Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 1

Environmental Engagement and Product Knowledge among Consumers of Electric Light
Bulbs in Albany, California

Michael George Hansen


Abstract Although most marketing researchers have defined green consumers by how
frequently they purchase environmentally-friendly products, purchase behavior is a poor measure
of how consistently a consumer practices environmentally sustainable consumption behavior
since consumers may behave unsustainably in other parts of the consumption process including
use and disposal. The present research inductively explores the role of consumer product
knowledge in influencing general environmental engagement throughout the consumption
process, including both purchase and non-purchase attitudes and behaviors. Eleven customers of
the Albany, CA Safeway at Curtis and Solano were interviewed regarding their purchase, use,
disposal, and perception of electric light bulbs. All of those interviewed exhibited only general
knowledge about the environmental impacts of consuming the electric light bulbs they purchased
and used in their home, and none exhibited strong pro-environmental attitudes. Although
interviewees who were more knowledgeable did express greater environmental engagement
throughout the consumption process, many confounding variables were identified in this
relationship. Normative pressure in the form of perceived social expectations and spousal
pressure was identified as being important, especially with regard to recycling behavior. Further
study is required to identify significant relationships.
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 2


Introduction
The environmental sustainability movement established in the 1970s has reached a new level
of public recognition since the turn of the 21
st
century, likely in response to recent widespread
recognition of environmental crises such as global warming. Within this context it has become
popular to stress a bottom-up approach to solving environmental issues, a strategy that is
achieved when large numbers of individuals consistently behave in environmentally-sustainable
ways. However the efficacy of these strategies in mitigating environmental harm is contingent
upon how we define individual sustainable behavior, and while there have been varied
attempts to define such behavior in terms of social, economic and environmental moral
guidelines it is generally recognized that one of its main goals should be the unimpaired
maintenance of human life-support systems--environmental sink and source capacities.
(Goodland 1995) To meet this goal, environmentally-sustainable behaviors must involve careful
consideration of ones actions and the consequences of those actions with regard to established
sustainability criteria, such as minimizing resource use.
This research adopts the view that environmental sustainability must be grounded in the
individuals critical assessment of acts in reference to their effects on human life-support
systems. In this view the criteria being used to evaluate environmentally sustainable behaviors
does not matter as long as the actors goal is to maintain human life-support systems and
minimize damage to those systems. Throughout this research the terms environmentally
sustainable consumer and environmentally conscious consumer will be used interchangeably.
In recent years consumers have also shown increasing awareness of and concern with many
of the environmental sustainability problems associated with consumption, such as pollution and
waste generation, and these environmentally-conscious or green consumers are often cited as
being a significant driving force in both global and regional markets (Kilbourne and Beckmann
1998). In response to increasing consumer environmental concerns, many producers have
inaugurated a set of new marketing techniques, collectively referred to as green marketing,
which are aimed at recruiting environmentally-aware consumers through advertisement of
products which claim to meet sustainability criteria. This web of interactions between green
consumers, producers and markets is colloquially called green consumerism. Green
consumerism is often promoted as having the potential to address many of the environmentally
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 3

unsustainable aspects of traditional consumerism and consumption, and it has been suggested
that this potential can be realized when consumers conscientiously purchase products which meet
sustainability criteria (Green et al. 1996). In theory this would increase demand for ecofriendly
products and would induce existing producers to switch their production towards more
environmentally sustainable ends, or push producers who will not change out of the market
entirely so that more environmentally-friendly firms can take their place. This idea has been
successfully adapted by the U.S. Department of Energy as implemented though its Energy Star
program, which claims that over 20 million metric tons of carbon emissions, or approximately
0.3% of total 2002 U.S. carbon emissions (U.S. EPA 2008), have been eliminated as a result of
increasing household and commercial consumption of energy-efficient, Energy Star certified
appliances (Energy Star 2003).
Much of the research conducted on green consumers has adopted this purchase behavior
orientation, typically defining green consumers in terms of whether these consumers purchase
products that make environmental claims or whether their purchase behavior is mediated by
environmental attitudes. Some researchers have attempted to classify green consumers by
measuring their relative environmental involvement (e.g. Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius 1995),
and others by hypothetical purchase behavior for products with positive environmental
characteristics (e.g. Shrum et al. 1995). Still others, primarily marketing researchers, have
attempted to find correlations between socio-demographic variables and environmentally-
conscious purchase behavior (for a review of this method see Diamantopoulos et al. 2003).
Although a few studies have found statistically significant correlations between green purchase
behavior and variables such as gender, age and environmental attitudes these correlations have at
best resulted in vague classifications of green consumers that do not describe any particular
relationship between purchase behavior and these variables. The lack of consensus on how to
classify green consumers has historically been blamed upon poor study design and driven the
development of a myriad of different measures of greenness, yet most of these studies have
failed to find a reliable causal relationship between the specific characteristics of an individual
and green purchasing behavior (Peattie 2001).
This focus on purchase behavior is misleading because it focuses solely upon a consumers
evaluation of different purchase options, ignoring their consideration of non-purchase options
and even sustainable consumption behaviors unrelated to the purchase decision. In particular,
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 4

Peattie (2001) recognized the fact that a consumer who consistently attempts to meet
environmental sustainability criteria throughout the consumption process might make the same
purchase decisions as a fit and forget green consumer (p 196) who does not exert much effort
to meet sustainability criteria but who is influenced by green marketing schemes. Purchase
behavior is thus an unreliable way of classifying truly sustainable consumers: consumers who
actively and critically assess the potential consequences of their consumption behaviors with
regard to a set of sustainability criteria.
Instead, Peattie suggested looking at the entire consumption process as existing in four
discreet phases and classifying sustainable consumers by how consistently they behaved in an
environmentally sustainable manner within each phase. In this research the four phases of the
consumption process have been adapted as: prepurchase-phase, or phase where potential
consumers decide whether to purchase a new product or to adopt what Peattie (2001) calls a
mend and make do attitude and simply make do with what they already have; purchase-phase,
or phase concerning a consumers active consideration of a products environmental
characteristics relative to substitutes; use and maintenance-phase, or phase that encompasses the
many different environmentally sustainable behaviors related to the use of a product such as
performing routine maintenance to extend its life; disposal-phase, or phase that contains
consumer behaviors which promote the sustainability of the product at its end-life, such as
attempting to recycle a broken product. This method of classification is supported by research
looking at people who practice sustainable behaviors minimizing their purchase of new products,
such as ecofeminists, as these environmentalists tend to stress the prepurchase phase of the
consumption process in finding alternatives to the purchase of new products (Dobscha and
Ozanne 2001).
In addition to suppressing the role of non-purchase behavior within the larger consumption
process the focus on purchase behavior tends to downplay consumer consideration of a products
environmental impacts throughout its lifecycle (e.g. recyclability). While increasing
environmental concern among consumers has influenced advertising decisions to meet consumer
demands for more complete and accurate information about a products environmental impacts,
such information is rarely complete or readily available to consumers (Church 1994, Prakash
2002). Environmental activists have been particularly vocal in demanding better product
information, but consumers in general seem to both desire and value more complete information
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 5

about their purchases. For some, this interest appears to be expanding beyond the purchase and
use of a product, with increasing demands for knowledge about a products environmental
impacts throughout its lifecycle.
Consideration of the entire product lifecycle is an important issue when trying to identify
sustainable consumers, since many products can have significant environmental impacts during
their manufacture or disposal. This issue is best exemplified by the impacts of compact
fluorescent lights (CFLs). Although CFLs have many positive environmental characteristics
within the use phase of its life, including being much more energy efficient than traditional
incandescent lights, each CFL also contains a small amount of elemental mercury and has
important environmental impacts in the disposal phase of their lifecycle. Aucott et al. (2003)
recognized the danger that broken CFLs could pose to consumers and refuse workers in
neighborhoods with curbside trash, where broken bulbs in sealed garbage containers could allow
accumulation of mercury vapor. Eckelman et al. (2008) found that poor recycling rates of spent
CFL bulbs could lead to significant mercury emissions at least on a local scale.
In this context it is crucial to consider a products environmental impacts in all phases of its
lifecycle, which encompasses the design, manufacture, distribution, use, maintenance, and
disposal aspects of a products life (Yang et al. 2007). For the purposes of this research, which
takes the perspective of consumers, the lifecycle of an electric light bulb can be roughly divided
into three phases: manufacture, use, and disposal. The manufacture-phase of the light bulbs
lifecycle includes raw material and energy inputs used to construct and package the bulb and
toxic or otherwise harmful outputs from the manufacturing and distribution process (e.g.
vaporized mercury lost during manufacturing of CFLs). The use-phase of the electric light bulbs
lifecycle encompasses its environmental impacts during normal usage of the bulb, such as
average energy use. Finally the disposal-phase includes the electric light bulbs end-of-life
environmental impacts, such as recyclability and material/energy inputs to recycling.
While empirically I have observed that information about electric light bulbs environmental
impacts in the use-phase of its lifecycle is widely available and frequently advertised through
labeling and programs like Energy Star (Energy Star), as a consumer I have seen very little
readily available information about the disposal-phase of electric light bulbs lifecycle and even
less about the manufacture-phase. Since this information is less widely available, true
sustainable consumers are likely to have put more effort into researching the manufacture and
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 6

disposal impacts of electric light bulb consumption and knowledge in these areas will likely
allow differentiation between green consumers, or consumers who make green purchase
decisions but do not practice sustainable behavior throughout the consumption process, and
sustainable consumers.
This research explores the relationship between consumer product knowledge and the
adoption of sustainable consumption behaviors, and attempts to answer the following research
questions. First, do consumers of electric light bulbs possess knowledge about the real
environmental impacts of consuming electric light bulbs throughout part or all of their
lifecycle? Second, how does such knowledge affect their consumption behavior? Third,
what other variables influence adoption of sustainable consumption behavior?
The following trends are hypothesized:
H1.1: household consumers of electric light bulbs possess at least some general knowledge
about the real environmental consequences of consuming electric light bulbs in part or all
of their lifecycle.
H1.2: household consumers of electric light bulbs, in general, possess some knowledge about
the environmental impact of a particular type of electric light bulbs use relative to other
types of electric light bulbs, but possess little or no knowledge about the bulbs
environmental impacts in the disposal and manufacture phases of its lifecycle
H2: household consumers of electric light bulbs who are knowledgeable about the
environmental impacts of electric light bulbs throughout most or all of their lifecycle will
report having engaged in more sustainable behaviors outside of the purchase phase of the
consumption process (i.e. use and maintenance; disposal) than consumers who do not
possess such knowledge.
To address these questions and hypotheses and to develop a viable theoretical model for
understanding the role of knowledge and sustainable behavior within the larger consumption
process, this research employed qualitative interview methods to obtain free-response data from
consumers of electric light bulbs at a Safeway retailer in Albany, California.

Methods
Since little is known about the role that consumer knowledge plays in adoption of sustainable
consumption behavior and attitudes, and no existing theoretical models have been proven
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 7

effective in predicting behavior, this research was primarily inductive to allow identification of
new variables and relationships. To measure consumer knowledge of the environmental impacts
of electric light bulb consumption and to develop a theoretical model for understanding how this
knowledge may lead to adoption of sustainable consumption behaviors and attitudes this research
collected qualitative, free-response interview data from consumers who have purchased electric
light bulbs. Since this is a small-scale study I did not attempt to generalize any results outside of
the sample population.
Study System The subjects for this study were English-speaking household consumers of
electric light bulbs aged 18 or older who shop at the Safeway store on Curtis and Solano in
Albany, California. English-speaking consumers have been chosen because the financial and
time constraints of the study did not allow hiring of translators, and though significant
differences could be present between English and non-English speakers such inferences are
beyond the scope of this study.
Data Collection Twelve interviews were conducted with consumers at the Albany Safeway
on Saturday, February 21 and Saturday, February 28. One interviewee did not meet the inclusion
criteria and the data from that interview were excluded from the study. Sampling occurred
between the hours of 1:00 pm and 5:00 pm on February 21, and between the hours of 10:30 am
and 4:00 pm on February 28. These hours were chosen to obtain a diverse cross-section of
working consumers, including both those who work the traditional nine-to-five job and those
who start work later in the day. On each sampling day a small folding table with three chairs was
set up near the main entrance to the retailer prior to the start of sampling for the comfort of the
participant and any of their companions during the interview.
Customers entering the store were selected for participation via systematic randomization.
The first customer to approach the main store entrance after five minutes had elapsed from the
starting time of sampling was selected for participation, and thereafter the first person to
approach the entrance to the store five minutes after the end of the last interview was selected.
Selected persons were approached and read a recruitment script giving the participant
information about the study, as well as determining the eligibility of the subject.
All interviews were conducted by a single researcher, guided by an interview script (see
Appendix B). Guiding questions were used to elicit responses and probes were used to pursue
new topics of interest elucidated through responses to the guiding questions. This method of
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 8

interviewing fit the objectives of this research in ultimately constructing a theoretical model of
sustainable consumer consumption behavior, since it maintains flexibility in the addition of new
variables. Ten of the 11 interviews were audiotaped, and written notes were taken for all
interviews.
Variables of Interest The main dependant variable in this research is the degree of
consumer environmental engagement as measured though both the prevalence of sustainable
household electric light bulb consumption behaviors and the presence and strength of attitudes
relating to consumer environmental sustainability. The main independent variable being
measured in this research is depth and breadth of knowledge about the environmental impacts of
electric light bulbs throughout their lifecycle. Knowledge of electric light bulbs environmental
impact was broken down into three lifecycle stages: manufacture, use, and disposal.
Relative concern with economic versus environmental issues related to electric light bulb
consumption was also explored. This variable was included since consumers who are primarily
concerned with economic or environmental issues may possess different knowledge sets and
practice fundamentally different consumption behaviors to meet their concerns, thus
confounding the relationships between knowledge and behavior. This variable was measured
through an open-ended question.
Socio-demographic variables were also recorded including ethnicity, gender, income level,
education level, marital status and number of dependent children (see Appendix A). These socio-
demographic variables have been selected based upon previous studies which found some
significant correlations between these variables and the purchase of green products
(Diamantopoulos et al. 2003). Socio-demographic variables were measured through a short
questionnaire given at the start of each interview.
Although this study employed a deductive framework to guide data collection its primary
goal was to identify other independent variables that could influence the degree of consumer
environmental engagement.
Data Analysis Interview data were transcribed electronically and subjected to multiple
rounds of coding and analysis. Manifest content analysis was performed on interview transcripts
to identify the relationships between the dependant and independent variables and test the
hypotheses. The manifest content analysis focused on categorizing responses into knowledge and
behavior categories and counting the frequencies of each category. Knowledge categories
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 9

consisted of knowledge of environmental impacts within each lifecycle phase: manufacture, use,
and disposal. Behavior categories consisted of behavior relevant to each phase of the
consumption process: prepurchase, purchase, use and maintenance, and disposal.
Latent content analysis focusing on implicit influences was also performed on interview
transcripts to identify potential variables of interest and their relationships with the dependent
variable. This form of latent content analysis, suggested by Babbie (2007), is useful to help
identify new variables and describe the relationships between newly identified variables.
While it is impossible to eliminate bias in such research due to the subjective nature of
coding and qualitative data analysis, rigorous testing of the research hypotheses through this set
of methods will minimize such bias and still meet the research objectives.

Results
General Knowledge After coding began it was apparent that new categories for manifest
content analysis needed to be constructed to test the first hypothesis that consumers possessed
general knowledge about the environmental impacts of consuming electric light bulbs.
Interviewees product knowledge was thus grouped into four general categories reflecting each
interviewees primary motivation in possessing that knowledge: environmental, economic,
neutral, and aesthetic. Five interviewees (45%) exhibited knowledge relevant to the
environmental impacts of electric light bulbs, and all five were concerned only with the
recyclability of electric light bulbs. Eight interviewees (73%) exhibited knowledge that was
neutral, or could be relevant to both the environmental and economic impacts of electric light
bulbs. Two of these interviewees (18% of sample) cited the lifespan of electric light bulbs as
important, another two interviewees (18%) cited energy efficiency, and the other four
interviewees (36%) cited both as important considerations. Three interviewees (27%) exhibited
knowledge about the economic impacts of electric light bulbs including both initial and long-
term costs, though all three also expressed possession of environmental and neutral knowledge.
Five interviewees (45%) exhibited knowledge about the aesthetics of electric light bulbs, in
particular that they considered the CFLs light quality inferior to the incandescents. Four of
these five interviewees reported that they primarily purchased incandescent light bulbs.
Two interviewees (18%) displayed no relevant knowledge at all about electric light bulbs.
One of these interviewees could not differentiate between the different types of electric light
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 10

bulbs and were unable to identify the type of light bulb they typically purchased, despite having
reported being the primary purchaser of electric light bulbs for their home. The interviewee
referred to the type of light bulbs he has purchased and used as just the standard [bulbs]. Three
other interviewees (27%) were able to identify the type of light bulb they typically purchased
only after being shown pictures of the four main types of light bulbs.
Lifecycle Environmental Impact Knowledge Knowledge was also categorized into each
lifecycle phase: manufacturing, use, and disposal. No interviewees cited any manufacturing
concerns with electric light bulbs or expressed any manufacture-phase knowledge, despite being
asked directly about the potential manufacturing concerns of electric light bulbs.
Eight interviewees of the total population (73%) exhibited knowledge that could be related to
the use-phase environmental impacts of electric light bulbs. Specifically, these interviewees cited
two general claims about the use-phase impacts of CFLs versus incandescent bulbs: that the CFL
was more energy efficient than the incandescent, and that the CFL had a longer usable lifespan.
Four of the eight (36% of sample) cited both claims as advantages, two cited only energy
efficiency as an advantage (18%), and two cited only longer life (18%).
Five interviewees (45%) expressed knowledge related to the disposal-phase environmental
impacts, with all five interviewees citing concerns with the recyclability of electric light bulbs.
Three of the five (27% of sample) mentioned specifically that the mercury content of CFLs made
them difficult to recycle. One of these three was also concerned with the toxicity of disposed
CFL bulbs, and was able to clearly articulate that the mercury is bad for the fish. One
interviewee mentioned that incandescent bulbs contained lead and that this made them difficult
to recycle. Yet another of the five interviewees cited concerns with recycling CFLs based on a
vague notion that there might be something in the fluorescent that is not easily disposed of but
was unable to identify the substance of concern.
Behaviors and Attitudes Behavior was grouped into each of the four phases of the
consumption process: prepurchase, purchase, use and maintenance, and disposal. In terms of
prepurchase behavior, only one interviewee reported having actively searched for information
about the environmental impacts of different kinds of electric light bulbs. The interviewee said
that he primarily purchased CFLs.
Four interviewees (36%) mentioned comparative environmental characteristics of different
types of electric light bulbs and indicated that they had considered these characteristics in their
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 11

purchase-phase decision. Three of these interviewees primarily purchased CFLs, while the
fourth primarily purchased incandescents. The three interviewees who primarily purchased CFLs
all cited its greater energy efficiency and longer lifespan as advantageous compared with the
incandescent. None these interviewees directly cited manufacturing phase or disposal phase
lifecycle impacts in their comparisons.
Nine interviewees (82%) reported actively engaging in some kind of energy-conservation
behavior related to the use and maintenance-phase. Four of these interviewees (36%) reported
making an effort to turn off the lights in unoccupied rooms, three (27%) reported installing
dimmers and/or automatic shutoff devices for the purpose of conserving energy, two (18%)
stated that they had actively arranged the lighting in a room to minimize electric light use and
maximize lighting, and two (18%) reported relying upon natural sunlight during the day instead
of using electric lights. None of these interviewees exhibited strong environmental attitudes
related to the consumption of electric light bulbs.
Although five interviewees (45%) cited concerns with the recycling of electric light bulbs,
only one actually reported making an effort to recycle his electric light bulbs while the other four
reported throwing spent or broken bulbs into the trash. Three of the interviewees who did not
recycle their bulbs primarily purchased incandescent light bulbs while the fourth primarily
purchased CFLs. The one interviewee who recycled said that he primarily purchased
incandescent light bulbs but that he was in the process of replacing his fixtures with CFLs and
that his recycling behavior concerned primarily CFLs. When this interviewee was asked why he
recycled his CFLs, he responded that:
[My wife] has told me that you have to be careful when you throw [CFLs]
away. She says to be careful with everything you throw away, but she has
mentioned it to me. And to be honest with you, we talk about so much stuff that it
is just one of those things that when it happens Ill be like oh, so what did you
say about that? (February 28, 2009)
When the other four interviewees were asked why they did not try to recycle their light bulbs
all answered that they did not know how to properly dispose of them. When pressed further, two
interviewees (18%) stated that they wanted to dispose of their electric light bulbs properly but
that it was hard to find information on how to properly recycle their light bulbs. A third
interviewee stated that information was widely available on the internet, but he admitted that this
information took a lot of time to research and collect and he had not exerted the required effort.
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 12

Population Composition The sample population tended to be composed of three main
groups: middle-aged or older (41+) men (36%); middle-aged or older (41+) women (27%);
younger (25-40) men (27%). One younger (25-30) woman was also interviewed. All of those
aged 31 or older reported having at least some masters or professional degree educational
experience. 55% of the sample population reported being currently married, 36% reported that
they were single, and one interviewee reported being divorced. Four interviewees (36%) reported
that they had dependent children living in their home, three of whom said they had two
dependent children living with them while the fourth reported having only one dependent child.
Eight interviewees (64%) identified their primary ethnicity as White/Caucasian of non-Hispanic
decent, with the rest (one interviewee each) reporting biracial White/Caucasian and African
American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Other.

Discussion
Several important trends are evident from the interview data. First, most interviewed
consumers did possess some knowledge about the environmental impacts of consuming electric
light bulbs, confirming the hypothesis that consumers do possess general knowledge about the
environmental impacts of their consumption behavior. However this knowledge was limited in
both breadth and depth as individual consumers were only knowledgeable about one or two
issues at a time and could not give many details or cite metrics to support their claims, e.g. that
CFLs use 12% of the energy that incandescents use. Moreover, many of those interviewed who
were knowledgeable about use-phase impacts seemed to be primarily concerned with economic
rather than environmental motivations, indicating a general low-level of environmental
engagement among these consumers. Second, most interviewed consumers tended to be
knowledgeable of use-phase impacts and a significant fraction knew of disposal-phase impacts
but none could cite any manufacture-phase impacts, partially supporting the hypothesis that
consumers would be most knowledgeable about use-phase impacts and less knowledgeable about
disposal-phase and manufacture-phase impacts. Third, consumers who were more
knowledgeable about use-phase lifecycle impacts did report engaging in use-phase energy
conservation behavior more often than consumers who were less knowledgeable, supporting the
hypothesis that knowledge predicts behavior, but this relationship is weak as evidenced by the
lack of correlation between disposal-phase knowledge and recycling behavior.
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 13

General and Lifecycle Knowledge While information about the use-phase environmental
impacts of CFLs and other electric light bulbs abound and is easily accessed by most consumers
either through government agency websites (Energy Star), television commercials, and even on
the packaging itself, the limited scope of consumer knowledge about the environmental impacts
of their consumption behavior is not surprising considering that adoption of knowledge is a
complex process. Still, the lack of consumer knowledge surrounding manufacture-phase impacts
and limited knowledge of disposal-phase impacts likely reflects the lack of easily accessed
information.
Although interviewed consumers were not asked directly about where they learned particular
facts about electric light bulbs, several consumers were asked about the types of information
sources they used and whether they thought these sources provided adequate information. These
consumers generally reported that they used the internet to search producer websites and that
they had read online news articles about CFLs and other electric light bulbs in passing. However,
these consumers also reported that they thought these sources of information did not contain
enough specific information about recycling electric light bulbs, and that they did not actively
search for this information because it took too much time and effort to collect. Thus, perceived
and actual information availability is likely to be an important influence on consumer knowledge
acquisition and future research should include these variables.
Knowledge and Behavior In the case of interviewed consumers who practiced use-phase
energy conservation behavior, knowledge of the energy-conservation potential of CFLs did play
an important role in adoption of sustainable behaviors. Many of these consumers claimed that
they were actively replacing the incandescent light bulbs in their house with CFLs because of its
greater energy efficiency, in addition to implementing energy conservation behavior such as
turning off lights in unused rooms. However, the discouraging lack of correlation between
knowledge of disposal issues and recycling behavior indicates that that knowledge is not an
overriding factor but is only part of a complex system of variables that determine behavior. This
is not a new revelation as many authors have suggested that adoption of sustainable behavior is a
complex process involving attitudes, personal disposition, social norms, and various inhibiting
and encouraging social factors (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). But in this relatively simple case
of electric light bulb consumption where sustainable behaviors are easily adopted and widely
encouraged one might have expected knowledge to play a primary role.
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 14

Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed a general lack of strong pro-environmental
attitudes among the sampled consumers, and it is likely that limited motivation was responsible
for the weak correlation between knowledge and behavior. Shah et al. (2007) and Buttel (2003)
have proposed that pro-environmental consumer behavior is primarily driven by political
motivations and is in essence a form of political consumerism. Considering that many consumer
environmental issues such as recycling have been highly politicalized at the governmental and
community level, political orientation and attitudes are likely to be key influences on the
adoption of environmentally-sustainable consumption behavior surrounding these issues. This is
likely to be true for electric light bulb consumption in particular given the large amount of
attention environmental groups have given to CFLs. Future research should aim to include
consumers with strong environmental attitudes to explore the relationship between political
motivation, knowledge, and adoption of sustainable behavior.
Spousal pressure was revealed by the latent and manifest content analyses to be an important
influence upon both use-phase and disposal-phase behavior. Adoption of use-phase sustainable
behavior was higher among married consumers than single or divorced individuals, and the only
consumer who actively recycled his CFLs reported that his wife strongly encouraged him to
recycle those bulbs. While previous research has found little correlation between marital status
and adoption of green purchase behavior, such research has found significant correlations with
the number of children in the household (Diamantopoulos et al. 2003). Though these studies only
looked at purchase behavior, this suggests that spousal pressure may act synergistically with the
presence of children in the household to encourage adoption of sustainable consumption
behavior. Although in the present study differences between married consumers with dependent
children and without dependent children were not observed, the sample was too small to rule out
this possibility and future research should address this relationship.
Limitations The variation in the quality and quantity of knowledge seems to indicate that a
stricter definition of knowledge should be applied to future studies in order to take into account
the degree of specificity. It should be noted that it is distinctly possible that interviewees
misunderstood the intent of the guiding questions and did not state more specific information for
that reason. However, the possibility that these consumers really did not know anything more
specific must be considered as well.
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 15

The motivation behind consumers expression of certain kinds of knowledge, such as energy
efficiency and longer bulb life, remains unclear since these characteristics are pertinent to both
environmental issues of energy conservation and waste reduction as well as economic. When
prompted to explain why they considered energy efficiency and longer bulb life significant
advantages of the CFL over incandescent bulbs, two responses emerged: that longer bulb life
meant less trouble with having to replace burnt-out bulbs, and that greater energy efficiency lead
to long-term cost savings. Only one of the interviewed consumers stated that greater energy
efficiency was good for the environment, a rather vague claim. Thus, possession of these types
of knowledge should be suspect as indicators of environmental engagement. In future studies,
motivation should be clearly measured along with knowledge possession.
Although one might expect knowledge of the environmental impacts of electric light bulb
consumption to increase with education level, the data suggests that there is no relationship
between education level and depth or breadth of knowledge in any of the life cycle phases.
However the sample population was generally older and more well-educated than one would
expect of the typical urban community, with 61% of the sample population consisting of 41-65+
individuals all with at least some masters or professional degree experience. This may be a result
of sampling exclusively in one Albany communitys grocery stores, or may reflect a greater
willingness among well-educated, older adults to participate in the research. With little
representation from consumers who have attained less education and the confounding influence
of age, no conclusions can be definitively drawn from this result.
Finally, light bulbs are relatively inexpensive and inconspicuous items and it is possible that
they represent a trivial choice to most consumers. In the case of electric light bulbs it may be that
only consumers with strong environmental attitudes are motivated enough by knowledge of
consumption impacts to change their behavior, and that economic and aesthetic concerns
primarily motivate less passionate environmentally-conscious consumers.

Conclusion
While many commercial advertisers, environmental NGOs like Greenpeace, and even
governmental agencies have touted the power of buying green to help solve global
environmental issues from the bottom up using products like the CFL, these actions do not seem
to have translated into sustainable consumer behavior in this instance. Despite the wide
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 16

availability of information about the environmental impacts of using different kinds of electric
light bulbs on the internet and even though product packaging, consumers in this study possessed
only the most general sense of the environmental concerns surrounding their consumption habits.
For phases of the light bulbs lifecycle where little information is available, such as
manufacturing and disposal, these consumers knew even less. Yet these consumers do practice
sustainable behaviors, such as considering the energy efficiency of a certain type of light bulb
when purchasing electric lights and actively turning off lights in unoccupied rooms. These
behaviors are likely mediated primarily by other variables such as economic incentives in the
case of energy conservation behavior, or social norms in the case of recycling. Consumer
adoption of sustainable behavior likely involves a complex system of variables, of which
knowledge is only one part, and policies aimed at encouraging sustainable consumption behavior
need to consider these variables to be effective.
Still, without proper knowledge consumers cannot be expected to be environmentally
engaged regardless of their attitudes, so knowledge acquisition and information provision are
paramount to understanding sustainable consumer behavior. Social influences, such as spousal
pressure, are likely large influences upon consumers and these effects of these variables will
have to be explored in future research.

Acknowledgements
I thank my research mentor, Professor Alastair Iles, PhD at UC Berkeley Dept.
Environmental Science and Policy Management for his substantial advice and input throughout
this projects development. I also thank Gabrielle Wong-Parodi at UC Berkeley Energy and
Resources Group, and Robin Turner at UC Berkeley Dept. Political Science for their advice and
input in both writing this thesis and in helping me develop this research project.

References
Aucott, M., M. McLinden, and M. Winka. 2003. Release of mercury from broken fluorescent
bulbs. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 53:143-151.

Babbie, E.R. 2007. Content analysis. The practice of social research. Belmont, California:
Thomson/Wadsworth. Pp. 320-328.

Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 17

Buttel, F. 2003. Environmental sociology and the explanation of environmental reform.
Organization & Environment 16: 306-44.

Church, J. M. 1994. A market solution to green marketing - some lessons from the economics of
information. Minnesota Law Review 79:245-329.

Diamantopoulos, A., B. B. Schlegelmilch, R. R. Sinkovics, and G. M. Bohlen. 2003. Can socio-
demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? a review of the evidence and an
empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research 56:465-480.

Dobscha, S. and J. L. Ozanne. 2001. An ecofeminist analysis of environmentally sensitive
women using qualitative methodology: the emancipatory potential of an ecological life.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 20:201-214.

Eckelman, M. J., P. T. Anastas, and J. B. Zimmerman. 2008. Spatial assessment of net mercury
emissions from the use of fluorescent bulbs. Environment Science and Technology
(upcoming publication).

Energy Star. Compact fluorescent light bulbs.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls, accessed April 21, 2008

Energy Star. 2003. Energy Star - the power to protect the environment through energy efficiency.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/downloads/energy_star_report_aug_2003.pdf,
accessed October 27, 2008.

Goodland, R. 1995. The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 26:1-24.

Green, K, B. Morton and S. New. 1996. Purchasing and environmental management:
interactions, policies and opportunities. Business Strategy and the Environment 5: 188-97.

Kilbourne, W. E. and S. C. Beckmann. 1998. Review and critical assessment of research on
marketing and the environment. Journal of Marketing Management 14:513-532.

Kollmuss, A and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8: 239-
60.

Peattie, K. 2001. Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer. Business
strategy & the environment 10:187-199.

Prakash, A. 2002. Green marketing, public policy and managerial strategies. Business strategy &
the environment 11:285-297.

Rosenbloom, Stephanie. 2008. Home Depot offers recycling for compact fluorescent bulbs. The
New York Times, June 24 2008.
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 18


Schuhwerk, M. E. and R. Lefkoff-Hagius. 1995. Green or non-green - does type of appeal matter
when advertising a green product? Journal of Advertising 24:45-54.

Shah, D.V, D.M. McLeod, E. Kim, S.Y. Lee, M.R. Gotlieb, S.S. Ho and H. Brevik. 2007.
Political consumerism: how communication and consumption orientations drive "lifestyle
politics''. Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 611: 217-35.

Shrum, L. J., J. A. McCarty, and T. M. Lowrey. 1995. Buyer characteristics of the green
consumer and their implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising 24:71-82.

U.S. EPA. 2008. Executive summary: inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks:
1990 2006. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_ES.pdf, accessed
January 30, 2009.

Yang, X. Y., P. R. Moore, C. B. Wong, J. S. Pu, and S. K. Chong. 2007. Product lifecycle
information acquisition and management for consumer products. Industrial Management &
Data Systems 107:936-953.
Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 19

Appendix A: Interview Script

Inclusion Criteria:
i. Are you at least 18 years old?
yes no

ii. Are you the primary purchaser of electric light bulbs for your home?
yes no

iii. Have you purchased one or more electric light bulbs in the past five years for use in your home?
yes no

Demographics:

iv. Gender


Male Female

v. Which age group do you belong to?

18-24 25-30 31-40* 40-55 56-65* 65+

Declined to
state


vi. What is your marital status?

Married Single Separated Divorced Widowed

Declined to State

vii. How many dependent (younger than 18) children live in your household?

None

Declined to
State














Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 20


ix. Which best describes your educational experience?

No High
School
Some High
School
High School
Diploma/GED
Some
College
Bachelors
Degree
Some
Masters or
Professional
Masters or
Professional
Degree
Doctoral/Post-
Doctoral Work
and/or Degree

Declined
to State


x. What ethnic group do you primarily identify with?

White/Caucasian
(not Hispanic)
African American
(non-Hispanic)
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Hispanic Latino Native American
or Native Alaskan

Declined to
state


* Several age categories overlapped in the questionnaire due to clerical error. However,
interviewees were allowed to carefully examine the questionnaire and none were confused about
which category they belonged. Further, grouping of age categories in the analysis was such that
differentiation between these categories was not important.





Michael Hansen Consumer Environmental Engagement May 11 2009

p. 21

Appendix B: Interview Guiding Questions

1.a People differ in the ways they manage the use of light in their homes. Tell me about how you
and your family use electric lights during a typical 24-hour period.

1.b Thinking about the different types of electric light bulbs available today, what type of light
bulb do you use most in your home?

2. When purchasing electric light bulbs in a store, you are often given a choice between the four
major types of light bulbs: incandescents, CFLs, LEDs, and halogens. Which type of light bulb
do you typically purchase for lighting your home? What do you think are the main advantages
and disadvantages of the type of bulb you buy, in comparison to the other types?

3. Light bulbs often seem to stop working at the most inopportune times. Think back to when
this situation has occurred to you, and tell me about what you did with the light bulb when it
stopped working.