The Sustainable Consumption: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Conner Chen and Version 3 by Conner Chen.

Sustainable consumption (SPC) is the concept surrounding is defined as the use of services and products and services with, which meet basic needs and increase the quality of life, while minimal impact on eizing natural resource use and adverse environmental safeguarding resources for current and feffects over the life of the service or product, to allow for the needs of future generations to not be compromised.

  • sustainable development
  • sustainable consumption (SC)

1. Immediate Consumption

SC is the use of a product or service which maintains basic needs and increases the quality of life of the consumer with minimal use of natural resources and adverse environmental effects over the life cycle of the service or product. This is to make sure that current consumers can meet their needs without compromising future generations’ abilities to meet their consumption needs, in line with sustainability principles [1]. Understanding sustainable consumption or green consumption in the literature is to recognize what motivates consumers’ attitudes and behaviors towards consumption [2][3][4][5].
One’s action of consumption and consumer behavior based upon the literature can depend on a range of variables. Typically examined variables contain characteristics such as lifestyle [6][7], the age of the consumer, their gender, the family size, their level of education, and ecological knowledge [8][9][10], as well as their social and economic status [5][7][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. All social, economic, demographic factors, and environmental knowledge are identified to have an effect on a consumer’s consumption behavior [15][16][18][19][20].
A significant variable and indicator of a consumer’s behavior towards pro-environmental consumption is the possession or availability of wealth. Numerous studies represent how in households that are considered to have high incomes, have higher instances of consumption, and a negative carbon and material footprint is observed [21][22][23][24][25]. For example, examining household energy use in Qatar showed that there is an elevated consumption of energy due to the fact that Qatar households have high incomes and cheap energy availability [26]. This further indicates that the notion of consumption is significantly linked to the costs of the service or product being consumed. A high cost for a service or product will yield less consumption; therefore, how much material wealth the consumer has, or what the product or service costs, will highly affect the consumption rate [26]. Additionally, separate studies have shown that frugality and green behavior have a positive and significant effect when investigating several pro-environmental purchasing and consumption behaviors [5][27]. A counterargument to the positive effect of the decrease in wealth and pro-environmental consumption behaviors is that having a high income is important in transforming positive attitudes into sustainable behaviors as increasing awareness, skills, and meanings are found to be significantly facilitated by income [24][27][28], although some studies state that this is not the case [28][29][30].

2. Contextual Consumption

A significant aspect of consumers’ consumption is in relation to their immediate context. Several factors such as regulations, labeling, and the use of technology can inherently affect the sustainability of a consumer’s consumption without their awareness or control [30][31][32]. The contextual disruption to normality, such as in global pandemics, is an example of how consumer behaviors are not always under the control of the consumer, but can be circumstantial [33].
The literature argues for a need for provided knowledge that can influence consumers’ behavior and allow them to act sustainably in their purchases and acquired services [30][31][32]. It is argued that any consumer policies or governance that is dependent on the freedom of the consumers to act in a pro-environmental consuming manner are bound to fail [34][35]. This is because sustainable consumption in this instance becomes a matter of logical determination, in terms of the decisions that a consumer can make about the level of sustainability of a product, and not as a clear choice based upon actual sustainability information provided by the product [36][37]. It is likewise suggested that providing consumers with the correct knowledge, which will allow consumers to make their own decisions, can aid sustainable consumption [31][34][37]. The focus of sustainable consumption on the private sphere instead of the political system is criticized and is considered as an undemocratic process that creates moral pressure on the consumer to consume sustainably [36]. A further step in the argument states that it is the responsibility of politicians, through policy and governance, to ensure that consumers have the necessary information to contribute to sustainable consumption on an individual level [31][35][38].
Although the contrary is also argued, in that individuals play a bigger role than governance and policy in terms of consumption, or that they can contribute at an equal level [32][39][40]. In instances with poor regulation over the control of the energy supply within urban centers, it is apparent that consumer behavior is more on the side of excessive usage [26][41][42]. As an example, in Qatar, the lack of a penalty for excessive energy use and the free nature of household electricity results in excessive energy use at the household level [26]. Likewise, the increase in household energy use for appliances has been observed to result in an increase in the intensity of household energy consumption which introduces the aspect of a positive feedback loop in terms of overconsuming, which is a result of the lack of governance or policy on the consumption level [26][43]. Energy-saving policies would serve to reduce household energy consumption and draw a path towards sustainable consumption behavior.
Notably, researchers come to an agreement, that in order to develop such regulatory measures, there is a need for an adequate stakeholder engagement, ESD, and the participation of the households to result in sustainable consumption overall [44][45].
Food consumption provides much insight into consumer behaviors, and is attracting increasing consideration because of its environmental, social, and economic effects [46]. Although food waste and food-related behaviors are observed measures in determining consumption behaviors, food in general is also dependent upon contextual factors which dictate consumption, such as regional differences, food availability, and distribution [46][47]. In the literature, labeling has been found to have an effect on consumption and consumer behaviors, depending on several food properties which can encourage sustainable consumption or pose a barrier to it [48][49][50][51][52]. Examining food labeling such as organic or fair trade, consumer choice has been found to focus mostly on appearance, taste, price, brand, convenience, and origin. Furthermore, social, and environmental certifications are next, followed lastly by characteristics of recyclable packaging and food miles [48][49][50]. As public awareness and education are recognized as the main factors impacting consumption and purchasing behavior, an informative label could serve to benefit sustainable consumption [51][53][54]. On the other hand, consumer hesitancy has been found to be in relation to the limited availability of product information as well as the lack of confidence of producers. Policy and governance measures are noted to need strengthening to promote sustainable consumption from a purchase aspect, and that they will have more success when the involvement of the consumer is made available [48][55][56].
Technology interventions are elements that can inform or actively control an individual’s consumption patterns based on a designated outcome, and in the case of sustainable consumption it would be to promote sustainable consumption. Technologies that are meant for sustainability can highly benefit environmental issues such as in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, which would have a direct effect on climate change, air quality, pollution, and so on. [57]. Throughout numerous studies, although the awareness of sustainable benefits of sustainable consumption, such as in the reduction of energy use, is apparent to individuals and households, little or no effort is generally taken at the individual or household level to mitigate purchasing and consuming behaviors [57]. It is here where technologies can benefit as an active agent for sustainable consumption that is passively administered by the consumer themselves [57][58]. Examining household energy use, energy-saving technologies, and feedback displays meant to reduce energy consumption, have been found to be effective in most households [58].

3. Consumption and Behavior

To explore the purchase intentions of consumers, often the most widely used theory is the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [59][60][61]. TPB states in basic terms that a consumer is more likely to behave in such a manner if the behavior being performed is beneficial to that consumer [29][59][60]. This explains how environmental attitude is frequently shown to positively affect environmental behavior and cations [29][62]. Research conducted on an environmentally friendly “green event” has found positive environmental behaviors associated with the attendees of this event, established through a survey distribution [63]. The majority of attendees when surveyed about pro-environmental actions such as regular recycling, saving energy, reducing waste, and sustainable consumption practices stated their commitment to these actions [63]. As the attendees of such events usually have a positive environmental attitude, as expected by TPB, positive environmental behaviors are observed [63]. Furthermore, extending the TPB is suggested to allow for the integration of both the sustainability aspects and the concepts of sustainability knowledge and sustainability values in the current TPB model [64].
For sustainable consumption similar to sustainable actions, a positive feedback effect is observed. When a consumer engages in performing sustainable consumption, or any sustainable behavior, this behavior can carry over to other sustainable actions, regardless of the difficulty of its application [65]. This effect, regarded as a behavioral spillover in the literature, is documented when examining consumers’ sustainable behaviors [65]. It was observed that consumers who made their first decision, when presented with two options related to either transportation or food sequentially, based on carbon emission reduction, were further likely to make their second decision based on an option that aligns with sustainable behavior [65]. This is to illustrate the behavioral aspect of consumers, who engage in sustainable consumption, that they may engage in further sustainable actions or consumption as a positive feedback aspect of behavior.

References

  1. UN. United Nations Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
  2. Diamantopoulos, A.; Schlegelmilch, B.B.; Sinkovics, R.R.; Bohlen, G.M. Can Socio-Demographics Still Play a Role in Profiling Green Consumers? A Review of the Evidence and an Empirical Investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 465–480.
  3. Peattie, K. Golden Goose or Wild Goose? The Hunt for the Green Consumer. Bus. Strategy Env. 2001, 10, 187–199.
  4. Moisander, J. Motivational Complexity of Green Consumerism. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 404–409.
  5. Naderi, I.; van Steenburg, E. Me First, Then the Environment: Young Millennials as Green Consumers. Young Consum. 2018, 19, 280–295.
  6. Jang, Y.J.; Kim, W.G.; Bonn, M.A. Generation Y Consumers’ Selection Attributes and Behavioral Intentions Concerning Green Restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011, 30, 803–811.
  7. Śmiglak-Krajewska, M.; Wojciechowska-Solis, J.; Viti, D. Consumers’ Purchasing Intentions on the Legume Market as Evidence of Sustainable Behaviour. Agriculture 2020, 10, 424.
  8. Kanchanapibul, M.; Lacka, E.; Wang, X.; Chan, H.K. An Empirical Investigation of Green Purchase Behaviour among the Young Generation. J. Clean Prod. 2014, 66, 528–536.
  9. Cincera, J.; Krajhanzl, J. Eco-Schools: What Factors Influence Pupils’ Action Competence for pro-Environmental Behaviour? J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 117–121.
  10. Elliott, R. The Taste for Green: The Possibilities and Dynamics of Status Differentiation through “Green” Consumption. Poetics 2013, 41, 294–322.
  11. Muralidharan, S.; Xue, F. Personal Networks as a Precursor to a Green Future: A Study of “Green” Consumer Socialization among Young Millennials from India and China. Young Consum. 2016, 17, 226–242.
  12. Morrison, P.S.; Beer, B. Consumption and Environmental Awareness: Demographics of the European Experience; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 81–102.
  13. Figueroa-García, E.C.; García-Machado, J.J.; Yábar, D.C.P.B. Modeling the Social Factors That Determine Sustainable Consumption Behavior in the Community of Madrid. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2811.
  14. Lazaric, N.; le Guel, F.; Belin, J.; Oltra, V.; Lavaud, S.; Douai, A.; Lazaric, N.; Belin, J.; Oltra, V.; Douai, A. Determinants of Sustainable Consumption in France: The Importance of Social Influence and Environmental Values. J. Evol. Econ. 2020, 5, 1337–1366.
  15. Laroche, M.; Bergeron, J.; Barbaro-Forleo, G. Targeting Consumers Who Are Willing to Pay More for Environmentally Friendly Products. J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 503–520.
  16. Casimir, G.; Dutilh, C. Sustainability: A Gender Studies Perspective. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2003, 27, 316–325.
  17. Straughan, R.D.; Roberts, J.A. Environmental Segmentation Alternatives: A Look at Green Consumer Behavior in the New Millennium. J. Consum. Mark. 1999, 16, 558–575.
  18. Bamburg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty Years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A New Meta-Analysis of Psycho-Social Determinants of pro-Environmental Behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25.
  19. Stern, P. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424.
  20. Hansmann, R.; Laurenti, R.; Mehdi, T.; Binder, C.R. Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Comparison of University Students and Staff from Diverse Faculties at a Swiss University. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 121864.
  21. Buhl, J.; Liedtke, C.; Teubler, J.; Bienge, K.; Schmidt, N. Measure or Management?—Resource Use Indicators for Policymakers Based on Microdata by Households. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4467.
  22. Dutta, M.; Gupta, P. Relating Emissions of Carbon to Characteristics of Consumption in India. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2018, 6, 255–275.
  23. Zhang, J.; Yu, B.; Cai, J.; Wei, Y.-M. Impacts of Household Income Change on CO2 Emissions: An Empirical Analysis of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 157, 190–200.
  24. Ruppert-Stroescu, M.; LeHew, M.L.A.; Connell, K.Y.H.; Armstrong, C.M. Creativity and Sustainable Fashion Apparel Consumption: The Fashion Detox. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2015, 33, 167–182.
  25. Helm, S.; Serido, J.; Ahn, S.Y.; Ligon, V.; Shim, S. Materialist Values, Financial and pro-Environmental Behaviors, and Well-Being. Young Consum. 2019, 20, 264–284.
  26. Al-Marri, W.; Al-Habaibeh, A.; Watkins, M. An Investigation into Domestic Energy Consumption Behaviour and Public Awareness of Renewable Energy in Qatar. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 41, 639–646.
  27. Anantharaman, M. Elite and Ethical: The Defensive Distinctions of Middle-Class Bicycling in Bangalore, India. J. Consum. Cult. 2017, 17, 864–886.
  28. Rakic, M.; Rakic, B. Sustainable Lifestyle Marketing of Individuals: The Base of Sustainability. Amfiteatru Econ. J. 2015, 17, 891–908.
  29. Chekima, B.C.; Syed Khalid Wafa, S.A.W.; Igau, O.A.; Chekima, S.; Sondoh, S.L. Examining Green Consumerism Motivational Drivers: Does Premium Price and Demographics Matter to Green Purchasing? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3436–3450.
  30. Ritter, Á.M.; Borchardt, M.; Vaccaro, G.L.R.; Pereira, G.M.; Almeida, F. Motivations for Promoting the Consumption of Green Products in an Emerging Country: Exploring Attitudes of Brazilian Consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 507–520.
  31. Heidbrink, L.; Reidel, J. Nachhaltiger Konsum Durch Politische Selbstbindung/Sustainable Consumption by Political Self-Binding. GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2011, 20, 152.
  32. Fischer, D.; Barth, M. Key Competencies for and beyond Sustainable Consumption: An Educational Contribution to the Debate. GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2014, 23, 193–200.
  33. Burlea-Schiopoiu, A.; Ogarca, R.F.; Barbu, C.M.; Craciun, L.; Baloi, I.C.; Mihai, L.S. The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Waste Behaviour of Young People. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126333.
  34. Bilharz, M.; Schmitt, K. Going Big with Big Matters. The Key Points Approach to Sustainable Consumption. GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2011, 20, 232–235.
  35. Stevens, C. Linking Sustainable Consumption and Production: The Government Role; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010.
  36. Grunwald, A. Wider Die Privatisierung Der Nachhaltigkeit–Warum Ökologisch Korrekter Konsum Die Umwelt Nicht Retten KannAgainst Privatisation of Sustainability—Why Consuming Ecologically Correct Products Will Not Save the Environment. GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2010, 19, 178–182.
  37. Aini, M.S.; Fakhru-Razi, A.; Lad, S.M.; Hashim, A.H. Practices, Attitudes and Motives for Domestic Waste Recycling. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2002, 9, 232–238.
  38. Geng, D.; Liu, J.; Zhu, Q. Motivating Sustainable Consumption among Chinese Adolescents: An Empirical Examination. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 315–322.
  39. Siebenhüner, B. Kann Die Politik Es Richten? Konsument (Inn) En Als Politische Akteure/Can Politics Solve It? Consumers as Political Actors. GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2011, 20, 14.
  40. Lassassi, M.; Ferrer-I-Carbonell, A.; van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. A Micro-Econometric Analysis of Determinants of Unsustainable Consumption in The Netherlands; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; Volume 27.
  41. Mohamed, A.M.A.; Al-Habaibeh, A.; Abdo, H.; Elabar, S. Towards Exporting Renewable Energy from MENA Region to Europe: An Investigation into Domestic Energy Use and Householders’ Energy Behaviour in Libya. Appl. Energy 2015, 146, 247–262.
  42. Sole, T.; Wagner, C. Understanding Domestic Fuel Use Practices in an Urban Township. Build. Res. Inf. 2018, 46, 220–230.
  43. Escoto Castillo, A.; Sánchez Peña, L. Diffusion of Electricity Consumption Practices in Mexico. Soc. Sci. 2017, 6, 144.
  44. Claudelin, A.; Järvelä, S.; Uusitalo, V.; Leino, M.; Linnanen, L. The Economic Potential to Support Sustainability through Household Consumption Choices. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3961.
  45. Zhang, H.; Lahr, M.L. Households’ Energy Consumption Change in China: A Multi-Regional Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2486.
  46. Papargyropoulou, E.; Lozano, R.; Steinberger, J.K.; Wright, N.; bin Ujang, Z. The Food Waste Hierarchy as a Framework for the Management of Food Surplus and Food Waste. J. Clean Prod. 2014, 76, 106–115.
  47. Annunziata, A.; Agovino, M.; Ferraro, A.; Mariani, A. Household Food Waste: A Case Study in Southern Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1495.
  48. Annunziata, A.; Scarpato, D. Factors Affecting Consumer Attitudes towards Food Products with Sustainable Attributes. Agric. Econ. 2014, 60, 353–363.
  49. Gielissen, R.B. Why Do Consumers Buy Socially Responsible Products? Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2011, 2, 21–35.
  50. Annunziata, A.; Vecchio, R. Consumers’ Attitudes towards Sustainable Food: A Cluster Analysis of Italian University Students. New Mediterr. J. Econ. Agric. Environ. Rev. 2013, 12, 47.
  51. Zhao, R.; Zhong, S. Carbon Labelling Influences on Consumers’ Behaviour: A System Dynamics Approach. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 51, 98–106.
  52. Wakefield, A.; Axon, S. “I’m a Bit of a Waster”: Identifying the Enablers of, and Barriers to, Sustainable Food Waste Practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 122803.
  53. Chen, T.B.; Chai, L.T. Attitude towards the Environment and Green Products: Consumers’ Perspective. Manag. Sci. Eng. 2010, 4, 27–39.
  54. Assarut, N.; Srisuphaolarn, P. Determinants of Green Product Purchase Intentions: The Roles of Environmental Consciousness and Product Attributes. Chulalongkorn Bus. Rev. 2010, 32, 108–122.
  55. Zhu, Q.; Li, Y.; Geng, Y.; Qi, Y. Green Food Consumption Intention, Behaviors and Influencing Factors among Chinese Consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 279–286.
  56. Van de Ven, D.J.; González-Eguino, M.; Arto, I. The Potential of Behavioural Change for Climate Change Mitigation: A Case Study for the European Union. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2018, 23, 853–886.
  57. Nguyen, N.; Greenland, S.; Lobo, A.; Nguyen, H.V. Demographics of Sustainable Technology Consumption in an Emerging Market: The Significance of Education to Energy Efficient Appliance Adoption. Soc. Responsib. J. 2019, 15, 803–818.
  58. Berry, S.; Whaley, D.; Saman, W.; Davidson, K. Finding Faults and Influencing Consumption: The Role of in-Home Energy Feedback Displays in Managing High-Tech Homes. Energy Effic. 2017, 10, 787–807.
  59. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211.
  60. Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action Control; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39.
  61. Wang, B.; Li, J.; Sun, A.; Wang, Y.; Wu, D. Residents’ Green Purchasing Intentions in a Developing-Country Context: Integrating PLS-SEM and MGA Methods. Sustainability 2020, 12, 30.
  62. Vining, J.; Ebreo, A. Predicting Recycling Behavior from Global and Specific Environmental Attitudes and Changes in Recycling Opportunities 1. J. Appl Soc. Psychol 1992, 22, 1580–1607.
  63. Tölkes, C.; Butzmann, E. Motivating Pro-Sustainable Behavior: The Potential of Green Events-A Case-Study from the Munich Streetlife Festival. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3731.
  64. Bauer, D.; Arnold, J.; Kremer, K. Consumption-Intention Formation in Education for Sustainable Development: An Adapted Model Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3455.
  65. Penz, E.; Hartl, B.; Hofmann, E. Explaining Consumer Choice of Low Carbon Footprint Goods Using the Behavioral Spillover Effect in German-Speaking Countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 429–439.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback