Green Decisions of Demographics by Clare DSouza - Book Report/Review Example

Critical Analysis Review Basic Research Premise and Methodology "Green decisions: demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels" is a research project conducted by Clare D'Souza, Mehdi Taghian, Peter Lamb and Roman Peretiatko; its purpose was to undertake a large-scale survey to determine Australian consumer perception of so-called green labels on products. Apart from this aim, the research was also completed so that a clearer picture could be gained of what made a label seem accurate and which types of labelling appealed to different demographics. The information necessary for the research was gathered by random selection of telephone numbers in the Australian State of Victoria, and in total 155 surveys were completed and used for analysis. Through specific questioning and evaluation of the gathered information, researchers hoped to draw fact-based conclusions on whether Type I, Type II or Type III environmental labelling was perceived as most accurate by consumers. Surveys were given only to one person per household; that person was always identified as the main consumer and it is believed that their views on labelling would properly represent the entire household. Two criticisms can be made of the methodology of this project: first, the primary consumer in one household cannot strictly represent his or her household in their beliefs, and second, given published differences in consumer awareness throughout the various States, this purely Victorian data cannot be held true to the rest of Australia. Ethical Concerns The ethical concerns for any survey-based research are far less than with other types of data gathering because of the ability of any person to simply refuse to participate (Loughborough 1995). The fundamental ethical concerns of this research are actually inherent in its results because of how the information is going to be used; green labelling is something more and more consumers are looking for and because of this, labels must be presented properly (Wagner 1997). Food policy will vary from country to country and even from one region to another, however the basic principle of consumer awareness remains generally omnipresent (Fine 1998). Environmental labelling is something that is ethically important in itself (Gunningham et al 1998), and therefore the most important consideration these researchers must make is to clearly represent the Victorian or perhaps Australian population in its perception and use of such labels. Research Precedent There have been many similar studies conducted that concern consumer relation to product labelling because marketing teams and business owners want to better understand the relationship these labels have to their customers. Consumers will not strictly read labels; there is a varied percentage of consumers that place great importance on product information, however, and both behaviours have been the subject of research (Clarke 2003). These have focused on specific types of labelling, however, and this research was meant to encompass all types for comparison. The surveys made reference to all three identifiable categories of environmental label: Types I through III which are distinguishable from one another respectively as third-party environmental labelling, general environmental claims (such as "recyclable"), and third-party environmental labelling that has been awarded after specific and vigorous professional testing. Those labels affixed to products in cooperation with the Australian government were not included in this research. Based on previous research conducted by other parties, Australian consumers are only vaguely aware of environmental labelling in its various types and this intelligence varies from State to State (Sutherland et al 2000). The precedent for this particular research was therefore set low in terms of consumer awareness, however members of the study hoped that the implications of their results would be fully appreciated by consumers nationally. The information gathered in these surveys was modified to take a fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject into consideration and yet simultaneously its aim was to better understand what distinguishes one environmental label from another in the eyes of the consumer. To achieve this, specifications were made in the survey questions that concerned products and labels consumers were more likely to remember dealing with during their regular shopping. Survey Analysis The data collected was analysed in reference to five major variables: age, income level, employment status, education and gender. By separating the survey results into these categories researchers determined how different demographics differed in their labelling perception and in their expectations of what an environmental label should convey. Because of the simple form of the questions put to survey-takers, the analysis of results was made fundamentally simple to understand and given the results of the data collection it would have been easy for most individuals to form their own fact-based conclusions. The analysis is very forthright in its categorisation and it is easy to understand why the researchers chose to divide their information up in this way. References made to the 7-point Likert scale, ANOVA and Levene's homogeneity assumption are not properly explained, however, so it is difficult for the reader to grasp certain details of the analysis. Results Despite a basic differentiation between the scientific methods of analysis utilized in this study and the capabilities of the average reader, the published results are simple and easy to grasp. Findings are published both in paragraph form and in graphs. Based on the five categorisations of the data it was found that age makes little relative difference to the percentage of consumers who are satisfied or dissatisfied with environmental labelling; no differences were marked in terms of gender; income level, employment status and education levels all had a varying effect on the perception of environmental labels and the attitudes concerning any sort of product labelling. While the results published in paragraph form were very simple and to the point, the graphs provided as support for the researchers' conclusions were created using complex mathematics which an average person would not be able to interpret. Where the graphs might have been modified to encompass simple percentages for each category and piece of information, they instead rely on a high mathematics comprehension in their readers. Unfortunately this makes interpretation of study results an almost elite exercise when it might have reached out to a more general audience (Franses and Paap 2001). The graphs are alluded to but never fully explained. Research Conclusions The original hypothesis of the study being that there must be some discernable demographic relation to environmental labelling perception, this study concludes that there is indeed a difference in certain aspects of labelling due to the categorization of demographic groups. The researchers conclude that these differences will be useful in terms of marketing and simply making the labels clearer and perhaps trustworthy in the eye of the Australian consumer. One major discrepancy in the study is the reference, both in the introductory sections and the conclusive section of the research paper, to Type I, Type II and Type III environmental labelling. While these types of labelling seem at first to have a large part in the surveys conducted, there is actually no reference to them in the data or in the results section. While the use of secondary survey information can be incredibly useful to future research projects and marketing strategies, it must be properly gathered and analysed before conclusions can be drawn (Patzer 1995). It can only be concluded by the reader that these categories of label are something of an afterthought on the part of the researchers. Study conclusions make specifications relative to these label types and suggest which might be better in terms of consumer satisfaction; no mention is made of such a correlation in the results, however. The relationship between Types I through III environmental labelling remain unclear although much is made of them in all but the findings section of the research paper. It seems as if the researchers wanted to further explore the implications of label categorization but did not properly incorporate the theme into their surveys. Further Study and Recommendations Unfortunately the major implications of this research are not self-evident; despite the leading remarks of the researchers that suggest Type III labelling might be most beneficial and satisfactory to the producer and consumer respectively, there is no data that correlates to this conclusion. What is evident, however, is the difference in demographic approaches to environmental labelling that might prove very useful to marketing sectors. Market trends that suggest people want to eat more healthily and to source their products from environmentally sound sources can be actively supported by further research in this field (Maurer and Sobal 1995). Producers might look at this information and understand that their key demographic actually has a different attitude towards environmental labelling than they had originally believed; modifications can be made to existing products to make them more sellable. In addition, new products can be launched with specific marketing strategies that properly frame the label or simply the environmental information itself in terms of key consumer demographics. Although it is the hope that modifications of labels might be undertaken on the basis of this study, it lacks specific information that could be used to do so. Although differences have been pinpointed between age, gender, education levels, employment status and income bracket in terms of label perception, further research must be conducted to better determine what specific differences there are and why these might occur. Perception of Types I, II and III labels would also be very useful. References Clare, D. (2003). The Consumer Society and the Postmodern City. New York: Routledge. D'Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., Tiatko, R. (2007). "Green decisions: demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels", International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 371-376. Fine, B. (1998). The Political Economy of Diet, Health and Food Policy. London: Routledge. Franses, P., Paap, R. (2001). Quantitative Models in Marketing Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gunngingham, N., Grabosky, P., Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Loughborough, A. (1995). Research Methods and Organization Studies. London: Routledge. Maurer, D., Sobal, J. (eds.) (1995). Eating Agendas: Food and Nutrition as Social Problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Patzer, G. (1995). Using Secondary Data in Marketing Research: United States and Worldwide. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Sutherland, M. (2000). Advertising and the Mind of the Consumer: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Wagner, S.A. (1997). Understanding Green Consumer Behaviour: A Qualitative Cognitive Approach. London: Routledge. Read More