Introduction

Nowadays it is increasingly common for consumers to make more informed and environmentally friendly purchasing decisions. However, many of them are still not aware how much daily shopping adversely affects the natural environment (Tobler et al., 2011, p. 674–682).

Every-day consumption is one of the main sources of environmental pollution. Daily consumption drives mass production of plastic and causes rapidly growing landfill sites. Of course, recycling is highly important, nonetheless, it consumes energy (Toth & Szigeti, 2016, p. 283–291). Consumers are more and more aware of their destructive habits, changing them gradually until over time new ones become second nature (Kryk, 2011).

Being green has become trendy recently, however, brands often persuade consumers that they are environmentally friendly but in fact it is just marketing spin (Holdren & Ehrlich, 1974, p. 282–292).

We are currently faced with excessive consumption that leads to wastage of manufactured goods (overproduction), degradation of the natural environment, increased social disproportion on local and global levels, gradual destruction of non-renewable resources and other adverse climatic events (Basmann, 1956, p. 47–58).

Living an eco-friendly life means that we should primarily limit unnecessary shopping and consider if the product we want to buy is indispensable for us (Guath et al., 2022). A nature’s friend should consider products’ quality and lifespan. It is also important to think about a type of packaging, quantity and price (Bradley, 2009, p. 347–363).

Consumer preference and ecological awareness

Consumer preference is the subject of interest to economists and nutritionists, at the same time expertise in consumer preference would be manufacturers and vendors’ dream come true.(Tobi et al., 2019, p. 65–75) As it turns out consumers’ likes and dislikes are not solely determined by prices of goods or a person’s budget, but mostly by satisfaction, contentment and happiness associated with the product. Consumer theory describes consumer behaviour according to various selection criteria. Preference compared with consumer’s financial means allows us to forecast what goods will actually be purchased (Wierzbiński et al., 2021, p. 345). In the era of the consumer market, consumer preference is one of the basic factors taken into account in food purchasing decisions and it involves among others: brand (manufacturer), quality marks, certificates or other marks on a product label. Moreover, such decisions also entail type and size of packaging as well as appearance and taste of the product (Engel et al., 1973, p. 66–77).

Today consumers choose products that address their needs and preference. Purchasing decisions and manner of consumption are affected by many factors, i.e.: social, economic, psychological, and even philosophical (Basmann, 1956, p. 47–58). Decisions about buying certain goods are made in the human brain.(Trudel, 2019, p. 85–96) The process is very complex and thus people’s choices are different. For economists it is important that consumers can compare goods on offer and choose ones that suit them better.(Koreleska, 2017, p. 1119–1123). They do not analyse why a person chose a specific product and according to what criteria. Preference is therefore a result of a subjective selection process, which takes place in the consumer’s mind, and the choices are not always considered rational (Amberg & Fogarassy, 2019, p. 137–143).

Environmental awareness is a relationship with the natural environment, a collection of information and beliefs about the natural environment, and a system of environmental values that are fostered and cherished by an individual.(Kwon, 2011, p. 22–28) The concept of environmental awareness is used in two contexts. In a broader sense, environmental awareness is a complex of ideas, values and opinions about the natural environment as a place of residence for human beings and the development of the entire society. This meaning is common for specific groups in a given historic period (Wierzbiński et al., 2021, p. 345–349). In a narrower meaning, environmental awareness describes people’s knowledge, beliefs and opinions about a role of the natural environment in their own lives. Practical conceptualisation of environmental awareness also describes anthropogenic burden, degree of exploitation, threat and protection of the environment, as well as knowledge of means and instruments for nature conservation and the use of the respective knowledge (Kauf et al., 2017).

Deconsumption and eco-consumption

Deconsumption, also known as anti-consumerism or defensive consumption, is seen as a conscious and intended reduction of volume of consumed goods and services by to rational levels from a vantage point of an individual.(Byrska, 2021, p. 23–41) This means that consumers are responsible for their choices and decisions. We should keep in mind that deconsumption is an extremely broad concept, because it could mean reduction of volume in favour of quality, limitation of material consumption in favour of immaterial consumption, reduction of consumption to rational levels caused by disappointment and weariness, downgrading consumption in a system of values or for the sake of saving the natural environment (Zalega, 2013, p. 3–21). Thus, defensive consumption is determined by objective and subjective factors. The first of those are: globalization and detraditionalization, migration processes, longer life expectancy, disappearance of turning points between stages of human life, progress of civilization, intensification of innovations, changes in trading and trade institutions and direct State’s interference in consumption (Toth & Szigeti, 2016, pp. 283–291). Subjective factors, which contribute to deconsumption are as follows: growing awareness of the need to curb consumption, downgrading of consumption in a value system, weariness and disappointment with high consumption, growing interest for value of nature (opposition against increasing volume of consumer waste) and willingness to change a lifestyle. The literature on the subject distinguishes four key dimensions of deconsumption, which are (Byrska, 2021, pp. 23–41):

• limitation of consumption due to uncertain situation of households,
• limitation of consumed goods in favour of their quality,
• limitation of material consumption in favour of service consumption,
• limitation of consumption for rational reasons.

These consumption processes are related to eco-consumption, also called environmentally friendly consumption or sustainable consumption. Eco-consumption means the intended pursuit of individuals to minimize adverse effects of consumer and investment goods and services consumption through rationalization and utilisation of factors of consumptions (resources) and reduction in manufacturing and consumer waste (Cichocka & Pieczonka, 2001, pp. 108–125). Eco-consumption, like sustainable development, should be durable and sustainable. Durability means that consumption processes, which provide maximum utility to consumers over an indefinite timespan, become embedded. In other words, eco-consumption is an optimal, conscious and responsible use of available natural resources, goods and services by individuals, households, populations, local communities, business environments, local governments, national governments and international structures that follows sustainable development rules (Holdren & Ehrlich, 1974, pp. 282–292).

It needs to be highlighted that sustainable consumption is based on limitation of wastage, curbing pollution generation, as well as buying goods and services which meet certain utmost ethical, social and environmental criteria. The example of eco-consumption includes healthy food, purchasing reusable shopping bags, as well as transportation and tourism with a small environmental footprint. Eco-consumption gives rise to two consumer trends: conscious consumption and collaborative consumption. Conscious consumption, also called “ethical consumption” or “responsible consumption”, is understood as informed decision making which takes into account knowledge about social, environmental and political consequences (Brough et al., 2016, pp. 567–582). In practice, conscious consumption involves finding out about products and services – practices of companies behind them, manufacturing processes, possibilities of reprocessing and taking socially and environmentally responsible choices on the base of that knowledge (Mącik & Mącik, 2015, pp. 138–152).

In other words, conscious consumption refers to behaviour of a rational consumer, who has consideration for health, the environment, sustainable development and knowledge of the economy. However, we are observing this trend not only when we buy environmentally friendly products and services, but also when we leave the wallet in our pockets and look for better options. This means that we are slowly evolving into the consumer society, where “to have” becomes increasingly “to be“(Wasilik, 2014, pp. 66–74).

We should remember that conscious consumption analyses solutions such as reduction of consumption, sharing and reusing products. Moreover, ethical (conscious) consumption puts an emphasis on whole product life cycle; not only how the product was made, but also what happens to it when it is no longer needed. Environmentally conscious products include handicraft and low processed products, a whole range of so-called slow food products, that is slow life, slow travel, slow parenting, slow city. In recent times due to the current economic crisis, clothing swaps and up-cycling (processing waste to create something of a greater value) became trendy again in many countries around the world.(Kwon, 2011, pp. 22–28) On the other hand, collaborative consumption also called sharing, mesh, peer to peer economy or sharing economy is based on the idea of sharing and product/service approach that is concentrated on a product’s function and not on its ownership. In other words, we don’t need a DVD, only a film we want to watch. When we read a book, we can swap it for another. Collaborative consumption solutions range from typical exchange of favours by neighbours, through different types of libraries, to more and more widespread city bikes in Europe (a system that provides residents with short-term rental of bikes placed on special bicycle stands in selected city points) or car sharing systems (Witek, 2014, pp. 209–217). Thus, we might say that collaborative consumption is a consumption model, which facilitates borrowing, swapping, barter agreements or paid access to goods, in opposition to ownership (Botsman and Rogers, 2012: 15–16; Gansky, 2010: 56); it allows us not only to limit individual consumption and unnecessary purchases, but also strengthens integration and social bonds. French sociologist M. Maseffoli, commenting on the essence of collaborative consumption, points to the fact that the economic sphere (…) evolves under the influence of changes in lifestyles and value systems of inhabitants of postmodernity. The eco-sensitivity is permanently rising (Koreleska, 2017, pp. 1119–1123).

Nowadays, we are faced with excessive consumption, which generates waste (overproduction), and leads to environmental degradation, increases inequality in society on the local and global level, gradual destruction of non-renewable resources and other adverse events.(Hermaniuk, 2018, pp. 189–199)

Analysis of results of my own study

The online survey was conducted with 713 respondents. It is intended to find what aspects do consumers consider while making purchasing decisions. It was the author’s first exploratory data analysis. The survey was distributed online, and that affected anonymity of the research. Semantic differential questions were employed in the research. The survey was conducted in June 2020.

The respondents were both women (677, 95%), and men (36, 5%). As we can see, the majority of the survey participants are women, therefore men were excluded from analysis. The people taking part in the survey were aged 15 to 44, however, most of them were of the age from 25 to 34 – 51% and from 15 to 24 – 35%. The respondents aged 35 – 44 constitute 13% of all participants. This could be primarily attributed to the fact that people in this age range do not use social media as much as younger people do, and the survey was distributed through social media. The dominating group in the study was the generation that grew up with the Internet technology, and it may have been easier to reach them online. The respondents’ place of residence includes towns with over 100 thousand residents – 61%, villages – 26%, and smaller towns – 35%. The respondents’ incomes are proportionally diversified, however, more than half of the respondents have varying income per person in the household. The biggest group of respondents receive income of more than PLN 3000 (34 %). More than half of respondents have income of less than PLN 1500 per person. The respondents are educated – 58% of survey participants with higher education, and that factor can affect the level of income.

Most respondents (67%) are in employment, 25% are secondary school students or higher education students, 7% are unemployed.

Almost half (43%) of the participants have a partner, 37% cohabiting and 18% married. Only 1% is divorced. Almost 70% of respondents have children.

The study was conducted to analyse whether a relationship exists between gender, age, place of residence, level of income, education, professional status, marital status, the fact of having or not having children and the attitude to various specific activities related to protection of the natural environment. Question codes are provided in Table (Hermaniuk, 2018, pp. 189–199). Correlation coefficients are presented in Table 2, ρ-values for correlation coefficients are presented in Table 3.

Table 1. Question codes used in the paper.

Source: own study.

Table 2. Correlation coefficients. Correlation coefficients with low ρ-values are in bold – see Table 3.

Source: own study.

Table 3. P-values for calculated correlation coefficients. Low p-values are marked with “*” for ρ-value < 0.1, and “**” for ρ-value < 0.05.

Source: own study.

The correlation coefficients point to a weak relationship between the answers of the respondents to the survey questions and their age, place of residence, education, and level of income. In most cases where high ρ-values were obtained, no relationship was indicated. Low ρ-values, which could indicate the existence of weak correlations, were found for the question Q1ad (“I avoid plastic packaging”) and age and education, for the question Q1ae (“The material used for manufacturing packaging is for me more important than the price”) and age and education, for the question Q1af (“I know what zero waste is and I follow zero waste rules while I do my shopping”) and education, Education is the factor that has the strongest influence on answers to the survey questions.

In order to find out whether the fact of having or not having children influences interest in activities protecting the natural environment, the Mann-Whitney U test was run to compare medians of answers of respondents, who have and those who have not children. Results in the form of ρ-values were presented in Table 4. The low (<0.1) ρ-values were obtained twice: for the question Q1ae (“The material used for manufacturing the packaging is for me more important than the price”) and Q1an (“I go shopping with a shopping list and I do mindful shopping”). The results for those questions are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Correlation between having children and provided answers. The dots in the figure present outliers, “x” is an average value of answers in the group.

Source: own study.

Table 4. Results of Mann-Whitney U tests comparing answers provided by the respondents with and without children. Low ρ-values in the table are marked “*” for ρ value < 0.1.

Source: own study.

The Kruskal-Wallis test was run to find out whether marital or professional status affects answers to the survey questions. Results for the marital status are presented in Table 5. Because the group was small, the analysis does not include respondents with the following marital statuses: “legally separated”, “divorced” and “widow/widower”. No significant ρ-value was obtained for any of the considered survey questions.

Table 5. Results of Kruskal-Wallis tests comparing questions provided by the respondents with different marital statuses.

Source: own study.

The results of testing in respect of professional status are presented in Table 6. Similarly, as in the case of civil status, the analysis does not include the smallest group, which is pensioners. The groups provided different answers to two questions: Q1ae (“The material used for manufacturing the packaging is for me more important than the price”) and Q1ar (“I like following social media profiles that promote green behaviours”). Secondary school students/ higher education students were less likely to agree with the statement presented in the question Q1ae than other groups and more willing to agree with the statement in the question Q1ar. The differences are presented in Figure 2.

Table 6. Results of Kruskal-Wallis tests that compare answers provided by the respondents with different professional statuses. Low ρ-values are marked with: “*” for ρ-value < 0.1, and “**” for ρ-value < 0.05.

Source: own study.

It was verified whether the respondents provided similar answers to the question Q1ai (“I don’t use plastic bags provided by shops”) and Q1aj (“I think that packing fruit and vegetables in plastic makes no sense”). The correlation coefficient amounting to 0.464 indicates medium strength correlation between answers to those questions and low ρ-value <0.001 that points to the correlation.

Figure 2. Professional status and answers to survey questions. Outliers are marked with dots in the figure. “x” is the average value for the answers in the group.

Source: own study.

In the case of the question Qai (“I don’t use plastic bags provided by shops”) I decided to explore the profile of the people who expressed extreme disagreement with the statement in the question. To that end I used the chi-squared test to compare the distribution of features (such as age, education, professional status and marital status) in respect of the whole group of the respondents compared with the group of respondents who answered “I totally disagree”. The percentage of individual answers in both groups with test results are presented in Table 7. Very high ρ-values indicate a lack of any factors distinguishing respondents who unequivocally declared their using plastic bags provided by shops. The distribution of groups in respect of age, level of education, professional and marital status is similar compared with all the respondents.

Table 7. Percentage of individual answers in the whole group and the group providing answers “I totally disagree” to question Q1ai and chi-squared test results.

Source: own study.

Summary

Education is a factor that differentiates respondents the most in respect of answers provided to the survey questionnaire. Having or not having children does not affect the attitude of the respondents towards activities supporting protection of the natural environment. Persons who have children stand out in respect of doing mindful shopping with a shopping list. The analysis shows that they are willing to pay to buy products packed more sustainably (the question Q1ae). The situation is different in the case of students, who unlike other groups of professional status, are reluctant to pay more for better packaging. They stand out when it comes to social media use – they follow profiles promoting green behaviours (Q1ar). The marital status does not affect the attitude of the respondents towards protection of the environment. The answers of the respondents were quite consistent, which was shown in the comparison of the answers Q1ai and Q1aj with average correlation coefficient indicated by a low p-value. People who declare firmly that they use plastic bags in shops do not stand out in respect to any of the analysed aspects (age, gender, education, professional status, marital status) from the remaining respondents.

Conclusion

Consumer awareness when shopping is growing. However, a considerable proportion of the population still does not see the gravity of problems such as ocean and forest pollution and the range of other adverse events affecting the natural environment which are partially the outcome of excessive consumption often caused by wrong purchasing decisions. The media inform about global warming, the pollution of rivers and oceans, smog, droughts and floods. However, they do not often show ways for consumers to reduce environmental degradation. It all starts in every household with planning mindful shopping and in a shop by making proper purchasing decisions.

Each individual can follow simple zero waste rules (which are intended to reduce the use of goods and to reuse them) and take steps to reduce the level of environmental pollution by such simple acts as quitting the use of plastic bags and using reusable fabric bags instead, buying products in natural packaging without excessive materials, reducing consumption of water in plastic bottles and replacing them with filter jugs, segregating waste appropriately, buying local products to reduce CO2 emissions and taking informed decisions in shops so as not to buy products which go unused and are simply thrown away. Studying consumer awareness in the act of making purchasing decisions is extremely important from the researcher’s perspective. Therefore the author concentrates on the subject, in order to research the level of consumer environmental awareness whilst making purchasing decisions. When the author was writing the paper, she noted some research directions to follow in order to deepen the research and answer new research questions.

Bibliography

Amberg, N., & Fogarassy, C. (2019). Green consumer behavior in the cosmetics market. Resources, 8 (3), 137.

Basmann, R. L. (1956). A theory of demand with variable consumer preferences. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society, 47–58.

Bradley, K. (2009). Planning for eco-friendly living in diverse societies. Local Environment, 14 (4), 347–363.

Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E. B., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is Eco-Friendly Unmanly? The Green-Feminine Stereotype and Its Effect on Sustainable Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (4), 567–582. Https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw044

Byrska, J. M. M. (2021). Dekonsumpcja—Droga do wyzwolenia z konsumpcjonizmu. Kultura i Wartości, 31, 23–41. Https://doi.org/10.17951/kw.2021.31.23-41

Cichocka, I., & Pieczonka, W. (2001). Ekokonsumpcja i niektore jej uwarunkowania wsrod mlodziezy szkolnej i akademickiej. Żywność Nauka Technologia Jakość, 08 (3), 108–125.

Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. T., & Blackwell, R. D. (1973). Consumer behavior. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Guath, M., Stikvoort, B., & Juslin, P. (2022). Nudging for eco-friendly online shopping – Attraction effect curbs price sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101821. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101821

Hermaniuk, T. (2018). Postawy i zachowania konsumentów na rynku ekologicznych produktów żywnościowych. Handel Wewnętrzny, 2 (373), 189–199.

Holdren, J. P., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1974). Human Population and the Global Environment: Population growth, rising per capita material consumption, and disruptive technologies have made civilization a global ecological force. American Scientist, 62 (3), 282–292.

Kauf, S., T\luczak, A., & Lysenko-Ryba, K. (2017). The effects of perceived CSR and ecological awareness on purchase decisions in Poland. Organizacja i Zarządzanie: kwartalnik naukowy.

Koreleska, E. (2017). Production and market of ecological product in Poland. International scientific conference RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2017, 1119–1123.

Kryk, B. (2011). Konsumpcja Zrównoważona a Proekologiczne Style Życia: A sustainable consumption vs. Ecological lifestyles. Studia i Materialy Polskiego Stowarzyszenia Zarzadzania Wiedza / Studies & Proceedings Polish Association for Knowledge Management, 51, 206–218.

Kwon, O.-H. (2011). Eco-friendly semiconductor technologies for healthy living. 2011 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference, 22–28.

Mącik, R., & Mącik, D. (2015). Style podejmowania decyzji zakupowych konsumenta oraz ich pomiar. Studia Ekonomiczne / Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Katowicach. Ekonomia, 2 (nr 236), 138–152.

Tobi, R. C., Harris, F., Rana, R., Brown, K. A., Quaife, M., & Green, R. (2019). Sustainable diet dimensions. Comparing consumer preference for nutrition, environmental and social responsibility food labelling: A systematic review. Sustainability, 11 (23), 6575.

Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, 57 (3), 674–682.

Toth, G., & Szigeti, C. (2016). The historical ecological footprint: From over-population to over-consumption. Ecological Indicators, 60, 283–291. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.040

Trudel, R. (2019). Sustainable consumer behavior. Consumer psychology review, 2 (1), 85–96.

Wasilik, K. (2014). Trendy w zachowaniach współczesnych konsumentów – konsumpcjonizm a konsumpcja zrównoważona. Konsumpcja i Rozwój, 1 (6), 66–74.

Wierzbiński, B., Surmacz, T., Kuźniar, W., & Witek, L. (2021). “The role of the ecological awareness and the influence on food preferences in shaping pro-ecological behavior of young consumers.” (“EconPapers: The Role of the Ecological Awareness and the Influence on …”) Agriculture, 11 (4), 345.

Witek, L. (2014). Typologia konsument&#243;w na rynku produkt&#243;w ekologicznych. Marketing i Zarządzanie, 35, 209–217.

Zalega, T. (2013). Nowe trendy i makrotrendy w zachowaniach konsumenckich gospodarstw domowych w XXI w. Konsumpcja i Rozwój, 2 (5), 3–21.