See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299652146

Context, Culture and Green Consumption: A New

Framework

Article in Journal of International Consumer Marketing · April 2016

DOI: 10.1080/08961530.2016.1165025

CITATIONS READS

0 146

2 authors:

Sumesh R Nair Vicki Little

Murdoch University University of Auckland
18 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Righteous Marketing Value - Application of Preference Utilitarianism Perspectives in Marketing

Ethics View project

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Sumesh R Nair
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 31 October 2016
 Journal of International Consumer Marketing

ISSN: 0896-1530 (Print) 1528-7068 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wicm20

Context, Culture and Green Consumption: A New

Framework

Sumesh R. Nair & Victoria J. Little

To cite this article: Sumesh R. Nair & Victoria J. Little (2016): Context, Culture and Green
Consumption: A New Framework, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, DOI:
10.1080/08961530.2016.1165025

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2016.1165025

Published online: 04 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wicm20

Download by: [Sumesh Nair] Date: 14 April 2016, At: 06:17

 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING
2016, VOL. 0, NO. 0, 1–16
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2016.1165025

Context, Culture and Green Consumption: A New Framework

Sumesh R. Naira and Victoria J. Littleb
a
School of Management and Governance, Murdoch University Singapore, Singapore; bDepartment of Marketing, University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Green consumption is context-dependent, complex, and multifaceted. Research from environmental Contextual factors; cross-
psychology, environmental sociology, cross-cultural communication, and consumer behavior is cultural; consumer behavior;
integrated to develop a set of six hypotheses and a new model for green consumption. The model green consumption;
proposes a composite cultural profile (including individual, social/relational, temporal, and biospheric sustainability
factors) as a mediating variable between individual factors, behavioral intention, and green
consumption. The model further proposes contextual factors (economic, social, political, and
technological) as a moderating variable on individual attitudes, values and perceived control,
individual cultural profile, behavioral intention, and green consumption. A systems approach
addresses weaknesses in previous a-contextual models that do not take into account emotional,
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016

symbolic, and cultural factors embedded in consumer consumption decisions. The model may offer
superior explanations for green consumption behaviors in non-Western socio-technical contexts
than that offered by existing theory, supporting more effective decision-making for managers and
policymakers.

Introduction green consumption theory and practice; encompassing

responsible consumption, consumption reduction,
The state of current consumption as we witness
voluntary simplicity, and sustainable lifestyles. We
around the world is destructive and unsustainable; it
agree, and draw on the idea offered by environmental
compromises the ability of future generations to meet
psychologists—environmentally significant behav-
their basic needs (Rothman, Agard, and Alcamo 2007;
ior—to find a way forward. Thus, green consumption
Varey 2010). It also creates environmental problems
encompasses behaviors that have minimum impact on
such as reduced biodiversity, rising sea levels, extreme
the availability of materials or energy from the envi-
weather conditions, natural resource shortfalls, and
ronment, and minimum impact on the structure and
soil degradation (Assadourian 2010). Consequently,
dynamics of ecosystems or biospheres (Stern 2000).
actionable understandings to support policymakers in
The notion of minimizing impact acknowledges that
encouraging sustainable rather than unsustainable
green consumption cannot be wholly green, thus
consumption behaviors, in both industrialized and
addressing the dichotomous either/or conceptualiza-
less-industrialized countries, are needed. The chal-
tion. We also take the idea of green consumption
lenge commences with the notion of green consump-
beyond purchase, capturing the idea of value-in-use
tion, which of itself problematic:
rather than value-in-exchange (Vargo and Lusch
[Green consumption] is an apparent oxymoron. Green 2004). Drawing on the work of Stern (2000), Peattie
implies the conservation of environmental resources, and Crane (2005) and Prakash (2002) we define green
while consumption generally involves their destruction. consumption as
(Peattie 2010, 197)

Consumption and disposal behaviors directed either con-

Peattie (2010) notes lack of agreement on the sciously or unconsciously at creating minimum impact on
nature and scope of green consumption, and the con- the availability of materials or energy from the environ-
text-dependent, complex, and multifaceted nature of ment, and on the structure and dynamics of ecosystems

CONTACT Sumesh R. Nair s.nair@murdoch.edu.au School of Management and Governance, Murdoch University Singapore, #06-06 King’s Centre, 390
Havelock Rd., 169662, Singapore.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 2 S. R. NAIR AND V. J. LITTLE
or biospheres; including product sharing, maintenance,
disposal, and take-back; and refuse, reduce, repair, recon-
dition, remanufacture, reuse, and recycle decisions made
by consumers.
Environmental psychology offers attitude-based,
value-based, and integrated theories of environmen-
tally oriented consumer behavior, for example, the
theory of planned behavior (Ajzen and Madden 1986)
and moral norm activation theory (Schwartz 1992).
Environmental sociology and consumer behavior
offers identity theory, considering the meaning of con-
sumption and how these meanings allow consumers
to express their identity (Stets and Biga 2003). How-
ever, many of these theories were rooted in Western
contexts. In the case of environmental psychology,
studies were laboratory-based and conducted among
U.S. American college students. They are therefore
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
artifacts of Western societies, so to say. How, then, do
these theories explain green consumption in non-
Western settings? Cheung, Chan, and Wong’s (1999)
study of wastepaper recycling in Hong Kong tested
the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1985) by sur-
veying 282 college students. Their findings supported
the theory of planned behavior with one exception—
perceived behavioral control had no significant effect.
We argue this difference could signal contextual and
particularly cultural differences. Ethnic Chinese are
more collectivist in orientation than U.S. Americans
(Hofstede 1983); therefore, individual discretion (i.e.,
behavioral control) may have somewhat less explana-
tory power compared with peer group or family group
influences. Additionally, Hong Kong is a high power-
distance culture (ibid). Hence, socially desirable
responses may have been given to please those above
the students in the hierarchy on both behavioral inten-
tion and actual recycling behaviors. It was also
reported that attitude intention–behavior relation-
ships are less impactful in collectivist cultures com-
pared to individualistic cultures (Kacen and Lee
2002). Our key hypothesis is therefore that general
behavioral theories derived from Western experimen-
tal data may not reliably explain green consumption
behavior among populations other than those in
which they were derived. Three arguments support
our proposition. Firstly, in order to develop a useful
understanding of green consumption (i.e., one that
may be confidently used to develop and implement
policy), the wider context must be taken into account
embracing societal infrastructure and stakeholders,
including firms, policymakers, and the environment
(Prakash 2002). Secondly, accepting that a wider per-
spective is required, the differences within and
between contexts and cultures at country, city, institu-
tional, identity group, or individual level must be
taken into account (Bennett 1998). Finally, the
research process (i.e., the gathering and interpretation
of data) is influenced by researcher assumptions,
embedded through socialization in our passport coun-
tries, identity groups, and academic disciplines. The
dominant approaches—experimental and survey—do
not require researchers to examine their taken for
granted and unarticulated assumptions (Gummesson
2001; Lincoln and Guba 2000). Overall, we argue that
in order to move the field forward, a pluralistic and
ethno-relative rather than one-dimensional and eth-
nocentric approach is required.
In this conceptual paper, therefore, we propose a
new perspective capturing the impacts of contextual,
cultural, and individual influences on green consump-
tion. While we base our proposed framework on the
tried and tested theories of planned behavioral change,
we argue that inclusion of environmentally sensitive
contextual factors and cultural influences would better
predict green consumer behavior in non-Western
contexts. This perspective, we believe, is missing in the
current behavioral change theories. We hope this new
understanding would eventually lead to developing
and implementing more effective green strategies in
organizations and markets especially in non-Western
contexts.
The paper is organized as follows: First, we consider
issues relating to context, culture, and consumption as
a basis for assessing accepted models of green con-
sumption. We then review current understandings of
green consumption and identify the gap in the litera-
ture. We then present a new model for green con-
sumption and a set of research hypothesis. We
conclude by considering the implications for future
research, and for practitioners and policymakers.
Context, culture, and consumption
We proceed by unpacking the notion of context and spe-
cifically culture, by considering theory across several dis-
ciplines. Recognizing that green consumption is a
multidisciplinary construct, we consider the trend
towards societal pluralism, the nature of differences and
diversity, the various dimensions of culture, and the

implications of those differences and dimensions for
researchers and green consumption research. First, how-
ever we briefly review the idea of green consumption.
Green consumption
The notion of green consumption is problematic on a
number of levels—conceptual, practical, and ethical.
At the fundamental level, green consumption—con-
sumption that does not compromise the ability of
future generations to meet their basic needs (Roth-
man, Agard, and Alcamo 2007)—underlies sustainable
development. However, as previously noted, sustain-
ability and consumption are opposed as resources can-
not be both conserved and consumed (Peattie and
Peattie 2009). Furthermore, pro-environmental
behaviors defy simple analysis. An apparently pro-
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
environmental purchase decision may be anything but
pro-environmental. For example, purposive “green”
behaviors such as shopping at a local farmers’ market
are less pro-environmental than religiously prescribed
vegetarianism (Peattie 2010); likewise, driving to one’s
local shopping center to buy biodegradable dishwash-
ing detergent is anti- rather than pro-environmental
as it uses fossil fuels and thus adds to Green House
Gas (GHG) emissions and resource depletion, and so
on. Clearly, a multidisciplinary systems approach is
required in order to evaluate overall “green-ness” of
consumption decisions, taking in the full impact of
production, purchase, consumption, and disposal
(Polonsky 2011). The complexity of the issues begs
the question of the ability of consumers to evaluate
their choices in any meaningful way. As for research-
ers the reliability of research into pro-environmental
behaviors has suffered from design and execution
issues such as a simplistic “either/or” conception of
pro-environmental behavior, a focus on broad con-
cerns rather than specific practices and failure to
account for social desirability biases in responses
(Peattie 2010). Finally, the political nature of the
debate creates further complexities (Prothero, Mcdo-
nagh, and Dobscha 2010; Schaefer and Crane 2005).
Research supporting the dominant social paradigm—
that is, consumer sovereignty and economic growth—
has been strongly criticized (Dunlap and Van Liere
2008; Kilbourne, Mcdonagh, and Prothero 1997).
Clearly, current unsustainable consumption behaviors
cannot continue indefinitely, and timely transition to
a “new environmental paradigm” is needed: that is,
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 3
one acknowledging that humans are but one species
in an intricate web of biotic communities, that human
action causes unintended effects, and that the world
has physical and biological limits to economic growth
(Catton and Dunlap 1978). Whether marketing theory
can support progress towards greener consumption is
controversial—critics hold that mainstream or micro-
marketing approach is part of the problem rather than
part of the solution and that a macro-marketing
approach is required (Dolan 2002; Peattie and Peattie
2009).
The idea of green consumption, therefore, should
be understood and practiced in more realistic and
practical rather than an idealistic sense. In reality no
product can be completely green as long as it uses
energy, raw materials, etc. in the production process
(Ottman 1993; Nair and Menon 2008). Applying the
same logic, no consumption process would also be
qualified as complete green consumption, and, there-
fore, the consumption process that takes environmen-
tal or green perspectives into account at best should
be considered as an attempt in the right direction with
a green intent. The “so called” green consumption
process is also heavily influenced by context of the
consumption process and the prevailing culture in
which the process is carried out. We discuss it in detail
in the next section.
Context and culture
The context and culture in which consumption activi-
ties occur embraces a dynamic array of entities, pro-
cesses, events, and rituals that drive or are driven by
the phenomenon under investigation—in this case,
green consumption.
The notion of difference in context is complex, and
can be understood at various levels of abstraction
(Bennett 1998). At the societal level, contextual differ-
ences include availability of technologies (e.g., recy-
cling infrastructure) and policies (e.g., enforcement of
dumping laws), among other things (Prakash 2002),
which are substantially different between developed
and developing societies. Contextual sensitivities that
impact the green consumption behavior have not
received the attention that they deserved in the extant
literature in marketing (Cronley et al. 1999). Some of
the contextual factors like the shopping environment
have been found to have a positive impact on the
green consumption behavior in some of the Western
 4 S. R. NAIR AND V. J. LITTLE
markets (Tanner and Kast 2003). However, the
research in social psychology has unmistakably dem-
onstrated that contextual factors are a major influence
of behavior in Eastern cultures than Western cultures
(Nisbett 2015). Masuda and Nisbett (2001) found that
Japanese consumers are very contextually sensitive
than their American counterparts. They have con-
ducted two studies to test the likelihood of fundamen-
tal attribution error or correspondence bias among
Japanese and Americans. Fundamental attribution
error or correspondence bias is generally referred as
“…the tendency to see behavior as a product of the
actor’s disposition and to ignore important situational
determinants.” (Masuda and Nisbett 2001, 922). The
studies concluded that “East Asians are more attentive
to context and relationships than are Westerners.”
(Masuda and Nisbett 2001, 932). Similar findings that
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
Asians succumb less to fundamental attribution error
compared to Westerners are reported in other related
studies (See, Choi and Nisbett 1998). Among other
things, Nisbett (2015) has attributed this contextual
sensitivity or lack of it to the traditional occupations
of Westerners and Asians. For example, the Greek’s
primary occupations were solitary in nature like trad-
ing, fishing, animal husbandry, etc., wherein need for
corporation and collaboration are minimal. However,
Asians were mostly involved in group-based occupa-
tion like rice farming where a great deal of cooperation
and hence contextual sensitivity is necessary. These
studies have strongly underscored the fact that contex-
tual factors potentially make a significant difference in
behavior in general and consumer behavior in particu-
lar in Non-Western buying environments.
Culture is a further source of contextual difference.
Cultural values can be understood both at the societal
level, and within societies, at the identity group level.
We will address the level of analysis later in the paper;
we now consider the notion of culture in a more gen-
eral sense. In their seminal work on cultural values,
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) note that “… a
knowledge of the basic assumptions of a people [is]
indispensable to the interpretation of [their] concrete
behavior” [p.1]. The basic assumptions of a people are
embedded in their culture—the myths, models, and
symbols supporting lived experience (ibid). Culture
can be defined as the human-made part of the envi-
ronment, the “learned and shared patterns of beliefs,
behaviors and values of groups of interacting people.”
(Bennett 1998, 2). Culture is both objective and
subjective. Objective culture pertains to artifacts and
institutions, while subjective culture pertains to soci-
ety’s characteristic ways of perceiving its social envi-
ronment, in transmitted patterns of values, ideas, and
in other symbolic systems (Triandis 1972). Subjective
culture shapes objective culture, and vice versa. In
subjective culture “Language and economic, educa-
tional, political, legal, philosophical and religious sys-
tems are important elements …[as are] Ideas about
aesthetics, and how should people live with others …
Most important are unstated assumptions, standard
operating procedures, and habits of sampling informa-
tion from the environment …ideas about how to
make the elements of material culture (e.g., how do we
build a house), how to live properly, how to behave in
relation to objects and people ….” (Triandis 2002, 3).
Context, culture, and consumption are inseparable
(Dolan 2002). For the purposes of this paper we define
subjective culture in relation to green consumption as
Aspects of society relating to human actions with respect
to (1) the manner in which humans act on and interact
with their environment and (2) representations of
human- environment interactions.
Supporting Dolan (2002) we argue that subjective
culture underlies any understanding of consumer green
consumption in a particular society as well as consider-
ing how and why knowledge is produced in particular
ways about particular societies by knowledge producers.
Cultural differences underlie both perceptions and
behaviors. For example, Westerners are driven by their
cultural sensibilities (i.e., their broad preferences for
one state over another) to seek consistency. Hence the
emergence of global brands, global businesses, globally
applied theory, and the notion of the “global village”—
all Western constructions (De Mooij 2010; Bennett
1998). However in Asia, multiculturalism and pluralism
are the rules rather than the exception (White 2002).
While the Western hegemony has shaped and bounded
knowledge in the business disciplines into assumed
homogeneity, the reality is that “there are no global
consumers, and consumer behavior is not converging
across countries” (De Mooij 2010, pxiii). Profound cul-
tural differences within and between societies remain.
The need is therefore for ethno-relative rather than eth-
nocentric understandings of green consumption. Sev-
eral (Western-derived) theories explore cultural
differences, including Schwartz’s value survey (Schwartz
1994), Inglehart and Associates’ World Values Survey
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 5

(Inglehart and Baker 2000; Inglehart 1997, 2013), the
Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effec-
tiveness (GLOBE) project (Chokar, Brodbeck, and
House 2012), and Hofstede’s (1980) characterization of
national cultures. We draw on key elements of two cul-
tural frameworks in this paper. The first is Hofstede’s
(ibid) value dimensions, a de facto standard; however,
they are not unchallenged (Tung and Verbeke 2010).
The dimensions are individualism-collectivism (personal
rights vs. responsibility as a group or community mem-
ber); uncertainty avoidance (tolerance for ambiguity,
dealing with anxiety, and change with rules versus
pragmatism); power distance (strength of social hierar-
chy and acceptance of authority); masculinity-feminin-
ity (task or quantity orientation vs. people or quality
orientation); long versus short-term orientation (thrift,
perseverance and future rewards, and preservation of
“face” vs. respect for tradition and the past); and a sixth
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
with each other (hierarchical/equal), perception of time
(past/present/future), and people’s relationship with
their activities (being/growth/achievement). The dimen-
sion “basic nature of human beings (good/evil/ mixed)”
is beyond the scope of this discussion.
We summarize the dimensions in table 1 and pro-
vide a speculative example of recycling behaviors as an
illustration of Western and non-Western differences:
We have conflated the Hofstede (1980) and Kluck-
hohn and Strodtbeck (1961) values into four dimen-
sions—individual, social/relational, temporal, and
environmental. To illustrate cultural differences, and
to explore the implications for green consumption we
have offered extreme examples of differences between
these dimensions for Western and non-Western cul-
tures. For the purposes of illustration we have located
each of the four overall dimensions at the extremes of

a continuum—we do not wish to imply a dichotomy.

more recent dimension, indulgence versus self-restraint
(free gratification vs. curbing of desires and feelings)
(Hofstede et al. 2008). We merge the Hofstede dimen-
sions with Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) universal
dimensions of human values to enrich the analysis and
to orient the analysis towards green consumption. We
include people’s relationship with the environment
(mastery/subjugation/harmony), people’s relationship
We draw on these four dimensions to inform the new
model of green consumption presented later in this
paper. Profound differences apply between cultures
on most dimensions, and those differences will influ-
ence green consumption. For example, an orang asli
(indigenous tribesperson) in Sarawak would be
strongly community oriented, and would more likely
respond to appeals based on benefitting her or his

Table 1. Implications for recycling behaviors of cultural differences in extreme Western and non-Western contexts (Hofstede dimensions
in italics).
Dimension Western Non-Western

1. Individual
Uncertainty avoidance/Masculinity-femininity/
Being-growth-achievement
2. Social/relational
Power distance (hierarchical/equal)/
Individualism-collectivism
3. Temporal (Long vs. short term), Indulgence vs.
self-restraint, Past present and future
4. Environmental Mastery, submission, harmony
I will follow the rules if it suits me and deal with
anxiety and uncertainty if and when it occurs
without making a fuss.
Masculine/achievement—I will recycle if it gives
me more of what I prefer (i.e., success and
power over others, money, independence)
and if it pleases me cf. pleasing others.
I do not privilege the hierarchy. I will make up
my own mind about recycling.
Individualist—what’s best for me and my
immediate family physically and financially. I
will recycle if it suits us.
I will recycle for pragmatic reasons (saving
current resources for future use, and because
circumstances may change)—long-term/
future-oriented culture
I will recycle if I find it enjoyable (indulgence)
Dominant social paradigm (DSP). The
environment exists to serve my needs. I will
control and subjugate my environment with
technology. Recycling is congruent with
technological control; therefore, I will
probably do it.
I will follow the rules as I want to avoid anxiety
and uncertainty, and will recycle if I am
convinced it will create trouble for me if I don’t.
Feminine/growth—I will recycle if it benefits my
community, and gives greater quality of life for
everyone.
I will recycle if it pleases others cf. pleasing me.
I obey and respect those above me in the
hierarchy. If I’m told to recycle by a superior I
will do so.
Collectivist—what’s best for my in-group
physically and financially—I will recycle if it
benefits my community
I will recycle because I am required to (I am proud
of my country, I value face and tradition, and I
like to fulfill social obligations)—past-present
orientation/ short-term culture.
I will recycle because everyone else does (is a
social norm), although I realize that it will
require me to delay or suppress my personal
gratification.
Two extremes—in developed countries, as per the
West.
Among indigenous communities the relationship
is intense and either harmonious (new
environmental paradigm) or submissive:
recycling is irrelevant.
 6 S. R. NAIR AND V. J. LITTLE
community compared to an apartment-dweller in
Kuala Lumpur, whether Western expat or local
Malaysian Chinese.
In this section, we have unpacked the notion of
context and culture. Overall, Western and non-West-
ern customers are dissimilarly sensitive to contextual
differences. This is very well documented in the social
psychology literature. Furthermore, Western cultures
tend to be more individualistic and succumb to corre-
spondence error in the construction and expression of
knowledge. If we accept that knowledge is culturally
and contextually bound, is it, therefore, helpful to
apply Western-derived theory to non-Western con-
texts? Will Western theory provide a reliable basis for
developing policy encouraging green consumption in
non-Western contexts? To address these questions, we
proceed with a brief review of theories informing
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
understanding of green consumption.
Current theories and models of green
consumption
Environmental psychology provides attitude-based,
value-based, and integrated theories of environmen-
tally oriented consumer behavior. Our primary argu-
ment is that as most research in green consumption
has been conducted in developed Western countries,
the theory requires evaluation to assess applicability in
non-Western contexts, where much of the world’s
population growth and growth in large consuming
middle classes is occurring. As we have seen, different
cultures reflect differences in notions such as “going
green,” “taking responsibility,” and “altruism” (all
Western conceptions)—among other things. Also, the
non-Western customers tend to be more contextually
sensitive to green consumption process. Therefore, we
examine current theory in the light of potential differ-
ences and similarities between Western and non-
Western cultures and contexts, and consider the
implications for understanding the antecedents and
drivers of green consumption.
In environmental psychology, three sets of theories
are held to explain green consumption—attitudinal-
related, values-related, and integrated theories. A
detailed discussion follows.
Attitudinal-related theories
The two seminal attitudinal theories are Theory of
Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975),
and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen and
Madden 1986). Both are based on assumptions of
rationality, that is, that individual behavior is a result
of rationally derived beliefs and expectations about
behavior outcomes. Attitude derives from prediction
of probable outcomes, while intention derives from
other people’s attitudes. According to TRA, beliefs
and values attached to it will form the attitudes of peo-
ple that lead to intentions and then behavior (Fishbein
and Ajzen 1975). TRA posits that a person’s expecta-
tion of others, who are important to him/her, to
behave the same way (subjective norm) also influences
intentions of behavior. However, other than the kith
and kin influence on the intentions and behavior, no
other contextual factors are used in the framework.
The TPB extends the TPA by adding a new vari-
able—perceived control behavior, or the individual’s
belief about the difficulty or ease of enacting a particu-
lar behavior. For example, a person who is confident
in their ability to maintain a community garden will
probably do so, compared to a person who is not. TPB
presents that the attitudes, subjective norms, and per-
ceived control behaviors are the predictors of inten-
tions of behavior and behavior itself (Ajzen 1991).
Both TPB and TRA are very widely used and reported
in the extant literature and are applied in different dis-
ciplines in social science research. However, both the-
ories have not directly taken the contextual and
cultural factors into account, and hence its application
in contextually sensitive non-Western situations is
questionable.
Values-related theories
Values-related theories recognize the role of values—
desirable trans-situational goals serving as guiding
principles (Schwartz 1992). Values-related theories
relevant to green consumption are norm activation
theory, ecological value theory, and value-belief-norm
theory. Norm activation theory (Schwartz 1992) cap-
tures altruistic or helping behavior. Norms guide indi-
vidual behavior within a social group, and thus
express socially held values (Marini 2000). Personal
norms are an individual’s expectations of her own
behavior, based on awareness of consequences and
acceptance of personal responsibility. Once these ante-
cedents are in place, personal norms are “activated,”
that is, result in behavior. Positive or negative green
consumption will therefore arise from levels of

awareness of consequences and acceptance of respon-
sibility. Norm activation theory has been used to
explain pro-environmental behavior in studies of recy-
cling (Bratt 1999; Hopper and Nielsen 1991), green
product attributes (Ebreo, Hershey, and Vining 1999),
household energy adaptions (Black, Stern, and
Elworth 1985), and alternatives to car usage (Bamberg
and Schmidt 2003). Value-belief-norm theory explains
pro-environmental behaviors (environmental citizen-
ship, policy support, and private sphere behavior such
as recycling) resulting from personal norms, which
are in turn a result of taking responsibility and aware-
ness of consequences (Stern 2000). Personal norms
can thus be related to three indicators of pro-environ-
mental behaviors: environmental citizenship (e.g.,
membership of Greenpeace), policy support (e.g., vot-
ing Green), and private sphere behavior (e.g., recy-
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
cling) (Stern et al. 1999). Stern (2000) argues that
value-belief-norm theory therefore provides the best
explanation for non-activist environmental behaviors.
While the logic of the models has been found to hold
for some consumption decisions, in general, only a
modest relationship has been found between pro-envi-
ronmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior
(Stets and Biga 2003). The mismatch has been attrib-
uted to research design—questionnaires eliciting
socially desirable rather than actual responses, and
designs proposing amorphous hypothetical situations
rather presenting actual and specific consumer choices
(Peattie and Crane 2005).
Values-based theories address some of the concerns
relating to attitudinal theories. While values-based
theories are general rather than specific, they tran-
scend specific situations in two ways—by offering a
system of consumer priorities, and by serving as a gen-
eral consumer guidance system for evaluating offers,
people, organizations, or ideas (Marini 2000). A com-
plex mix of values, ranging from self-transcendent val-
ues such as universalism (values beyond one’s own
interest) and self-focused or egoistic values, is held to
drive human behavior (Schwartz 1992). An under-
standing of underlying values explains common social
dilemmas, for example, conflicts between individuals
who can be categorized as pro-socials versus pro-
selves, and co-operators versus non-co-operators
(Fransson and G€arling 1999; Joireman et al. 2001).
Those who hold strong self-transcendent values are
more likely to engage in green consumption than
those who give priority to self or who hold strong self-
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 7
enhancement values (De Groot and Steg 2008; Nor-
dlund and Garvill 2002; Stern and Dietz 1994). Pro-
environmental values favoring nature maximization
and biosphere protection run contrary to the “domi-
nant social paradigm” (DSP), held to underlie envi-
ronmental degradation (Kilbourne, Beckmann, and
Thelen 2002). The current DSP is characterized by a
general belief in abundance, faith in science and tech-
nology, commitment to a laissez-faire economy, lim-
ited governmental planning, and private property
rights (Campbell and Wade 1972). Proponents of a
new environmental paradigm based on biospheric val-
ues argue that as societies increasingly recognize natu-
ral limits the DSP will gradually evolve to one
favoring environmental values (Dunlap and Van Liere
2008). The implications of value orientation for green
consumption relate to both impact and intent. Where
perceived benefits exceed costs, rational and egoisti-
cally driven individuals will engage in either pro- or
anti-environmental consumption. Individuals with a
social altruistic value orientation on the other hand
will behave in a pro-environmental manner by consid-
ering the perceived costs and benefits of their actions
for the wider community. Individuals with biospheric
value orientation will act pro-environmentally, based
on perceived costs and benefits for the ecosystem and
biosphere as a whole. Therefore, social altruistic and
biospheric value orientations are positively correlated
with green consumption while egoistic value orienta-
tion correlates negatively with green consumption
(Stern and Dietz 1994).
Integrated theories
Attitudinal and values-based theories are limited, as
they do not take contextual factors into account
(Thøgersen 2010). Thus, integrated theories (e.g., atti-
tude-behavior-context theory) (Guagnano, Stern, and
Dietz 1995), interpersonal behavior theory (Triandis
1977), and goal framing theory (Lindenberg and Steg
2007) include external factors and hence provide a
more satisfying explanation for green consumption.
Recycling, for example, is driven not only by individ-
ual actors, but also by the availability of recycling
infrastructure. Integrated theories explain green con-
sumption as a function of individual and environ-
ment, that is, green consumption is an interactive
product of personal attitudes and contextual factors.
Contextual factors include a wide range of positive
 8 S. R. NAIR AND V. J. LITTLE
and negative external influences on green consump-
tion, such as monetary incentives, physical infrastruc-
ture, regulations, and social support. Thus, behaviors
that are difficult, expensive, or inconvenient to main-
tain will be uncommon, and behaviors strongly sup-
ported by attitudes will be prevalent. Attitude-
Behavior-Context (ABC) theory has factored in the
impact of contextual and cultural factors in shaping
green consumption–related behavior in a non-West-
ern setting. However, ABC theory is a very simple
construct that takes into account only the attitude and
contextual factors as predictors of behavior. It ignores
other two variables proposed in TPB, namely subjec-
tive norms and perceived control over behaviors,
which are assumed to be the major predictors of
behavioral intentions and behaviors. This may be very
relevant in green consumption behavior as peer pres-
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
sure (subjective norm) and consumer’s perception of
his/her ability to make a difference in the natural envi-
ronment are assumed to be important in green con-
sumption behaviors.
Interpersonal Behavior Theory (IBT) adds dimen-
sions of habit, social factors, and emotions in forming
intentions (Triandis 1977). Thus, green consumption
is more likely to result when people are emotionally
(rather than rationally or cognitively) attached to their
environment (Grob 1995; Kals, Schumacher, and
Montada 1999; Lee and Holden 1999). IBT essentially
has advantage of taking into account the influence of
environmental factors in predicting green consump-
tion behavior. However, IBT is rarely used in aca-
demic research seemingly due to its perceived
complexity.
Goal Framing Theory (GFT) adds the notion that
the nature of the individual’s goal governs or “frames”
how information received is processed and acted upon
(Lindenberg and Steg 2007). GFT suggests that green
consumption could be encouraged by rendering nor-
mative goals (“act appropriately”) more compatible
with gain (“enhance resources”) and hedonic (“feel
better now”) goals. For example, to support green con-
sumption, biodegradable washing powders and recy-
clable bottles should be as cost-effective as their
competitors. GFT as a theory is still in its conceptual
stage and rarely used in applied research.
We summarize attitudinal, values-based, and inte-
grated theories in table 2.
While these models are well-established and widely
cited in the literature, they are open to criticism on
Table 2. Summary of behavioral theories.
Theories Author/s
Attitude-based (Fishbein and Ajzen 1981)
Theory of reasoned action (Ajzen 1991)
Theory of planned behavior (Schwartz 1973)
Value-based (Stern 2000; Stern et al. 1999)
Moral norm activation theory
Value-belief-norm theory (Guagnano, Stern, and Dietz 1995)
of environmentalism (Triandis 1977)
Integrated theories (Lindenberg and Steg 2007)
Attitude-behavior-context theory
Interpersonal behavior theory
Goal framing theory
two major grounds. Firstly, the models are derived
from Western empirical studies, in turn based on
Western sociological and psychological theory. There-
fore, the theories may not be relevant to Asian con-
texts, and to developing rather than developed
economies. Secondly, the models have severe limita-
tions with relation to the influence of context. The
influence of contextual factors such as aggregate level
of environmental concern, political regulation, and
distribution mechanisms on green consumption have
been found to be greater than that of individual factors
(Thøgersen 2010). Individual-level attitudinal and val-
ues-based theories have been further criticized for lack
of integration (Jackson 2005), for failure to capture
cultural dimensions of individual behavior (Kashima
et al. 1992), and for the underlying assumption of
rational self-interest as primary human motivation
(Hofstede 1993). Rational self-interest is culturally
bound. Individuals in communally oriented cultures
(e.g., New Zealand Maori, Asian Malay, and European
Sicilian) may subsume their own rational self-interest
in favor of the well-being of their village or commu-
nity (Podsiadlowski and Fox 2011). These criticisms
are particularly profound in the context of green con-
sumption. We argue that green consumption is a spe-
cial case, as (particularly at present) it generally
transcends rational self-interest. For example, recy-
cling usually requires additional effort on the part of
the individual for limited return, and buying an elec-
tric car incurs cost, risk, and inconvenience in excess
of the physical benefits. Acknowledging that green
consumption can be a symbolic purchase (i.e., being
instrumental in establishing consumer self-identity—
communicate a desired self or reflect group member-
ship) (Kleine, Kleine, and Kernan 1993; Sirgy 1982),
we argue that in general green consumption can be
characterized more persuasively as a collectivist rather
than individual behavior, as it benefits the group

rather than the individual (Davies, Foxall, and Pallister
2002; Hopper and Nielsen 1991; Thøgersen 1996). In
aggregate, the theories therefore provide a limited
framework for developing green consumption policy
and practice (Jackson 2005), particularly, we would
argue, in Asia.
As discussed previously, studies in the social psy-
chology area have clearly identified differences in the
thinking process and behaviors of people in Western
and non-Western cultures, especially East Asian cul-
tures (Han and Ma 2014; Marcus and Kitayama 1991;
Nisbett and Masuda 2003; Oyserman, Coon, and Kem-
melmeier 2002). Choi, Nisbett, and Norenzayan (1999,
48), proposed that “Westerners are inclined to attribute
human behaviors predominantly to their internal dis-
positions while East Asians tend to explain the same
behavior in terms of social contexts.” Markus and
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
Kitayama (1991), for example, reiterated that most psy-
chologists hold a singular view of human behavior—
that is, the popular Western view. In similar vein,
Choi, Nisbett, and Norenzayan (1999) found that East
Asians believe that social contexts are more important
in explaining human behavior than Westerners. West-
erners on the other hand use personal and internal
attributes in explaining the human behavior.
The behavioral, perceptual, and cognitive differen-
ces in people belonging to Western and non-Western
cultures were reported in a host research studies in
cultural psychology area (cf. Oyserman, Coon, and
Kemmelmeier 2002; Nisbett and Masuada 2003; Miya-
moto, Nisbett, and Masuda 2006; Conway et al. 2005).
However, this perspective is not sufficiently incorpo-
rated in the theories of behavioral change that applied
to green consumption. Therefore, we propose the fol-
lowing new model.
A new model of green consumption
The new model value adds to the existing theories in
multiple ways. In support of Peattie (2010), we have
argued that research relating to green consumption
needs to acknowledge profound differences between
Western and non-Western consumers and contexts.
We have also argued that current theory may have
limited application outside the Western contexts in
which it was developed. Differing economic, social,
and particularly cultural contexts affect individual per-
ceptions, motivations, and behavior. The existence of
cultural differences within and between societies
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 9
affecting the behavior of individuals is well-established
(e.g., Hofstede 1980; Triandis 1977); however, we do
not know how these differences play out with respect
to green consumption. The model uses the basic con-
struct of TPB and additionally factored in contextual
and cultural variables which we believe are capable of
explaining the contextual and cultural sensitivity of
green consumption behaviors in non-Western mar-
kets. We argue in the new model that the contextual
factors affect an individual customer’s attitude, subjec-
tive norm, and perceived behavioral control factors
(individual intrinsic factors). We also hypothesize that
the contextual factors affect an individual’s cultural
profile and behaviors. An individual’s cultural profile,
we postulate, acts as a mediator between an individu-
al’s internal intrinsic factors and intentions of behav-
ior and the ultimate behavior, which is green
consumption in this case. Therefore, contextual fac-
tors and cultural influences on the green consumption
behavior are apprehended using this new construct.
As discussed before, a similar inclusive approach is
rarely attempted in the green consumption space in
non-Western settings, hence the new model.
The new model, capturing contextual, cultural, and
individual influences on green consumption, is pre-
sented in figure 1.
Rectangles denote variables and ovals denote theo-
retical constructs. The relationships are causal, apart
from the behavioral intention–green consumption
relationship. We show this relationship as correla-
tional rather than causal. Behavioral intention does
not necessarily lead to green consumption, that is,
while consumers profess pro-environmental inten-
tions, oftentimes their actual behavior does not reflect
these intentions (Prothero et al. 2011). This mismatch
leads to our first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Behavioral intention is correlated rather
than causally related to green consumption.
We proceed by discussing each of the variables and
constructs and presenting further hypotheses drawn
from the model. Contextual factors are shown as hav-
ing a causal relationship with every other variable and
theoretical construct, following our previous argu-
ments that actions are inseparable from structure. Six
factors (e.g., level of environmental awareness, infra-
structure and technology adoption, government inter-
vention, NGO participation, national culture and
religious practices, and economic conditions) are
 10 S. R. NAIR AND V. J. LITTLE
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
Figure 1. Context, culture, and green conception—A new model.
therefore antecedents to all other variables and theo-
retical constructs. Level of environmental awareness is
influenced by literacy level, level of education, and
freedom of the press. The increased tendency towards
green consumption among urban populations and in
developed Asian countries like Japan and Singapore
may be explained by high levels of environmental
awareness. However, casual observation in less devel-
oped countries (e.g., Vietnam and Malaysia) reveals
patchy green consumption performance, despite gov-
ernmental efforts to educate the populace. Infrastruc-
tural facilities and level of technology adoption relevant
to green consumption are important facilitating fac-
tors, for example, availability of household and indus-
trial recycling facilities, and cost-effective solid waste
disposal technologies. Government intervention will
also influence pro-environmental behavior, for exam-
ple, plastic bag bans and recycling legislation. Activism
level from individuals and NGOs would influence suc-
cessful initiation and implementation of environmen-
tal initiatives, for example, the activities of Greenpeace
and World Wildlife Fund in many parts of Asia. Cul-
ture and religious practices are a critical factor, and
have a profound effect on every aspect of society and
individual behavior (Harris 2006; Huntington 1996;
Ignatow 2006; Inglehart and Baker 2000; Johnson,
Bowker, and Cordell 2004; Laroche et al. 2002). Even
in closely related national cultures such as the USA
and Canada, differences in green consumption reflect
differences in ethnic backgrounds and social norms
(Ignatow 2006; Laroche et al. 2002). Clearly in coun-
tries where cultures are not closely related (e.g., Ger-
many and Italy, China and India, Japan and Malaysia)
the profound differences in ethnic origin, history, and
religion will influence green consumption. In multicul-
tural countries with heterogeneous ethnic composition
(e.g., Malaysia’s three major ethnic groups—Malays,
Chinese, and Indian), this may result in within-country
as well as between-country differences. The final con-
textual factor is economic conditions. We argue that a
favorable economic climate would positively impact
pro-environmental behavior, as a buoyant economy
supports technological innovation and discretionary
investment in waste management infrastructure, for
example. Prosperity will support stronger pro-environ-
mental performance, as a result of education, and dis-
cretionary investment, explaining strong pro-
environmental orientation in economically advanced
countries such as Germany and Switzerland. These
arguments lead to the following set of hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2: Contextual factors (level of awareness,
infrastructure and technology adoption, governmental
intervention, NGO participation, national culture and
religious practices, and economic conditions) are antece-
dents to
Hypothesis H2a: Individual attitudes,
Hypothesis H2b: Subjective norms,
Hypothesis H2c: Perceived behavioral control,
Hypothesis H2d: Individual cultural profile,
Hypothesis H2e: Behavioral intention,
Hypothesis H2f: Green consumption.
Our second set of hypotheses relates to individual
factors. The model draws on the TPB (Ajzen and
Madden 1986) to construct individual-level factors
leading to intentions, and finally green consumption.
Individual variables are attitude, subjective norm, and
perceived behavioral control. All are assumed to be
moderated by group preferences and perceived abili-
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
ties, owing to the support of in-groups or family mem-
bers. Therefore, the new model assumes that collective
rather than individual factors have greater influence
on behavioral intention and thereby green consump-
tion, leading to hypothesis 3 (which we include for
completeness—this relationship is well-established
through TPB research):
Hypothesis H3: Individual factors (i.e., attitude, subjec-
tive norm, perceived behavioral control) are antecedents
to behavioral intention.
Our next set of hypotheses relates to a composite
construct, the individual dynamic cultural profile.
This construct mediates the relationship between the
classic individual variables, and behavioral intentions/
green consumption behavior. The argument has two
aspects: Firstly, culture is complex, and requires a
commensurately pluralistic construct to capture nuan-
ces rather than “either-or” dichotomies or continua.
We therefore argue for an index-based measure deliv-
ering a composite profile of individual culture at the
identity group level. The nature of individual’s profile
will have a greater or lesser mediating effect on behav-
ioral intentions. For example, considering Singapore’s
famously stringent anti-littering laws, we would argue
that a Singaporean in Singapore will comply with
anti-littering laws and would not drop rubbish regard-
less of whether they are Malay-Singaporean, Chinese-
Singaporean, or Indian-Singaporean (each of these
groups having substantially different cultural profiles).
However, should individuals from each of these
groups be in a less stringent environment (e.g.,
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 11
Malaysia), they might then “throw” rather than dis-
pose of litter responsibly. The difference is explained
by culture—in this case identity group culture, which
has a mediating effect on his or her behavior. In other
words, individual actions are culturally rooted, leading
to the second set of research hypotheses:
Hypothesis H4: The identity group level construct “indi-
vidual cultural profile” mediates the relationship
between
Hypothesis H4a: Attitude and behavioral intention,
Hypothesis H4b: Subjective norm and behavioral
intention,
Hypothesis H4c: Perceived behavioral control and
behavioral intention.
In theory, individual cultural profile (ICP) satisfies
three conditions necessary to claim a mediating rela-
tionship: A significant relationship between indepen-
dent variable (individual attitude, subjective norm,
and perceived behavioral control) and mediator
(ICP), between mediator (ICP) and dependent vari-
able (intention and green consumption), and between
the independent variables (context variables, individ-
ual variables) and dependent variables (intention and/
or green consumption) (Baron and Kenny 1986). We
argue that attitude, subjective norm, and perceived
control have a causal relationship with the individual’s
identity group cultural profile. For example, levels of
cultural masculinity versus femininity would be
reflected in attitude—a preference for quantity would
explain an individual’s preference for (say) power over
quality.
H1 proposes that behavioral intention and green
consumption are correlated rather than causally
related, that is, the relationship between intention and
green consumption is not necessarily causal. Logically,
therefore, ICP mediates the relationship between indi-
vidual-level variables and green consumption, leading
to our fifth set of hypotheses:
Hypothesis H5: That the construct “individual cultural
profile” mediates the relationship between
Hypothesis H5a: Attitude and green consumption,
Hypothesis H5b: Subjective norm and green
consumption,
Hypothesis H5c: Perceived behavioral control and green
consumption.
The model recognizes a two-way relationship
between individual variables and green consump-
tion—each reinforces the other; that is, while
 12 S. R. NAIR AND V. J. LITTLE

individual variables are the antecedent to green con-
sumption, green consumption practices also influence
attitudes, norms, and perceived control (Brosius, Fer-
nandez, and Cherrier 2013). For completeness, we
include this relationship as a hypothesis:
Hypothesis H6: Green consumption is an antecedent to
attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral
control.
We have proposed that the theoretical construct
“individual cultural profile” mediates individual varia-
bles and both behavioral intention and green con-
sumption. However, in order to test those hypotheses
the construct must be operationalized. To do so, we
propose an approach similar to that used by the CMP
Group in profiling marketing practice (Coviello et al.
2002). In order to capture a multifaceted construct
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
develop ICPs at the identity group level, based on the
four cultural variables identified previously. Table 3
summarizes dimensions and items.
The four overarching variables are individual,
social/relational, temporal, and natural environment,
and are drawn from the values discussed previously
based on the work of Hofstede (1980) and Kluckhohn
and Strodtbeck (1961). Each variable is composed of
multiple items, capturing the key dimensions of each
aspect of culture, resulting in 21 items overall. Individ-
ual is thus reflected in seven items: uncertainty avoid-
ance; risk taking; agency focus; communion focus; and
the three motivational items of “being,” “growing,”
and “achieving.” We use agency and communion
focus rather than measures of masculinity and femi-
ninity. While in general women are found to be more
pro-environmental than men (Hunter, Hatch, and

such as marketing practice or, we would argue, cul-
ture, we must move beyond simple concepts such as
continua and dichotomies, and towards a pluralistic
conception encompassing multiplicity and complex-
ity. Whereas Hofstede (1983) combined two dimen-
sions of culture, we propose to combine all four to
Johnson 2004; Laroche et al. 2002; Polk 2003), a focus
on physical gender is misleading—the issue is one of
gender identity, whereby people behave congruently
with their personal orientation (Stets and Biga 2003).
We therefore adopt non-gendered terminology for
this dimension. Rather than masculinity we use the

Table 3. Dimensions and items for ICP development.

Dimension and items Description

Individual
1. Uncertainty avoidance
2. Risk taking
3. Communion-focused
People feel threatened by ambiguity, tendency towards anxiety and neuroticism, insecurity; security through technology,
rules, law, dogma.
Relatively low anxiety levels, limited emotional expression, agreeability and tolerance towards others, feeling of safety and
security, pragmatism.
(cf. Femininity) Emotional gender roles are less distinct—relationships and quality of life are valued, as are
interdependence, the environment.

4. Agency-focused (cf. Masculinity) Emotional gender roles are distinct—quantity, independence, competition, and material success are
valued.
5. Being Doing what pleases oneself
6. Growth Developing abilities that please oneself
7. Achievement Doing what is valued by self and group
Social/relational
8. Hierarchy Inequality is expected and accepted. Less powerful people should be dependent on more powerful people. Authority
should be centralized.
9. Equality Inequalities should be minimized. More and less powerful people should be interdependent. Authority should be
decentralized.
10. Individualism Ties between individuals are loose, everyone looks after themselves and their immediate families, freedom and
independence are valued.
11. Collectivism People are integrated into strong and cohesive in-groups, which protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.
Temporal
12. Indulgence Free and immediate gratification of desires.
13. Self-restraint Curbing of desires and feelings, delayed gratification.
14. Past Emphasis on tradition, heritage.
15. Present Living for today, saving face.
16. Future Thrift, perseverance, future rewards, environmental preservation.
Natural environment
17. Mastery The environment exists to serve human needs, to be exploited and controlled.
18. Submission The environment is threatening and must be appeased.
19. Harmony The environment is important and must be nurtured.
20. Intense relationship Humans and nature are closely connected, close affinity.
21. Mild relationship Humans and nature are loosely connected, distant affinity.

Table 4. Summary of research hypotheses relating to new model
for green consumption.
Proposition
H1: Behavioral intention is correlated rather than causally related to green
consumption.
H2: Contextual factors (level of awareness, infrastructure and technology
adoption, governmental intervention, NGO participation, national
culture and religious practices, and economic conditions) are
antecedents to
H2a: Individual attitudes,
H2b: Subjective norms,
H2c: Perceived behavioral control,
H2d: Individual cultural profile,
H2e: Behavioral intention,
H2f: Green consumption.
H3: Individual factors (i.e., attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral
control) are antecedents to behavioral intention.
H4: The identity group level construct “individual cultural profile” mediates
the relationship between
H4a: Attitude and behavioral intention,
H4b: Subjective norm and behavioral intention,
H4c: Perceived behavioral control and behavioral intention.
H5: The construct “individual cultural profile” mediates the relationship
between
H5a: Attitude and green consumption,
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
H5b: Subjective norm and green consumption,
H5c: Perceived behavioral control and green consumption.
H6: Green consumption is an antecedent to attitude, subjective norm, and
perceived behavioral control.
term “agency-focused,” emphasizing competition and
independence (i.e., more selfish behaviors), and femi-
ninity being “communion-oriented,” highlighting sen-
sitivity and a concern for others (i.e., more self-less
behaviors) (Eagly and Koenig 2006). Social/relational
is reflected in four items, hierarchy, equality, individu-
alism, and collectivism. Hofstede’s (1980) power dis-
tance variable has been replaced with hierarchy and
equality measures to add sensitivity. Temporal varia-
bles are reflected in five items, indulgence; self-
restraint; and past, present, and future orientations—
the latter being a more sensitive measure than Hof-
stede’s (1980) long vs. short-term orientation. The five
Natural environment items are mastery; submission;
harmony; and intense vs. mild, capturing both nature
and strength of individual’s relationship with the envi-
ronment. Propensity to act or react on an environ-
mental cause is linked to his/her perceived
relationship or affinity towards natural environment.
A person who feels intensely about natural environ-
mental would act pro-environmentally, while a mild
or no affinity towards the natural environment would
likely lead to no environmental action, ceteris paribus.
The next step is to develop scale items and to adminis-
ter a questionnaire, following the CMP five-point Lik-
ert scale anchored by “never” and “always” (e.g.,
Coviello et al. 2002).
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 13
In this section, we have presented a new model of
green consumption. The model acknowledges the pro-
found influences of context and particularly culture,
by including context as a moderating variable and cul-
ture as a mediating variable. We operationalized cul-
ture beyond the dimensions offered by Hofstede
(1983) and argued that ICP based on four dimensions
(individual, social/relational, temporal, and environ-
mental) would mediate any green consumption deci-
sions. We further proposed a means of creating ICPs,
based on the CMP Group profiles of marketing prac-
tice. We summarize the research hypotheses based on
the new model in table 4.
Conclusions
The purpose of this paper was to challenge current
understandings of green consumption, based on mod-
els derived from environmental psychology. We
argued that current theory fails to capture the com-
plexity of social systems that provide the backdrop for
green consumption decisions, that is, those behaviors
that have an impact on environmental resource avail-
ability, or that alter the viability of the biosphere
(Stern 2000). We offered a new model and six research
hypotheses that explicitly acknowledge the role of con-
text and culture, relevant to both Western and non-
Western contexts, in individual green consumption
decisions. The model includes both antecedent con-
textual factors, and a mediating variable—the individ-
ual’s cultural profile—based on their identity group.
We argued that behavioral intention and green con-
sumption were correlated rather than causally related.
Thus, an individual’s cultural profile mediates both
their behavioral intentions and their green (or other-
wise) consumption as well as disposal behaviors. If we
accept that current consumption patterns are creating
problems for humanity, then changing these con-
sumption patterns is required to increase societal well-
being. However, we also know that consumption
forms part of individual identity, is deeply embedded
in culture (i.e., the shared mental models of a society),
and takes place within complex socio-technical and
political contexts. Logically, as consumption is multi-
faceted, and bound up with emotional, symbolic, and
cultural meanings, multifaceted solutions to overcon-
sumption or damaging consumption are required.
The proposed model has to be tested in real-life set-
tings in order to validate impacts and effects on green
 14 S. R. NAIR AND V. J. LITTLE
consumption. New scales have to be developed in
order to incorporate the contextual and cultural differ-
ences presented in this paper. The scale development,
however, is not within the scope of the current paper.
The implications for all stakeholders in the green con-
sumption project are that a systems approach is
required, capturing the nuances of the socio-technical
and political contexts within which consumption is
embedded. Empirical work is culturally embedded;
hence, an ethno-relative view of the conduct and
interpretation of results is required—particularly
when applying findings to cultures other than the
researchers’ own. As much of the twenty-first-century
consumption growth will be occurring in non-West-
ern contexts, theory acknowledging non-Western sen-
sibilities is required if marketing is to contribute to the
overconsumption solution. One size does not fit all. In
the West, sustainability was recently described as “ …
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
a transcendent societal mega-megatrend that realizes
the implications of nearing load-bearing and source
availability limitations of our finite habitat in the
man-made, socio-cultural evolution big bang in which
we are living” (Varey 2013, 13). However, in non-
Western contexts we observe that such realizations are
some way off. The current “big bang” is in hyper-con-
sumption without regard for tomorrow, supporting
our call for research that increases understanding of
non-Western consumers.
Overall, socially and culturally embedded phenom-
ena require approaches congruent with complex mul-
tiplicities rather than simple uniformity—pluralistic
rather than singular constructs and more nuanced
theoretical models. The issue of promoting sustainable
consumption—green consumption—is important and
urgent. We need better theory, grounded in specific
contexts, in order to support policymakers and to
move the field forward.
References
Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned
behavior. In Action control: From cognition to behavior, ed.
J. Beckmann and J. Kuhl. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.
Ajzen, I., and T. J. Madden. 1986. Prediction of Goal-directed
behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral con-
trol. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22: 453–474.
Assadourian, E. 2010. Transforming cultures: From consumer-
ism to sustainability. Journal of Macromarketing 30: 186–
191.
Bamberg, S., and P. Schmidt. 2003. Incentives, morality, or
habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes
with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ-
ment and Behavior 35: 264–285.
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Con-
ceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–1182.
Bennett, M. J. 1998. Intercultural communication: A current
perspective. In Basic concepts of intercultural communica-
tion: Selected readings, ed. M. J. Bennett, Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press.
Black, J. S., P. C. Stern, and J. T. Elworth. 1985. Personal and
contextual influences on househould energy adaptations.
Journal of Applied Psychology 70: 3.
Bratt, C. 1999. The impact of norms and assumed consequen-
ces on recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior 31:
630–656.
Brosius, N., K. V. Fernandez, and H. Cherrier. 2013. Re-acquir-
ing consumer waste: Treasure in our trash? Journal of Pub-
lic Policy and Marketing 32 (2): 286–301.
Campbell, R. R., and J. L. Wade. 1972. Society and environ-
ment: The coming collision. Boston, MAS: Allyn and Bacon.
Catton, W. R., and R. E. Dunlap. 1978. Environmental sociol-
ogy: A new paradigm. The American Sociologist 13: 41–49.
Cheung, S. F., D. K.-S. Chan, and Z. S.-Y. Wong. 1999. Reex-
amining the theory of planned behavior in understanding
wastepaper recycling. Environment and Behavior 31: 587–
612.
Choi, I., and R. E. Nisbett. 1998. Situational salience and cul-
tural differences in the correspondence bias and actor-
observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24
(9): 949–960.
Choi, I., R. E. Nisbett, and A. Norenzayan. 1999. Causal attri-
bution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psycho-
logical bulletin 125 (1): 47–63.
Chokar, J. S., F. C. Brodbeck, and R. J. House. 2012. Culture
and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-
depth studies of 25 societies. London: Routledge.
Conway, M. A., Q. Wang, K. Hanyu, and S. Haque. 2005. A
cross-cultural investigation of autobiographical memory on
the universality and cultural variation of the reminiscence
bump. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36 (6): 739–749.
Coviello, N. E., R. J. Brodie, P. J. Danaher, and W. J. Johnston.
2002. How firms relate to their markets: An empirical
examination of contemporary marketing practices. Journal
of Marketing 66: 33–46.
Cronley, M. L., F. R. Kardes, P. Goddard, and D. C. Houghton.
1999. Endorsing products for the money: The role of corre-
spondence bias in celebrity advertising. Advances in Con-
sumer Research 26: 627–631.
Davies, J., G. R. Foxall, and J. Pallister. 2002. Beyond the inten-
tion–behaviour mythology an integrated model of recy-
cling. Marketing Theory 2: 29–113.
De Groot, J. I. M., and L. Steg. 2008. Value orientations to
explain beliefs related to environmental significant behav-
ior. Environment and Behavior 40: 330–354.

De Mooij, M. 2010. Consumer behavior and culture: Conse-
quences for global marketing and advertising, 3rd ed. Thou-
sand oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Dolan, P. 2002. The sustainability of sustainable consumption.
Journal of Macromarketing 22: 170–181.
Dunlap, R. E., and K. D. Van Liere. 2008. The new environ-
mental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education 40:
19–28.
Eagly, A. H., and A. M. Koenig. 2006. Social role theory of sex
differences and similarities: Implication for prosocial
behavior. In Sex differences and similarities in communica-
tion, ed. K. Dindia and D.J. Canary, 2 ed. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Ebreo, A., J. Hershey, and J. Vining. 1999. Reducing solid waste
linking recycling to environmentally responsible consumer-
ism. Environment and Behavior 31: 107–135.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and
behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1981. Acceptance, yielding, and
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
impact: Cognitive processes in persuasion. Cognitive
Responses in Persuasion, 339–359.
Fransson, N., and T. G€arling. 1999. Environmental concern: Con-
ceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research find-
ings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 369–382.
Grob, A. 1995. A structural model of environmental attitudes and
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15: 209–220.
Guagnano, G. A., P. C. Stern, and T. Dietz. 1995. Influences on
attitude-behavior relationships a natural experiment with
curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior 27: 699–718.
Gummesson, E. 2001. Are current research approaches in mar-
keting leading us astray? Marketing Theory 1: 27–48.
Han, S., and Ma, Y. 2014. Cultural differences in human brain
activity: A quantitative meta-analysis. NeuroImage 99: 293–
300.
Harris, P. G. 2006. Environmental perspectives and behavior in
China: Synopsis and bibliography. Environment and Behav-
ior 38: 5–21.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differ-
ences in work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Incorporated.
Hofstede, G. 1983. National cultures revisited. Cross-Cultural
Research 18: 285–305.
Hofstede, G. 1993. Cultural constraints in management theo-
ries. Academy of Management Executive 7: 81–94.
Hofstede, G., G. J. Hofstede, M. Minkov, and H. Vinken. 2008.
Values survey module 2008. http://www.geerthofstede.nl/
media/253/VSM08English.doc (accessed March 10, 2013).
Hopper, J. R., and J. M. Nielsen. 1991. Recycling as altruistic
behavior normative and behavioral strategies to expand
participation in a community recycling program. Environ-
ment and Behavior 23: 195–220.
Hunter, L. M., A. Hatch, and A. Johnson. 2004. Cross na-
tional gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social
Science Quarterly 85: 677–694.
Huntington, S. P. 1996. The clash of civilizations and the mak-
ing of a new world order. London: Simon & Schuster.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 15
Ignatow, G. 2006. Cultural models of nature and society recon-
sidering environmental attitudes and concern. Environment
and Behavior 38: 441–461.
Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization: Cul-
tural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Prince-
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. 2013. World values surveys. http://www.worldva
luessurvey.org/ (accessed March 10, 2013).
Inglehart, R., and W. E. Baker. 2000. Modernization, cultural
change, and the persistence of traditional values. American
Sociological Review, 19–51.
Jackson, T. 2005. Motivating sustainable consumption: A
review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behav-
ioural change. In ESRC sustainable technologies pro-
gramme, ed. C. F. E. Strategy, Guildford, Surrey, UK:
University of Surrey.
Johnson, C. Y., J. M. Bowker, and H. K. Cordell. 2004. Ethnic
variation in environmental belief and behavior an examina-
tion of the new ecological paradigm in a social psychologi-
cal context. Environment and Behavior 36: 157–186.
Joireman, J. A., T. P. Lasane, J. Bennett, D. Richards, and S.
Solaimani. 2001. Integrating social value orientation and
the consideration of future consequences within the
extended norm activation model of proenvironmental
behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology 40: 133–155.
Kacen, J. J., and J. A. Lee. 2002. The influence of culture on
consumer impulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 12 (2): 163–176.
Kals, E., D. Schumacher, and L. Montada. 1999. Emotional
affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect
nature. Environment and Behavior 31: 178–202.
Kashima, Y., M. Siegal, K. Tanaka, and E. S. Kashima. 1992. Do
people believe behaviours are consistent with attitudes?
Towards a cultural psychology of attribution processes.
British Journal of Social Psychology 31: 111–124.
Kilbourne, W. E., S. C. Beckmann, and E. Thelen. 2002. The
role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental atti-
tudes: A multinational examination. Journal of Business
Research 55: 193–204.
Kilbourne, W., P. Mcdonagh, and A. Prothero. 1997. Sustain-
able consumption and the quality of life: A macromarketing
challenge to the dominant social paradigm. Journal of Mac-
romarketing 17: 4–24.
Kleine, R. E., S. S. Kleine, and J. B. Kernan. 1993. Mundane
consumption and the self: A social-identity perspective.
Journal of Consumer Psychology 2: 209–235.
Kluckhohn, F. R., and F. L. Strodtbeck. 1961. Variations in
value orientations. Evanstown, IL: Row, Peterson.
Laroche, M., M. A. Tomiuk, J. Bergeron, and G. B. Forleo.
2002. Cultural differences in environmental knowledge,
attitudes, and behaviours of Canadian consumers. Cana-
dian Journal of Administrative Sciences 19: 267–282.
Lee, J. A., and S. J. S. Holden. 1999. Understanding the deter-
minants of environmentally conscious behavior. Psychology
& Marketing 16: 373–392.
Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 2000. Handbook of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
 16 S. R. NAIR AND V. J. LITTLE
Lindenberg, S., and L. Steg. 2007. Normative, gain and hedonic
goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of
Social Issues 63: 117–137.
Marini, M. M. 2000. Social values and norms. In Encyclopedia
of sociology, ed. E.F. Borgatta and R.J.V. Montgomery, New-
york: Macmillan.
Markus, H. R., and S. Kitayama. 1991. Culture and the self:
Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psy-
chological Review 98 (2): 224.
Masuda, T., and R. E. Nisbett. 2001. Attending holistically ver-
sus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japa-
nese and Americans. Journal of personality and social
psychology 81 (5): 922.
Miyamoto, Y., R. E. Nisbett, and T. Masuda. 2006. Culture and
the physical environment holistic versus analytic perceptual
affordances. Psychological Science 17 (2): 113–119.
Nair, S. R., and C. G. Menon. 2008. An environmental market-
ing system–a proposed model based on Indian experience.
Business Strategy and the Environment 17 (8): 467–479.
Nisbett, R. 2015. Mindware: Tools for smart thinking. New
Downloaded by [Sumesh Nair] at 06:17 14 April 2016
York: Macmillan.
Nisbett, R. E., and T. Masuda. 2003. Culture and point of view.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (19):
11163–11170.
Nordlund, A. M., and J. Garvill. 2002. Value structures behind
proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior 34:
740–756.
Ottaman, J. A. 1993. Green marketing: Challenges and opportu-
nities. NTC: Lincolnwood.
Oyserman, D., H. M. Coon, and M. Kemmelmeier. 2002.
Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of
theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological
Bulletin 128 (1): 3.
Peattie, K. 2010. Green consumption: Behavior and norms.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35: 195–228.
Peattie, K., and A. Crane. 2005. Green marketing: Legend,
myth, farce or prophesy? Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal 8: 357–370.
Peattie, K., and S. Peattie. 2009. Social marketing: A pathway to
consumption reduction? Journal of Business Research 62:
260–268.
Podsiadlowski, A., and S. Fox. 2011. Collectivist value ori-
entations among four ethnic groups: Collectivism in the
New Zealand context. New Zealand Journal of Psychol-
ogy 40: 5–18.
Polonsky, M. 2011. Transformative green marketing. Journal of
Business Research 64: 1311–1319.
Polk, M. 2003. Are women potentially more accommodating
than men to a sustainable transportation system in
Sweden? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment 8 (2): 75–95.
Prakash, A. 2002. Green marketing, public policy and manage-
rial strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment 11:
285–297.
Prothero, A., S. Dobscha, J. Freund, W. E. Kilbourne, M. G.
Luchs, L. K. Ozanne, and J. Thøgersen. 2011. Sustainable
consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and
public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 30: 31–
38.
Prothero, A., P. Mcdonagh, and S. Dobscha. 2010. Is green the
new black? Reflections on a green commodity discourse.
Journal of Macromarketing 30: 147–159.
Rothman, D. S., J. Agard, and J. Alcamo. 2007. Global Environ-
ment Outlook 4. United nations environment programme.
Valletta, Malta: United Nations.
Schaefer, A., and A. Crane. 2005. Addressing sustainability and
consumption. Journal of Macromarketing 25: 76–92.
Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of
values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20
Countries. In Advances in experimental social psychology,
ed. M. P. Zanna, Vol. 24. New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism: New
cultural dimensions of values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sirgy, M. J. 1982. Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical
review. Journal of Consumer Research, 287–300.
Stern, P. C. 2000. New environmental theories: Toward a
coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
Journal of Social Issues 56: 407–424.
Stern, P. C., and T. Dietz. 1994. The value basis of environmen-
tal concern. Journal of Social Issues 50: 65–84.
Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, T. Abel, G. A. guagnano, and L. Kalof.
1999. A value-belief norm theory of support for social
movements: The case of environmental concern. Human
Ecology Review 6: 81–97.
Stets, J. E., and C. F. Biga. 2003. Bringing identity theory into
environmental sociology. Sociological Theory 21: 398–423.
Tanner, C., and S. W. Kast. 2003. Promoting sustainable con-
sumption: Determinants of green purchases by Swiss con-
sumers. Psychology and Marketing 20 (10): 883–902.
Thøgersen, J. 1996. Recycling and morality: A critical review of
the literature. Environment and Behavior 28: 536–558.
Thøgersen, J. 2010. Country differences in sustainable con-
sumption: The case of organic food. Journal of Macromar-
keting 30: 171–185.
Triandis, H. C. 1972. The analysis of subjective culture. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Triandis, H. C. 1977. Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Triandis, H. C. 2002. Subjective culture. http://scholarworks.
gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss2/6 accessed March 8, 2013).
Tung, R. L., and A. Verbeke. 2010. Beyond Hofstede and
GLOBE: Improving the quality of cross-cultural
research. Journal of International Business Studies 41:
1259–1274.
Varey, R. 2013. Marketing in the flourishing society mega-
trend. Journal of Macromarketing, 33.
Varey, R. J. 2010. Marketing means and ends for a sustainable
society: A welfare agenda for transformative change. Jour-
nal of Macromarketing 30: 112–126.
Vargo, S. L., and R. F. Lusch. 2004. Evolving to a new domi-
nant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing 68: 1–17.
White, S. 2002. Rigor and relevance in Asian management
research: Where are we and where can we go? Asia Pacific
Journal of Management 19: 287–302.