Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 10 No. 4 (2022)
December 2022

Articles - Entrepreneurship

Material well-being as sustainable consumption driver: Results of European studies

https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100408

Published 2022-12-30

Dario Dunkovic
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics & Business,

Blaženka Knežević
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics & Business

Barbara Borusiak
Department of Commerce and Marketing, Poznań University of Economics and Business

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the article is to examine the causality between material well-being indicators of all the EU-27 countries and sustainable consumption behaviour indicators of the corresponding consumers. The authors assumed that the material well-being construct is determined by net income and actual individual consumption variables. In contrast, the sustainable consumption construct captures five selected behavioural variables.

Research Design & Methods: The hypothesis was that material well-being significantly determines sustainable practices in European countries. The research model was tested by structural equation modelling (SEM) using path coefficients and developed construct predictors. Two sets of statistical data were used. The first was data on material well-being from Eurostat 2019, and the second was a public opinion poll covering the EU-27 countries as stated in the 2019 ‘Special Eurobarometer 501.’

Findings: Consumers in countries with lower material well-being indicators had a lower capacity for implementing consumers’ sustainable practices.

Implications & Recommendations: The reported causality is essential for policy decision-makers to regulate measures more reliably according to specific countries and distribute scarce resources relevant to their sustainable consumer practices capability.

Contribution & Value Added: The article contributes to the sustainable consumption theory by developing new theoretical construction that combines the different sustainability featured variables. Introducing policy measures for sustainable consumer behaviour, which simultaneously require sacrifice, will depend on consumer income and the ability to meet the costs of environmentally friendly activities.

Keywords

Sustanable consumption;, material well-being;, consumers;, sustainable practices;, Eurobarometer

(PDF) Save

Author Biography

Dario Dunkovic

Associate Professor, Department of Trade and International Business, Faculty of Economics & Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia research interests include: trade management, European consumer policy.

Blaženka Knežević

Professor, Deputy Head of Department, Department of Trade and International Business, Faculty of Economics & Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia. Her research interests include: the role of distributive trade in national economy.

Barbara Borusiak

Associate Professor, Head of Department, Department of Commerce and Marketing, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań, Poland. Her research interests include: sustainable consumption, propensity of consumers to reduce consumption.

References

  1. Aldrin, P. (2011). The Eurobarometer and the making of European opinion. In D. Gaxie, N. Hubé & J. Rowell (Eds.), Perceptions of Europe: A Comparative Sociology of European Attitudes (pp. 17-34). Colchester: ECPR Press.
  2. Aliyev, K. (2022). Well-being costs of perceived job insecurity: Mediating role of financial satisfaction, subjec-tive healthiness and institutional trust. Journal of International Studies, 15(2), 140-156. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2022/15-2/10
  3. Androniceanu, A.-M., Kinnunen, J., Georgescu, I., & Androniceanu, A. (2020). A Multidimensional Approach to Competitiveness, Innovation and Well-Being in the EU Using Canonical Correlation Analysis. Journal of Competitiveness, 12(4), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2020.04.01
  4. Androniceanu, A. (2020). Major structural changes in the EU policies due to the problems and risks caused by COVID-19. Administratie si Management Public, 34, 137-149. https://doi.org/10.24818/amp/2020.34-08
  5. Bandalos, D.L., & Finney, S.J. (2019). Factor analysis: Exploratory and Confirmatory. In G.R. Hancock, L.M. Stapleton & R.O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer's guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (2nd ed.), (pp. 98-122). New York: Routledge.
  6. Baumgärtner, S., & Quaas, M. (2010). What is sustainability economics?. Ecological Economics, 69(3), 445-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.019
  7. Bruggen, E.C., Hogreve, J., Holmlund, M., Kabadayi, S., & Lofgren, M. (2017). Financial well-being: a conceptualization and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 79(Oct), 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.013
  8. Buttel, F., & Johnson, D. (1977). Dimensions of Environmental Concern: Factor Structure, Corre-lates, and Implications for Research. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(2), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1977.10801872
  9. Cichocka, I., Krupa, J. & Mantaj, A. (2020). The consumer awareness and behaviour towards food packaging in Poland. Economics and Sociology, 13(2), 304-317. https:://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2020/13-2/20
  10. Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invari-ance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
  11. Chovancová, J., & Tej, J. (2020). Decoupling economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions: the case of the energy sector in V4 countries. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 15(2), 235-251. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2020.011.
  12. Dean, H. (2019). Social Policy, 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.
  13. Duarte, R., Miranda-Buetas, S., & Sarasa, C. (2021). Household consumption patterns and income inequality in EU countries: Scenario analysis for a fair transition towards low-carbon economies. Energy Economics, 104, 105614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105614
  14. Egea, J.M.O., & Garcia de Frutos, N. (2013). Toward Consumption Reduction: An Environmentally Motivated Perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 30(8), 660-675. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20636
  15. European Commission (2019). The European Green Deal. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640 on 5 June 2022.
  16. European Commission (2020). Special Eurobarometer 501: Attitudes of European citizens towards environ-ment. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/api/deliverable/download/file?deliverableId=72616 on 20 April 2022
  17. Eurostat (2012). Eurostat-OECD Methodological Manual on Purchasing Power Parities, 2012 Edition. Luxem-bourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  18. Eurostat (2021). Quality of life indicators – material living conditions. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/SEPDF/cache/30560.pdf on 9 April 2022.
  19. Ferriss, A.L. (2002). Does Material Well-Being Affect Non-Material Well-Being?. Social Indicators Research, 60(1/3), 275-280. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021273317425
  20. Filauro, S., & Parolin, Z. (2019). Unequal unions? A comparative decomposition of income ine-quality in the European Union and United States. Journal of European Social Policy, 29(4), 545-563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928718807332
  21. Firlej, K., A., & Stanuch, M., (2022). Forecasting the development of renewable energy sources in the Vise-grad Group countries against the background of the European Union. International Entrepreneurship Re-view, 8(3), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2022.0803.03
  22. Fraj-Andrés, E., & Martínez-Salinas, E. (2007). Impact of environmental knowledge on ecological consumer behaviour: an empirical analysis. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 19(3), 73-102.. https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v19n03_05
  23. Franzen, A. (2003). Environmental Attitudes in International Comparison: An Analysis of the ISSP Surveys 1993 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 297-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402005
  24. Franzen, A., & Meyer, R. (2009). Environmental Attitudes in Cross-National Perspective: A Multilevel Analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26(2), 219-234. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp018
  25. Guillen-Royo, M., & Wilhite, H.L. (2015). Wellbeing and Sustainable Consumption. In W. Glatzer (Eds.), In Global Handbook of Quality of Life: Exploration of Well-Being of Nations and Continents, (pp. 301-316). Frankfurt: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9178-6_13
  26. Hayo, B., & Seifert, W. (2003). Subjective economic well-being in Eastern Europe. Journal of Economic Psy-chology, 24(3), 329-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00173-3
  27. Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R., & Tomera, A.N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on re-sponsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
  28. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691214429
  29. Kaase, M., & Saris, W.E. (1997). The Eurobarometer – A tool for comparative survey research. In W.E. Saris & M. Kaase (Eds.), Eurobarometer: Measurement Instruments for Opinions in Europe, (pp. 5-23). Mannheim: Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen. Retrieved from https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-49742-1 on 9 April 2022.
  30. Kates, W.R., Parris, T.M. & Leiserowitz, A.A. (2005). What is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values, and Practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47(3), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2005.10524444
  31. Kovač, M., & Vandenberghe, S.-A., (2020). Over-regulation, Degradation of the Rule of Law and Implementa-tion of Sustainable Practices. In V. Žabkar & T. Redek, (Eds.), Challenges on the Path Toward Sustainability in Europe, (pp 271-295). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-972-620201015
  32. Krepl, V., Shaheen, H. I., Fandi, G., Smutka, L., Muller, Z., Tlustý, J., Husein, T., Ghanem, S. (2020). The role of renewable energies in the sustainable development of post-crisis electrical power sectors reconstruc-tion. Energies, 13(23), 6326. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13236326
  33. Magazzino, C., & Leogrande, A. (2021). Subjective Well-Being In Italian Regions: A Panel Data Approach. Applied Econometrics and International Development, 21(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-117790/v1
  34. Makarenko, I., Plastun, A., Kozmenko, S., Kozmenko, O., & Rudychenko, A. (2022). Corporate transparency, sustainable development and SDG 2 and 12 in agriculture: The case of Ukraine. Agris on-Line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 14(3), 57-70. https://doi.org/10.7160/aol.2022.140305
  35. Minton, A.P., & Rose, R.L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly con-sumer behaviour: an exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00209-3
  36. Mueller, R.O., & Hancock, G.R. (2019). Structural equation modeling. In G.R. Hancock, L.M. Stapleton & R.O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer's guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences, 2nd ed., (pp. 445-456). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
  37. O’Riordan, T., McGowan, A.H., Cutter, S., Hamann, R., & Lahsen, M. (2020). Reframing Sustainability in the Emergent Age. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 62(6), 2-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2020.1820291
  38. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2020). How's Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  39. Ortega-Egea, J.M., Garcia-de-Frutos, N., & Antolin-Lopez, R. (2014). Why do some people do ‘more’ to miti-gate climate change than others?. Exploring heterogeneity in psycho-social associations. PLoS One, 9(9), 106645.
  40. Özokcu, S., & Özdemir, Ö. (2017). Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72(May), 639-647. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2020.1820291
  41. Pagiaslis, A., & Krontalis, A.K. (2014). Green consumption behavior antecedents: environmental concern, knowledge, and beliefs. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 335-348. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20698
  42. Pilelienė, L., & Tamulienė, V. (2021). Consumer attitudes and behavior towards organic products: Evidence from the Lithuanian market. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 17(1), 269-299. https://doi.org/10.7341/20211719
  43. Potoczek, N.R. (2021). The use of process benchmarking in the water industry to introduce changes in the digitization of the company’s value chain. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Innovation, 17(4), 51-89. https://doi.org/10.7341/20211743
  44. Rahman, O., & Koszewska, M. (2021) A study of consumer choice between sustainable and non-sustainable apparel cues in Poland. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 24(2), 213-234. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-11-2019-0258
  45. Richterová, E., Richter, M., & Sojková, Z. (2021). Regional eco-efficiency of the agricultural sector in V4 re-gions, its dynamics in time and decomposition on the technological and pure technical eco-efficiency change. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 16(3), 553-576. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2021.020.
  46. Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2017). Meat and Dairy Production. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production on 19 May 2022.
  47. Saari, U.A., Damberg, S., Frömbling, L., & Ringle, C.M. (2021). Sustainable consumption behavior of Europe-ans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and be-havioral intention. Ecological Economics, 189, 107155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107155
  48. Shahbaz, M., Lean, H.H., & Shabbir, M.S. (2012). Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in Pakistan: Coin-tegration and Granger causality. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(5), 2947-2953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.015
  49. Simonetti, L. (2012). The ideology of Slow Food. Journal of European Studies, 42(2), 168-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047244112436908
  50. Sirgy, M.J. (2018). The Psychology of Material Well-Being. Applied Research Quality Life, 13(2), 273-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9590-z
  51. Stern, P.C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
  52. Straughan, R.D., & Roberts, J.A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(6), 558-575. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769910297506
  53. Šajn, N. (2020). Sustainable consumption: Helping consumers make eco-friendly choices. European Parliamen-tary Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu on 9 April 2022.
  54. Šubová, N. (2022). The contribution of energy use and production to greenhouse gas emissions: Evidence from the agriculture of european countries. Agris on-Line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 14(3), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.7160/aol.2022.140309
  55. Šulyová, D., & Kubina, M.. (2022). Quality of life in the concept of strategic management for Smart Cities. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 10(3), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL10_NO3_1
  56. Tam, K.P., & Chan, H.W. (2018). Generalized trust narrows the gap between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior: multilevel evidence. Global Environmental Change, 48(Jan), 182-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.12.001
  57. Taylor, D. (2012). Wellbeing and Welfare: A Psychosocial Analysis of Being Well and Doing Well Enough. Journal of Social Policy, 40(4), 777-794. https://doi.org/ doi:10.1017/S0047279411000249
  58. Thøgersen, J. (2005). How May Consumer Policy Empower Consumers for Sustainable Lifestyles? Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(2), 143-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-005-2982-8
  59. Ulman, S.R., Mihai, C., & Cautisanu, C. (2021). Inconsistencies in the Dynamics of Sustainable Development Diimennsions in Central and Eastern European Countries. Polish. Journal. of Environmental. Studies. 2021, 30, 2779-2798. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/130125
  60. Ulman, S.R., Mihai, C., Cautisanu, C., Brumă, I.S., Coca, O., & Stefan, G. (2021). Environmental Performance in EU Countries from the Perspective of Its Relation to Human and Economic Wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(23), 12733. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312733
  61. Vandevijvere, S., & Vanderlee, L. (2019). Effect of Formulation, Labelling, and Taxation Policies on the Nutritional Quality of the Food Supply. Current Nutrition Reports, 8(3), 240-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-019-00289-x
  62. Zysk, W. (2020). Fair trade phenomenon and its evolution in Visegrad countries. International Entrepreneur-ship Review, 6(4), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2020.0604.06

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.