	5	0.86	4.53	5	0.78
11. Sustainable Cities and Communities	4.30	5	0.91	4.06	4	1.00	4.09	4	0.93	4.45	5	0.84	4.57	5	0.76
12. Responsible Consumption and Production	4.25	5	0.93	4.06	4	1.00	4.05	4	0.95	4.43	5	0.83	4.44	5	0.88
13. Climate Action	4.40	5	0.90	4.19	5	0.99	4.21	4	0.90	4.53	5	0.77	4.63	5	0.84
14. Life Below Water	4.47	5	0.83	4.27	5	0.93	4.28	5	0.85	4.60	5	0.71	4.70	5	0.71
15. Life on Land	4.49	5	0.82	4.29	5	0.95	4.32	5	0.83	4.62	5	0.70	4.71	5	0.69
16. Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions	4.32	5	0.89	4.13	4	0.93	4.10	4	0.95	4.45	5	0.86	4.59	5	0.73
17. Partnerships to achieve the Goal	4.31	5	0.90	4.17	4	0.97	4.10	4	0.93	4.44	5	0.83	4.54	5	0.81

Note: M—arithmetic mean; Me—median; and SD—standard deviation. Since the variables are measured on the ordinal scale, only the median can be interpreted. The arithmetic average value is given for illustrative purposes only. Source: own research.

.

The legitimacy of the gender equality goal was rated the lowest by the respondents from the two youngest age groups, which may be surprising to some extent. The lowest mean response was recorded in the 25–39 group, where the average was only at 3.93, with a median of 4. In general, it can be noticed that respondents under 40 were more critical of most of the Sustainable Development Goals. It is worth adding here that the youngest respondents most often stated that they had come across the idea of sustainability. The issue of minimizing social inequalities and of sustainable consumption also aroused more controversy—again primarily among the youngest respondents. These issues, especially in Polish society, may give rise to negative associations with the slogans of equality preached by the communists. Surprisingly, such objections could be expected in the group of the oldest respondents, who remember the period of communist rule best. In general, it can be assessed that the acceptance of SDGs increases with the age of respondents; save, older respondents declared less knowledge of this issue (Table 4).

After carrying out the analysis by age groups, it was decided to distinguish as many homogeneous clusters of respondents as possible based on their views on the SDG legitimacy. With a help of the procedure described in the section devoted to the methodology, three clusters were distinguished: first with 309 respondents, second with 382 respondents, and third with 354 respondents. The basic characteristics of the selected clusters are compiled in

Table 5. Characteristics of created clusters (in %, N = 1045).

Specification		Cluster
		1	2	3
Percentage of research group assigned to a given cluster		29.6	36.5	33.9
Gender	female	57.3	52.4	51.1
	male	42.7	47.6	48.9
Age	18–24	28.2	20.7	24.3
	25–39	21.4	23.0	29.7
	40–59	26.9	26.7	22.9
	60–80	23.6	29.6	23.2
Education	primary	1.3	2.1	4.5
	vocational	10.4	6.3	11.6
	secondary	49.5	44.5	47.7
	higher	38.8	47.1	36.2
Place of residence	village	24.3	18.6	28.0
	town up to 50k inhabitants	22.7	20.9	23.4
	town between 51k and 200k inhabitants	23.3	25.7	20.6
	town over 200k inhabitants	29.8	34.8	28.0
Subjective assessment of own financial situation	very bad	2.6	3.4	3.4
	bad	6.1	10.7	11.3
	sufficient	42.4	38.5	49.4
	good	45.6	43.2	32.5
	very good	3.2	4.2	3.4
Respondents who have heard about the idea of sustainability		29.1	47.9	5.1

Source: own research.

.

The respondents from the first cluster were described as moderate supporters of sustainable development. The cluster contained predominantly women (57.3%) and the highest percentage of individuals aged 18–24 (28.2%) among all the clusters. Moreover, the percentage of individuals in a bad or very bad financial situation was the lowest. Almost half of the respondents in this cluster had secondary education, which was the highest percentage among the selected groups. The respondents from the second cluster, informed apologists, constituted the most numerous subgroup. This cluster included the largest proportion of the oldest respondents and those with higher education. These respondents also most frequently inhabited the largest cities. Almost half of them have come across the idea of sustainable development, which may be one of the main axes of their selection concerning other clusters. The respondents classified under the last cluster were described as uninformed critics. This group had the greatest balance between men and women. Individuals aged 25–39 dominated here, and almost half of respondents linked to this cluster had secondary education. The respondents included in Cluster 3 most often lived in villages (28%, with the same proportion living in the largest cities). On the other hand, the lowest percentage of them (only slightly more than 5%) have come across the sustainability concept (Table 5).

Cluster 3 respondents most broadly associated environmental goals (including counteracting climate change or fauna and flora protection) with sustainable development (several percent of them). A detailed breakdown into clusters is presented in

Table 6. Percentage of respondents by cluster who knew that a given target constitutes a sustainability goal (in %, N = 1045).

Specification	Research Sample	Cluster
		1	2	3
1. No Poverty	43.8	35.3	87.7	4.0
2. Zero Hunger	55.6	65.7	95.8	3.4
3. Good Health and Well-Being	47.5	43.7	90.8	4.0
4. Quality Education	49.5	46.9	94.8	2.8
5. Gender Equality	41.3	35.0	81.7	3.4
6. Clean Water and Sanitation	60.3	79.0	97.4	4.0
7. Affordable and Clean Energy	48.5	48.9	91.6	1.7
8. Decent Work and Economic Growth	51.1	48.5	97.6	3.1
9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure	49.5	47.9	94.5	2.3
10. Reduced Inequality	49.9	48.9	95.0	2.0
11. Sustainable Cities and Communities	43.9	28.2	95.3	2.3
12. Responsible Consumption and Production	48.2	46.6	92.1	2.3
13. Climate Action	64.8	81.9	98.4	13.6
14. Life Below Water	63.3	82.5	95.3	12.1
15. Life on Land	67.8	88.0	97.9	17.8
16. Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions	39.2	23.6	87.7	0.6
17. Partnerships to achieve the Goal	53.7	58.3	95.5	4.5

Source: own research.

.

Among the best-informed respondents from Cluster 2, the knowledge of individual sustainable development goals did not fall below 80% (minimum of 81.7% for the gender equality goal). There was relatively lower awareness of some social goals, including actions for peace or eradicating poverty (87.7% each). On the other hand, individuals from the first cluster were closest to the average in terms of their knowledge of SDGs, creating a picture of average knowledge about this issue in society. Within this cluster, it is worth paying special attention to the relatively low awareness of the goals of eradicating poverty (35.3%—which is particularly surprising, considering that 65.7% were aware of the goal of combating hunger), gender equality (35%), and above all, sustainable urban development (28.2%), as well as actions for peace, justice, and strong institutions (23.6%). On the other hand, the issues related to ecology did not raise any doubts for the respondents. Therefore, apart from a little knowledge of all the SDGs by uninformed critics, the largest gap in the public awareness lies in the area of social goals (Table 6).

As in the case of the breakdown by age groups, the dominant response on the legitimacy of SDGs in each cluster was 5. However, the discrepancies were visible based on the mean. The respondents from Cluster 3 were the most critical of SDGs, but the mean of their ratings did not fall below 4—the only exception was the goal of gender equality (mean of 3.96), which aroused controversy among the respondents included in all three clusters. A detailed breakdown of the respondents’ assessments is presented in

Table 7. Respondents’ views on the legitimacy of sustainability goals (N = 1045).

Specification	Research Sample			Cluster
				1			2			3
	M	Me	SD	M	Me	SD	M	Me	SD	M	Me	SD
1. No Poverty	4.37	5	0.89	4.34	5	0.86	4.55	5	0.75	4.20	5	1.00
2. Zero Hunger	4.46	5	0.86	4.46	5	0.85	4.60	5	0.73	4.31	5	0.96
3. Good Health and Well-Being	4.27	5	0.91	4.23	4	0.87	4.44	5	0.82	4.12	4	0.99
4. Quality Education	4.36	5	0.86	4.35	5	0.80	4.53	5	0.74	4.18	5	0.97
5. Gender Equality	4.12	5	1.09	4.06	4	1.13	4.30	5	1.01	3.96	4	1.10
6. Clean Water and Sanitation	4.50	5	0.83	4.54	5	0.82	4.63	5	0.71	4.34	5	0.93
7. Affordable and Clean Energy	4.36	5	0.87	4.32	5	0.86	4.54	5	0.74	4.21	5	0.97
8. Decent Work and Economic Growth	4.36	5	0.88	4.35	5	0.85	4.51	5	0.76	4.19	5	0.99
9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure	4.27	5	0.89	4.25	4	0.87	4.47	5	0.77	4.08	4	0.99
10. Reduced Inequality	4.26	5	0.94	4.16	4	0.95	4.47	5	0.82	4.12	4	1.01
11. Sustainable Cities and Communities	4.30	5	0.91	4.25	5	0.93	4.49	5	0.80	4.14	4	0.98
12. Responsible Consumption and Production	4.25	5	0.93	4.19	4	0.95	4.48	5	0.78	4.04	4	1.01
13. Climate Action	4.40	5	0.90	4.46	5	0.83	4.53	5	0.80	4.19	5	1.01
14. Life Below Water	4.47	5	0.83	4.55	5	0.75	4.57	5	0.74	4.28	5	0.94
15. Life on Land	4.49	5	0.82	4.58	5	0.71	4.60	5	0.72	4.29	5	0.96
16. Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions	4.32	5	0.89	4.26	4	0.88	4.49	5	0.79	4.19	5	0.97
17. Partnerships to achieve the Goal	4.31	5	0.90	4.31	5	0.85	4.49	5	0.78	4.12	5	1.02

Note: see Table 4. Source: own research.

.

The goals of reducing inequality or sustainable production and consumption were assessed relatively low by the respondents in the last cluster. It is interesting to note that respondents in the latter also did not assess the goals that should not arouse many controversies highly, such as actions for good health and standard of living, or industrial and infrastructural development. On the other hand, they rated the activities for clean waters and eradicating hunger the highest. Except for the mentioned gender equality goal, the assessments of individual goals were the highest even among the respondents from Cluster 2, where the mean ranged from 4.44 (good health and standard of living) to 4.63 (water purity). Furthermore, the standard deviation of the scores in this group was generally the lowest. Therefore, those individuals constitute the group that was the most favorable toward the goals of sustainable development. They demonstrated their highest acceptance of SDGs, which can be associated with their broadest awareness of this issue.

While the uninformed critics were the most skeptical group and the informed apologists most favorably assessed individual sustainability goals, the ratings obtained from the moderate supporters were relatively more divergent. Again, the most controversial issue was the gender equality goal, which was also accompanied by doubts about eradicating inequality. The ecological goals, including those related to clean water, were assessed as the most legitimate. Interestingly, a relatively low mean was recorded for the goals of peace, justice, and strong institutions, with a median of 4. The issue was similar to the sustainable consumption and production target. Therefore, holistically, there is a far-reaching convergence of doubts as to some SDGs, regardless of the cluster to which the respondent was assigned.

The road from attitudes to behaviors can be a long one. It is not always the case that a positive attitude toward a phenomenon, issue, or problem translates into the behaviors expected according to that attitude [40,41,42]. With this in mind, respondents were asked to indicate what actions to achieve the SDGs they undertake daily (

Table 8. Percentage of respondents by clusters who always or almost always undertake activities supporting the implementation of SDGs (in %, N = 1045).

Activities	Research Sample	Cluster
		1	2	3
We try not to waste food	80.8	85.1	84.5	73.2
We act so as not to litter the environment	77.8	81.3	82.2	69.9
We sort waste and take care to recycle it	76.0	77.4	80.3	69.9
We try to limit consumption by making thoughtful purchases of goods and services that are really needed	70.8	74.7	76.2	61.6
We save water	70.2	74.8	74.8	61.3
We save electricity and gas	66.8	68.9	73.1	58.2
We vote for people who declare support for weaker and poorer social groups or care for the environment	54.2	55.1	65.2	54.5
We promote healthy lifestyles in our surroundings	49.8	51.5	58.1	39.2
We donate still good but unnecessary things to aid organizations	44.9	51.5	50.8	32.8
We repair or donate broken appliances, furniture, etc., for repair	42.1	45.3	48.5	32.5
We support with donations various aid organizations (Caritas, UNICEF, etc.)	40.0	42.7	47.9	29.1
We buy goods and services from companies that care about the environment	31.8	37.8	39.0	18.7
We buy clothes and other second-hand goods	23.5	25.5	27.0	18.1
We install ecological installations in our households	18.9	18.8	24.7	12.7
We act as to protect the environment	18.0	17.1	24.8	11.3
We get involved in social actions	14.2	13.0	19.1	9.9
We get involved in volunteering and helping others	14.0	12.3	19.6	9.3
We are active in organizations that support sustainable development goals	10.3	10.0	15.9	4.3

Source: own research.

).

The survey found that more than 7 in 10 respondents strive not to waste food and reduce overconsumption. These actions are in line with the goal of Zero Hunger and Responsible Consumption and Production. A similar number of respondents try to take care of environmental quality in various ways. In doing so, they pursue goals such as Climate Action, Life Below Water, and Life on Land. Saving water, electricity, and gas, also declared by more than 2/3 of respondents, contributes to goals such as Sustainable Cities and Communities. The survey further shows that respondents most often declared taking actions that they can implement in their immediate environment, in their household. Pro-social behaviors that require more time, energy, and commitment were declared by a much smaller percentage of respondents (18–10%). Breaking the results of the survey by clusters, it can be seen that behaviors combined with the realization of SDGs are most often undertaken, as expected, by conscious apologists (Cluster 2), followed by moderate supporters (Cluster 1) and unconscious critics (Cluster 3)—Table 8.

To assess the statistical significance of the obtained results, a non-parametric chi-square test was used. The statistic of this test allows us to verify the hypothesis of independence of the studied variables (in this case: the clusters and the actions undertaken to implement the SDGs). A higher value of the chi-square statistic provides a rationale for rejecting the hypothesis of independence of the studied variables in favor of their interrelation. Significance values of less than 0.01 were obtained for almost all the variables (less than 0.001 for as many as 15 among 18 variables), which allows us to infer a link between respondents’ cluster and their commitment to implementing the SDGs. The only exception was the issue of waste recycling, in the case of which the significance level stood at a value slightly higher than 0.1 (0.117).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

When analyzing the answers of the respondents, one should start with the most striking fact that the general awareness of the issue of sustainable development in Polish society is quite poor. Only 27.8% of respondents have come across the idea of sustainability, while the youngest, under 24 years of age, have dealt with this issue most often—perhaps due to the exposure to the concept of sustainable development in the lifelong learning cycle. On the other hand, the awareness of individual goals within sustainability shows a different trend, where the awareness of these goals generally increases with age. The research shows a picture in which the idea of sustainable development is largely perceived in the context of ecological goals related to the preservation of biodiversity, as well as clean water. This seems to be an obstacle to greater acceptance of other sustainability goals, in the case of which the society is relatively less convinced. Perhaps due to the fact these goals are rather less promoted than environmental issues, which are of increasing importance in the third decade of the 21st century.

There is even a situation in which most of the respondents associate sustainable development itself solely with activities for the protection of the environment—regardless of whether they have already come across this concept or not. While it is understandable in the case of respondents who have not yet encountered this idea, it is puzzling concerning individuals who declare knowledge of the issue. Therefore, it is necessary to educate not only a part of society unaware of the goals of sustainable development but also to indicate that sustainability is, in fact, a bundle of various goals.

Therefore, the emphasis should be placed on social goals, which were relatively rarely associated with sustainable development by respondents. One must also not forget about the controversial equality issues that need to be put in the right context. Perhaps for a part of the society, this issue evokes negative associations with the slogans proclaimed during the period of real socialism in Poland and other countries of the former Eastern Bloc. Thus, an inherent challenge is to take into account the individual nature of particular regions in the conducted educational activities, together with the knowledge of their historical background. Life-long teaching consumers how to make rational and sustainable choices as a way of empowerment is also of crucial importance, as suggested by McGregor [43]. An experiment conducted by the team of Salazar [44] points, however, to the significant role of peers’ choices in social groups as a way to shape demand for sustainable products.

By contrast, the overall acceptance of SDGs remains relatively high, regardless of the age of the respondents. There are, however, some differences between generations, where both the awareness of goals and their acceptance were rather higher among older respondents. Therefore, there is a need for educational campaigns to specifically address individuals from younger age groups, under 40. As younger generations show the highest degree of digitization, the way to reach them can be through all types of network campaigns, using modern advertising techniques, and even influencers/bloggers. At this point, it is worth noting that research conducted by Abdulrazak and Quoquab shows that inner motivations to behave in a sustainable way among consumers are rather weak. The research shows that more external aspects of mutual care for other members of society prevail [45].

In the case of the created clusters, it should be noted that the demographic differences between them are not very significant. The respondents from Cluster 3 were relatively the least familiar with sustainable development, and at the same time the most critical of its goals. These respondents predominantly had secondary education and an average financial situation. On the other hand, the respondents from Cluster 2 expressed the most positive views, declared more often higher education, came from larger urban centers, and were in a good financial situation. It can be assumed that the mere increase in awareness of the existence of individual sustainable development goals may have a positive effect on their social acceptance. On the other hand, for some goals, it is crucial to put them in the correct context and explain them in more detail. Above all, such actions are required towards the goals of equality and sustainable production and consumption, which are characterized by, relatively, the lowest social acceptance—regardless of the generation or cluster to which consumers can be assigned.

As a result of the research and analysis of the obtained results, the H1 hypothesis was confirmed, as only 27.8% of the respondents came across the idea of sustainable development. The validity of the H3 hypothesis also does not raise any doubts, because the highest social acceptance exists for pro-ecological goals within the framework of sustainability. In the context of the H2 hypothesis, it is possible to identify some differences in the approach to SDGs between individual generations of consumers, albeit mainly due to the level of their acceptance, which can be pinned down to consumers’ awareness. As a rule, however, controversial goals are visible, regardless of the cluster to which the respondents can be assigned. It is also difficult to determine very clearly demographic differences between individual clusters, other than based on education and place of residence.

Summing up the observations made and translating them into specific recommendations for further education of society, there is a need to carefully consider the specific nature and history of Polish society, marked by the yoke of communism. It seems that SDGs related to equality or equitable distribution may evoke negative associations with socialist slogans, towards which Polish society is still sensitive and extremely critical. For this reason, goals such as gender equality and sustainable consumption should be carefully promoted by explaining their context. In the educational campaigns, special attention should be paid to younger audiences, under 40 years of age, among whom there is the lowest relative awareness of SDGs. For this purpose, it is proposed to use online and mobile campaigns.

At the same time, low-cost and low-effort choices (e.g., saving water and reducing the amount of electricity used) should be primarily promoted as a kick-off to more advanced educational campaigns, which is following observations made by the team of Bronfman [46]. Similar conclusions are made by Kostadinova [47], who notes that a lasting effect on customers’ attitudes can only be achieved by enlarging a circle of so-called “green consumers”. On the other hand, in emerging economies green consumer behaviors are often limited by the high price of environmentally (or socially) friendly products, so the factor of the price should be taken into consideration [48]. Higher-quality eco-products may be out of reach for lower-income households; however, the latter show a lower propensity to waste food due to financial constraints [49].

The role of governments cannot be underestimated. School curriculums are shaped by the authorities, which have enough tools to create certain knowledge of SDGs among young generations. Research shows that knowledge is a key to developing preferred attitudes toward SDGs (see analysis made by the team of Khan [50]). On the other hand, producers and retailers should be aware that with the rise in consumer awareness, cases of so-called greenwashing are becoming more obvious to society. Research shows that loss of credibility particularly affects demand for a greenwashed product, as cheats never prosper [51].

Finally, the limitations of the survey should be noted. The research, although conducted on a broad, representative sample of 1045 respondents, was geographically limited to Poland. The presented results should therefore be referred primarily to the Polish consumer and interpreted from the perspective of Polish market conditions. However, the results can serve as a useful reference point for the analysis of consumers in Central and Eastern Europe, above all in the former Eastern Bloc countries. The findings bring new evidence to the theory of consumer behavior. Some of the consumers surveyed are willing, in the name of higher goals, to reduce their consumption, use resources more rationally and care for the environment. This is evidenced by their attitudes and daily actions, although it must be taken into account that the research was declarative. Further research based on experiments or Big Data analysis is needed to identify real consumer behavior.

The authors of the study believe that the results presented will prove helpful to educational institutions, as well as for-profit organizations in promoting the idea of sustainable development. The authors also hope that companies will be interested in the results of the study. It can be concluded that there is a large segment of consumers (Cluster 2) for whom the state of the environment, as well as other issues included in the SDGs, is not indifferent. This is very important. These people can become natural partners in shaping responsible consumption. SDG-conscious companies should meet these consumers by preparing sustainable goods and services for them. The literature already shows the first evidence of this [52,53,54,55,56]. The authors declare their readiness to undertake further collaborative research, as well as to share the research tool, which is already happening—a similar study was undertaken in Slovakia [57]. For the SDGs to become a reality, knowledge about the state of societies’ awareness of sustainability is needed. Large-scale diagnostic studies are needed to identify areas of ignorance, as well as issues that are difficult to adopt or accept, such as equality goals. Knowledge is the foundation of change on which a responsible society can be built.