World Review of Science, Technology and Sust. Development, Vol. 14, No.

1, 2018 85

Determinants of technology-based product adoption

by consumers

Santanu Satapathy*, Shirish Sangle and

Seema Unnikrishnan
National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE),
Vihar Lake Road, Powai, Mumbai,
400 087, Maharastra, India
Email: santanu.satapathy1@gmail.com
Email: sangle.shirish@gmail.com
Email: seemaunnikrishnan@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Abstract: The climate change situation is alarming due to both industrial and
domestic consumption patterns and a positive change in consumer
preference for more energy-efficient household appliances is crucial to
address this challenge. This study attempts to ascertain the determinants of
technology-based household product adoption by consumers. The data
collected has been analysed empirically to identify the significance of various
factors while making a purchase decision. The study finds out the major factors
towards adoption of technology-based household products by the consumers.
This study of consumer behaviour has been carried out with medium-range
investment products that are technology-based. The study will provide
significant insight to various stakeholders associated with technology-based
household products; these include manufacturers, marketing communities,
environmental professionals and associated researchers. The output model will
be useful for the government in formulating any forward-looking strategy
towards reduction of household GHG emission for climate proactivity. The
study findings are supported by adequate empirical evidence.
Keywords: technology-based product; sustainable consumption; climate
change; India; consumer purchasing styles.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Satapathy, S., Sangle, S.
and Unnikrishnan, S. (2018) ‘Determinants of technology-based product
adoption by consumers’, World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable
Development, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.85–99.
Biographical notes: Santanu Satapathy completed his Fellow (Doctorate) from
the National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai. He has
around 15 years of industrial experience in the field of environment
management and sustainability. His professional and research interests include
cleaner technologies, environmental policy, climate change and sustainable
development.
Shirish Sangle is a Professor of Sustainable Business at the National Institute of
Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, India. His research interests include
corporate sustainability, stakeholder engagement and cleaner technologies.

Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

86 S. Satapathy et al.

Seema Unnikrishnan is a Professor at the National Institute of Industrial

Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, India. She has around 25 years of experience
and has several research publications in the field of environmental
management. Her areas of expertise are environmental management,
environmental law, sustainability and cleaner production, air quality
management, CDM and disaster management.

1 Introduction

The rise in population has led to higher consumption of energy and a subsequent increase
in the individual and household green house gas (GHG) emission. Hence, every purchase
decision taken by individuals has the potential to contribute to global climate change
because some amount of GHG emission is associated with it (Shourmatoff, 2007). The
per-capita CO2 emission of four largest CO2 emitting countries, namely China, USA, EU
and India are 7.4, 16.6, 7.3 and 1.7 kg per capita per year CO2, respectively (Trends in
global CO2 emissions: 2014 Report). A study by Parikh et al. (2009) finds that direct CO2
emissions by Indian households account for nearly 7% of the country’s total emission.
The study also reports that CO2 emission of the top 10% of India’s urban population is
4,099 kg per capita per year while the bottom 10% of rural India emits only 150 kg of
CO2 per capita per year. In the domestic sector, the rich urban population of India is the
principal consumer of energy as they use white goods. White goods are heavy consumer
durables such as air conditioners, refrigerators, and stoves, which, earlier, used to be
painted only in white enamel finish. Despite their availability in varied colours now, they
are still referred to as white goods. These white goods are high technology-based and
henceforth will be referred to as technology-based products (TBP) in this study.
New goods and services are accessible to the customers every day, and firms
everywhere the world are competing with each other in order to grow their market share
(Ansari and Riasi, 2016). The present study aims to understand principal drivers
that can help understand the factors influencing Indian consumers in buying
environmental-friendly white goods. It is well-known that consumers pay premium to
buy products that have superior features or performance. The underlying assumption is
that consumers pay premium when they perceive private benefits from the products. For
instance, herbal products promise private (good health) benefit. In the case of
environmentally superior products, it is significant to ascertain whether consumers would
pay premium especially if the product requires capital investment. Reinhardt (1998), in
his pioneering work, explains that consumers pay premium only if they perceive private
benefits or a combination of private and public benefits. The paper, therefore, aims to
understand whether Indian consumers are more attentive to the cost of the product or
environmental factors associated with the product.
Consumers only pay the cost of the goods and services consumed, e.g., television,
refrigerator, geysers and air conditioners among others. The uncertain cost associated
with GHG emissions from the product or waste disposal of these goods remains unpaid.
More importantly, consumer pays very little attention to waste and emissions associated
with their everyday appliances. Although the theoretical answer to this question is pricing
the GHG cost along with the product cost, precise implementation of the concept is
 Determinants of technology-based product adoption by consumers 87

associated with a number of challenges (KSG Working Paper Series No. RWP03-012,
2003).
To give one example, air conditioner is one of the major energy consuming devices
bought in almost every home in developed countries, with its presence growing rapidly in
developing countries like India and China. By itself, air conditioning accounts for 15% of
electricity demand in the USA. To optimise the power consumption, utilities are
implementing smart meters that switch the air conditioners off for 15 minutes per hour
during the peak load period and during summer (US Household Electricity Report, 2005).
A recent study states that there is scope to reduce further 15% to 30% of air conditioning
energy consumption simply by preventing the sunlight from entering the homes during
summer season by putting sunshades in doors and windows (http://www.sce.com). Also,
trees can be planted on the southwest sides of the homes and air conditioning units can be
put in shades, with window shades installed to reduce the energy consumption (Awnings
in Residential Buildings, 2007).
The above example demonstrates that both low-tech and high-tech solutions are
available for individuals, which will contribute towards lower human emissions.
However, there is a cost associated with the same, which may or may not be borne by the
end-consumer. Hence, the goals of this research are to identify key factors that influence
the adoption of technology-based product adoption among Indian consumers. A
conceptual background of the research study, i.e., ‘the determinants of technology-based
product adoption’ is presented in the following section to give further understanding on
the objectives of the study. Next, the research methodology and results are presented. The
paper concludes with a discussion of findings, implications and suggested future research
scope.

2 Conceptual background

Individual contribution is very significant in the build-up of carbon in the atmosphere.

Fewer studies are reported in the literature to understand the factors affecting the
adoption of TBP. This section discusses the major findings obtained from the literature
study.
A framework ‘The central role of private investment decisions’ by Amram and
Kulatilaka (2009) states that human emissions are determined by two major drivers: one
is consumer behaviour, which is illustrated by our day-to-day actions such as use of
vehicles, setting of air conditioning temperature, switching off the unnecessary lights, and
use of natural lighting when available, among other such actions. The second driver is the
capital stock, i.e., cars or buildings that are purchased less frequently, but emit CO2 for a
much longer period.
Another model by Crosno and Cui (2014) reports that lack of relative advantage,
perceived technical complexity and functional risks have a negative impact on the
purchasing decision of the consumers. On the other hand, supplier social responsibility,
supplier support and environmental concern have a positive impact on the adoption of a
technology-based household product.
‘Energy efficiency,’ ‘basic materials,’ ‘technology,’ ‘material eco-efficiency,’
‘consumer’ and ‘healthcare’ are factors considered by the consumers while making
purchase decisions for household products (Albino et al., 2012). In recent years,
88 S. Satapathy et al.

knowledge about the environmental impacts and a product’s green claims are being
considered by the consumers while making purchase decisions. Consumer’s personal
values, beliefs, norms and habits also affect the purchasing decision of household
products (Jansson and Marell, 2010). An individual’s environmentalism, i.e.,
pro-environment behaviour is an important factor affecting the purchase of household
appliances (Kilbourne and Pickett, 2008; Luchs et al., 2010).
According to Lam (2006), high estimation of money savings, i.e., private benefit is
considered by the consumers while making purchase decision on household products.
Few research studies show that perception of environmental threats, i.e., protecting public
good is also being considered by the consumers while purchasing household products.
Lane (1993) reports that while purchasing, consumers give importance to the
performance of the product. Cost of product is one of the most important aspects for the
consumers while making any purchase decision (Zou et al., 2003; Sweeney et al., 1999;
Zeithaml, 1988). Economy and energy-efficiency are very important factors for
household purchase decisions (Lutzenhiser, 1994; Williams and Dair, 2007; Hauge et al.,
2012). Matzler and Hinterhuber (1998) reported the importance of product usability and
conventional price for the consumers while buying household products. ‘Environmental
concern’ of the product is important for the consumers while making any purchase
decision (Do Paco et al., 2009; Schultz, 2001; Zimmer et al., 1994; Crosno and Cui,
2014). Recycling and energy conservation is considered by the consumers for making
household purchase decisions (Follows and Jobber, 2000; Lee, 2009).
A review by Faiers et al. (2007) classifies the various factors affecting TBP adoption.
These factors are – consumer choice, needs, social learning, buying process and product
attributes (quality, cost and brand). Similarly, studies by Biel and Dahlstrand (2005),
Sener and Hazer (2008) and Wheale and Hinton (2007) identify different determinants
that may influence consumer behaviour towards sustainable consumption. The identified
determinants by these researchers are brand strength, culture, finance, habit, demographic
characteristics, lack of information, lifestyle, personalities and ethical factors.
The identified variables were used in the present study for designing the questionnaire
for the survey. Details of the research methodology have been explained in the following
section of the manuscript.

3 Research methodology

To study the drivers of pro-environment behaviour of consumers for climate proactivity

the study focuses on environment-friendly, TBP that require capital investment. The
study is limited to urban India because the top 10% of urban population in India
contributes the lion’s share of GHGs from the domestic sector. Unit of analysis was taken
to be ‘consumers’ for the purpose of this study. The consumers were chosen based on the
criteria of age group, urban location, income group and education. The reasons for
adoption or non-adoption of TBP were affiliation to social gatherings, colleges,
universities, preference for shopping centres, and living in residential townships. The data
was collected in person through questionnaire-based surveys during workshops and also
online data collection. The data was entered into Microsoft Office Excel 2007. Further,
the data was analysed with the analytical software SPSS Version 20. Exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) was carried out to ascertain the factors affecting the buying of
technology-based household products.
 Determinants of technology-based product adoption by consumers 89

Literature survey discussed above helped enlist the variables for questionnaire
preparation. A draft questionnaire was prepared based on the variables identified during
the literature survey. Since majority of research articles used to identify the variables
were from other countries a focus group study discussion was conducted with a panel of
experts to verify the relevance of these variables in the context of the study. On the basis
of the feedback received during the focus group study, the questionnaire was modified.
Based on the modified questionnaire, a pilot study was carried out. After the pilot study,
the questionnaire was finalised and the actual survey was conducted. The data was
collected through one-to-one interaction, during workshops and through online survey
using Google Docs survey questionnaire. The testing of the data was carried out through
EFA using principle component analysis in SPSS Version 20. The convergent and
divergent validities were checked for the EFA output. Factor Scoring was carried out to
determine the order of influence for the identified factors. The result of the EFA and
Factor Scoring was used to finalise the framework on ‘Determinants of technology-based
product adoption for climate proactivity’.

3.1 Scale used for the survey

A seven-point Likert scale was used in the pilot survey with 1 being strongly disagree
and 7 being strongly agree. The scale has been elaborated in Table 1. Named after its
developer, Rensis Likert, this is a widely used rating scale that requires the respondents to
indicate the degree of their agreement or disagreement with each of a series of statements
about the stimulus objects (Jamersion and Benjamin, 2007). Likert scale has several
advantages. It is easy to construct and administer, and respondents easily understand how
to use the scale, making it suitable for mail-based, telephonic, personal or electronic
interviews.
Table 1 Seven-point Likert scale

Disagree --- Agree

Extremely Quite Slightly Uncertain Slightly Quite Extremely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3.2 Data collection

Workshops were conducted and online survey was carried out to collect the sample data.
384 responses were received within four weeks of the survey, covering various parts of
India. Out of the 384 respondents, 227 (59%) were male and 157 (41%) respondents were
female. 288 (75%) respondents were from urban and 96 (25%) respondents were from
rural area. 242 (63%) respondents were in the younger age group (18 to 25 years),
96 (25%) were in the medium age group (26 to 40 years) while 46 (12%) were more than
40 years of age. 282 (73%) respondents belonged to the higher income group
(income > INR 12 lakh per annum) while 102 (27%) were in the income group less than
INR 8 lakh per annum. 126 (33%) respondents had masters or higher degrees while 258
(67%) were graduates or possessed a lower educational degree. Data were collected from
various states in India (Gujarat, Rajasthan, UP, MP, Delhi, Odisha, AP, Karnataka and
Maharashtra). The data collected was processed in the SPSS software for further analysis.
90 S. Satapathy et al.

3.3 Sampling adequacy

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) was found to be greater
than 0.5, i.e., 0.708, which indicates that the sample was adequate for the given number
of variables used for the factor analysis. Values between 0.5 and 0.7 are mediocre, values
between 0.7 and 0.8 are good, values between 0.8 and 0.9 are great and values above 0.9
are superb (Hutcheson and Safroniou, 1999). The KMO and Bartlett’s test results are
shown in Table 2.
Table 2 KMO and Bartlett’s test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy. 0.708

Approx. chi-square 4,354.002
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Df 171
Sig. 0.000

3.4 Reliability test

Cronbach’s alpha is a commonly employed index of reliability testing. Alpha is an
important concept in the evaluation of assessments and questionnaires. According to
Tavakol and Dennick (2011), it is compulsory for the researchers to estimate the
Cronbach’s Alpha value to add validity and accuracy to data interpretation. Cronbach’s
alpha values for the four factors are represented in Table 3.
Table 3 Reliability statistics

Cronbach’s Cronbach’s alpha based on

Variables N. of items
alpha standardised items
Social characteristics 0.858 0.860 5
Environmental characteristics 0.777 0.786 5
Product characteristics 0.770 0.770 4
Economic characteristics 0.898 0.898 4

Rules of thumb for Cronbach’s alpha: “_ > 0.9 – excellent, _ > 0.8 – good, _ > 0.7 –
acceptable, _ > 0.6 – questionable, _ > 0.5 – poor, and _ < 0.5 – unacceptable” (George
and Mallery, 2003).
Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951), which quantifies the degree of internal
consistency (reliability) of a set of items was calculated for each sub-scale, as well as the
overall scale. In general, a Cronbach’s alpha value of at least 0.7 is the criterion used to
establish an acceptable level of reliability. However, the recommended minimum
Cronbach’s alpha for exploratory studies is 0.6 (Nunnally, 1978; Robinson et al., 1991).
Moss et al. (1998) suggest that an alpha score of 0.6 is generally acceptable, although
this criterion is not as stringent as the more widely recognised 0.7 threshold (Nunnally,
1978).

3.5 Total variance explained

It may be observed from the cumulative % column that the six factors extracted together
account for 64.996% of the total variance. This is acceptable because the number of
variables could be reduced from the original 19 to four underlying factors.
 Determinants of technology-based product adoption by consumers 91

Table 4 Total variance explained

Rotation sums of squared loadings

Component
Total % of variance Cumulative %
1 5.063 26.649 26.649
2 3.306 17.399 44.048
3 2.382 12.539 56.587
4 1.598 8.410 64.996

3.6 Factor analysis

The study utilised factor analysis to support the factor structure of the variables and to
ascertain that the variables employed in the study were conceptually different. Factor
analysis using principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed to
achieve a simple data structure. The 19 variables resulted into 4 factors, which accounted
for about 65% variance (Table 3). The factor loading of 0.5 and above was considered.
The rotated factor matrix is represented in Table 5 and following are the observations
from the factor loadings.
Table 5 Rotated component matrix

Component
Variables
1 2 3 4
Behaviour 0.759 0.149 0.048 –0.049
Awareness 0.776 0.130 0.029 –0.184
Peer pressure 0.827 –0.108 0.109 –0.119
Social Status 0.804 0.018 0.078 –0.190
Availability 0.671 0.016 0.112 –0.138
Eco label –0.463 0.511 –0.024 0.352
Energy efficiency 0.036 0.779 0.148 –0.049
Recycled 0.092 0.598 0.027 0.141
Disposal 0.036 0.891 0.043 0.033
Credible communication –0.020 0.777 –0.141 0.165
Quality 0.082 0.202 0.788 0.009
Reliability 0.187 –0.149 0.702 0.143
Easy use –0.068 0.127 0.884 –0.091
Brand 0.379 –0.100 0.576 0.220
Health/hygiene 0.491 –0.090 0.375 –0.060
Capital cost –0.287 0.124 0.015 0.850
Premium cost 0.094 0.173 –0.027 0.782
VFM –0.291 0.038 0.086 0.896
PBP –0.337 0.077 0.143 0.804
92 S. Satapathy et al.

Variables like behaviour, awareness, peer pressure, social status and availability had
loading values of 0.759, 0.776, 0.827, 0.804 and 0.671, respectively on factor 1. These
variables can be grouped under the factor named ‘social characteristics’ (SocC).
Variables like eco label, energy efficiency, recycled, easy disposal and credible
marketing had loading values of 0.511, 0.779, 0.598, 0.891 and 0.777, respectively on
factor 2. These variables can be grouped under the factor named ‘environmental
attractiveness’ (EnvA).
Variables such as quality, reliability, ease of use and brand had loading values of
0.788, 0.702, 0.884 and 0.576, respectively, on factor 3. These variables can be grouped
under the factor named ‘product characteristics’ (ProC). Other benefits (health and
hygiene) had very low loading value of 0.375. Hence, this factor was not pursued for
further analysis.
Variables such as capital cost, premium cost, value for money (VFM) and pay back
period (PBP) had loadings of 0.850, 0.782, 0.896 and 0.804, respectively, on factor 4.
These variables can be grouped under the factor named ‘economic attractiveness’
(EcoA).
Hence, the 18 variables were reduced to four factors, namely SocC, EnvA, ProC and
EcoA.

3.7 Convergent validity

Convergent validity implies that all the individual variables within a single factor are
highly correlated. This is apparent by the factor loadings. Sufficient/significant loadings
depend on the sample size of the dataset. It is always best to have each individual loading
value greater than 0.500 and averaging out of all the individual loadings to be greater
than 0.700 for each factor. In our study, all the loadings were greater than 0.5 and the
average of each factor’s variables was greater than 0.7.

3.8 Divergent validity

Discriminant validity implies the degree to which the factors are discrete and
un-correlated. The variables should be related more strongly to their own factor than with
another factor. Primary method for determining discriminant validity during an EFA is to
examine the pattern matrix. Variables should load significantly only on one factor. If
‘cross-loadings’ do exist (variable loads on multiple factors), then they should differ by
more than 0.2. In this study, there was no cross-loading except one, i.e., eco label, where
the difference was less than 0.2.

3.9 Factor scoring

Factor scoring is carried out by multiplying the factor loadings of the variables in each
factor with the corresponding ‘component score coefficient’ and adding the multiplied
values of each factor. The sum score method is considered to be most desirable when the
scales used to collect the original data are “untested and exploratory, with little or no
evidence of reliability or validity” (Hair et al., 2006). In addition, summed factor scores
preserve the variation in the original data. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) noted that this
approach is generally acceptable for most exploratory research situations. Table 6
represents the factor scoring analysis and the factor scores of the four identified factors.
 Determinants of technology-based product adoption by consumers 93

Table 6 Factor scoring analysis

Social Environmental Product Economic

Variables
characteristics attractiveness characteristics attractiveness
Behaviour 0.18
Awareness 0.17
Peer pressure 0.20
Social status 0.18
Availability 0.12
Eco label 0.08
Energy efficiency 0.23
Recycled 0.12
Disposal 0.29
Credible communication 0.21
Quality 0.27
Reliability 0.20
Easy use 0.36
Brand 0.11
Capital cost 0.24
Premium cost 0.25
VFM 0.27
PBP 0.21
SUM 0.85 0.93 0.94 0.97

The factor score states that EcoA (0.97) has the highest significance for the consumers
while purchasing a technology-based product. This is followed by ProC (0.94) and EnvA
of the product (0.93), which has nearly equal significance for the consumers. SocC (0.85)
has the lowest significance for consumers while adopting TBP.

3.10 Research framework

Based on the understanding developed from this study, the adoption of TBP by the
consumers depends on four major factors: EcoA, ProC, EnvA of the product and SocC of
the consumers. Based on the above inferences from the statistical study, a research
framework was derived keeping in view the four major factors.
The factor scoring concludes that the descending order of significance for the
adoption of technology-based household products is: EcoA, ProC, EnvA and SocC. This
states that cost is the most significant factor for the consumers while SocC of the
consumer is the least significant one.
Based on the empirical findings, the following framework is presented, which
establishes the significance of these four factors in TBP adoption by the consumers for
climate proactivity.
94 S. Satapathy et al.

Figure 1 Framework for technology-based product adoption by consumers

4 Results and discussion

The findings from the empirical study provide important theoretical contributions. This
study empirically establishes that for Indian urban consumers, EcoA of the product such
as capital cost, payback period, and premium cost is the prime criteria for purchasing
TBP. The important finding is that urban consumers in India give nearly equal
importance to the ProC (quality, reliability, easy use, brand name) and the EnvA (eco
labelling, energy efficiency, recycled, easy disposal and credible communication) of the
products. Social factors such as consumer behaviour, awareness, peer pressure, social
status and availability of the product are of the least concern for the urban Indian
consumers while purchasing technology-based household products.
The framework demonstrates that non-green criteria (EcoA and ProC) are of primary
importance to the consumers while making the purchase decision on TBP adoption. This
is supported by the research findings of Sheth et al. (1991) who report that purchase
decisions are based on criteria such as product specifications, brand name, price
(premium or discount), previous experience, reliability, appearance, design, colour, age,
efficiency, sales technique, service history, retailer choice and free and timely delivery.
There are a few studies which support the framework that consideration for
environmental aspects (such as eco labelling, energy efficiency, recycled product, easy
disposal and credible communication) is less while purchasing technology-based
household products. Purchase of technology-based product is dependent on several
aspects that separate it from the purchase of frequently bought low value products such as
organic food and eco-friendly cosmetic products (Young et al., 2010). Consumers give
less importance to the environmental performance of one-off purchased products than in
the case of frequently purchased products (Sriram and Forman, 1993).
The framework shows that SocC (such as consumer behaviour, peer pressure,
awareness, social status and availability) are given the least preference while purchasing
 Determinants of technology-based product adoption by consumers 95

TBP. This is supported by the study findings of Biel and Dahlstrand (2005), who state
that awareness, availability and cognitive efforts required for the purchase of the less
frequently bought TBP are barriers for the purchase decision.
The framework shows that EnvA is considered to be the third important factor. This
implies that while buying TBP the middle-class Indian consumers are cost-conscious and
pay heed to the product features. Only after these conditions are satisfied does the
consumer look for environmental features of the TBP. In other words, only if there is
parity on cost and quality of the product will the Indian consumer buy environmentally
superior products. This implies that if there is a premier on the environmentally superior
TBP, there is less chance that the middle-class Indian consumers will buy them. In the
context of India, the result of this study reveals that Indian consumers may not
necessarily reward the sustainable behaviour of the companies if there is very high
premium cost, but certainly can punish the unsustainable behaviour of the companies.
Similarly, when it comes to purchasing TBPs that involve capital investments, Indian
consumers give priority to economic issues, which are followed by ProC. When these
two requirements are satisfied, environmental conditions acquire importance. The
purchase decision of TBP also gets influenced marginally by social features like peer
pressure, awareness on the green products, and social status attached to the TBP.
It is reported in the literature that consumers buy environmentally superior products
only when following three conditions are fulfilled (Reinhardt, 1998).
1 Willingness to buy environmentally superior products, i.e., customer is willing to pay
premium on environmentally differentiated products.
2 Company is credibly able to communicate environmental superiority of its products.
3 Company is able to protect its innovation from competitors.
In the context of consumer purchasing TBP, it is evident that Indian consumers do not
want to pay premium on environmentally superior TBP. Moreover, they are looking for
private benefits such as cost saving and payback period along with environmental
benefits. They also purchase these products due to peer pressure and perceived
enhancement of their social status. For example, consumers feel good when they buy five
star rated air conditioner or refrigerator. Hence, it can be inferred from the study that
following conditions should be met under which consumers buy environmentally superior
products:
1 There should be cost parity with similar non-green products.
2 Product performance should be at par or better than the other products available in
the market.
3 Environmentally superior TBP should offer some private benefits such as saving in
energy bills
4 Environmentally superior TBP should add to the status of the consumers viz., five
star air conditioner or refrigerator will enhance the social status of consumers.
The implications of this framework to various stakeholders have been discussed in the
following section.
96 S. Satapathy et al.

5 Implications

Helping consumers get involved in sustainable consumption is beneficial for the

environment and also for the entire supply chain, i.e., consumers, retailers, dealers and
manufacturers (e.g., Williams et al., 2010). To identify the determinants of
technology-based household product consumption, this study explored how the
19 variables, factored into four determinants, affected the purchase decision of
consumers.
The findings from the empirical study provide important theoretical contributions.
This study empirically establishes that for Indian consumers, cost and ProC are key
determinants, exceeding the importance of environmental and social factors while
purchasing technology-based household products.
A major business implication is that companies selling environmentally superior TBP
will have to (a) deliver environmentally superior products at a cost that consumers in the
developing world can afford, i.e., they have to shift from ‘VFM’ to ‘value for many’
strategy. This is a counterintuitive strategy for MNCs as they are used to charging
premium on differentiated products in the developed market. Nevertheless, in the
developing market products offered must be superior in terms of quality without any
premium and, in fact, be preferably cheaper than other rival products. This calls for a
change in the mind-set of the managers as they need to see environment as a source of
innovation and a tool to create competitive advantage. Currently, none of the TBP
companies follow this strategy; however, Tata Motors have demonstrated that producing
cheaper products is possible without compromising the quality of the product and its
environmental performance. The Tata Nano car, though cheaper, displays an
environmental performance that is at par with any city car available in India.
Another implication for business managers is that companies while promoting
environmentally superior TBP must offer private benefits. These benefits may be tangible
ones, including an imaginative bundle of private benefits or a combination of private and
public benefits.
Our results are different from previous studies. For instance, Reinhardt (1998)
claimed that consumers are willing to pay a premium on the environmentally superior
products, whereas this research suggests that Indian consumers do not want to pay any
premium cost for the environmentally superior TBPs. This can be explained through the
fact that Indian middle-class consumers possess less purchasing power compared to
consumers of developed countries. Moreover, currently, Indian consumers are primarily
focusing on material wellbeing and consider environment as a public good. Hence, they
are not willing to pay premium on environmentally superior products. Also, majority of
the environmentally superior products (for example air conditions and refrigerators) are
certified by a third party; hence, the second condition mentioned by Reinhardt (1998),
i.e., credible communication, becomes insignificant, at least in the case of TBP in India.
Lastly, third party certification of TBP helps create a status symbol in the mind of
customers. This also helps companies to credibly communicate superior environmental
features of their products.
The implications for businesses can be using the framework for preparing
communication and marketing strategy for given products. For NGOs and Government,
this framework can be used for public campaigns, educational programs and for
policymaking on sustainability and climate adoption strategy. Awareness drives citing
this framework are likely to deliver benefits for pro-environment behaviour and make
 Determinants of technology-based product adoption by consumers 97

consumers more attentive towards environmental characteristics of the products that will
support the cause of climate change mitigation.

6 Limitations and scope for future research

This study of consumer behaviour has been carried out among medium range investment
products that are technology-based. Low-cost consumer goods such as stationery,
eatables, and cosmetics and high cost investments such as personal vehicles or house,
which involve continuous GHG emissions throughout their lifetime, have been excluded.
Specific studies can be conducted to ascertain the determinants for low and high
capital investments. The consumer studies can be extended further to analyse the role of
government towards the adoption of different products by the consumers, because apart
from industrial GHG emissions, domestic GHG emissions also contribute significantly to
climate change.
Also, as the variable SC has the lowest factor scoring (0.85), this shows that
environmentalism among the Indian consumers is less compared to other aspects
included in the study. With reference to the studies by Kreidler and Joseph-Mathews
(2009) and Kumar and Ghodeswar (2015), further research on factors affecting
pro-environmental behaviour among Indian consumers is essential to understand the
consumer behaviour towards sustainable consumption.

References
Albino, V., Balice, A., Dangelico, R.M. and Iacobone, F.A. (2012) ‘The effect of the adoption of
environmental strategies on green product development: a study of companies on world
sustainability indices’, International Journal of Management, Vol. 29, No. 2, p.525.
Amram, M. and Kulatilaka, N. (2009) California Management Review, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.194–218
[online] http://cmr.berkeley.edu (accessed January 2014).
Ansari, A. and Riasi, A. (2016) ‘An investigation of factors affecting brand advertising success and
effectiveness’, International Business Research, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.20–30 [online]
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v9n4p20 (accessed December 2016).
Awnings in Residential Buildings (2007) The Impact on Energy Use and Peak Demand, University
of Minnesota, Center for Sustainable Building Research.
Biel, A. and Dahlstrand, U. (2005) ‘Values and habits: a dual-process model’, in Krarup, S. and
Russell, C.S. (Eds.): Environment, Information and Consumer Behaviour, pp.33–50,
Cheltenham, Elgar.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951) ‘Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests’, Psychometrika,
Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.297–334.
Crosno, J.L. and Cui, A.P. (2014) ‘A multilevel analysis of the adoption of sustainable technology’,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Spring, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.209–224.
Do Paco, A.M.F., Raposo, M.L.B. and Fihlo, W.L. (2009) ‘Identifying the green consumer: a
segmentation study’, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 17,
No. 1, pp.17–25.
Faiers, A., Cook, M. and Neame, C. (2007) ‘Towards a contemporary approach for understanding
consumer behaviour in the context of domestic energy use’, Energy Policy, Vol. 35, No. 8,
pp.4381–4390 [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.01.003 (accessed May 2015).
Follows, S.B. and Jobber, D. (2000) ‘Environmentally responsible purchase behaviour: a test of a
consumer model’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.723–746.
98 S. Satapathy et al.

George, D. and Mallery, P. (2003) SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference,
4th ed., 11.0 update, P 231, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006) Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th ed., Pearson Education Inc, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hauge, A.L., Thomsen, J. and Löfström, E. (2012) ‘How to get residents/owners in-housing
cooperatives to agree on sustainable renovation’, Energy Efficiency, May, Vol. 6, No. 2,
pp.315–328 [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12053-012-9175-5 (accessed December 2015).
Hutcheson, G. and Sofroniou, N. (1999) The Multivariate Social Scientist, Sage Publications,
London.
Jamersion, F.E. and Benjamin, E. (2007) Electric Bikes Worldwide Reports, 8th ed. [online]
http://www.ebwr.com (accessed June 2016).
Jansson, J. and Marell, A. (2010) ‘Green consumer behaviour: determinants of curtailment and
eco-innovation adoption’, Journal of Consumer Marketing. Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.358–370.
Kilbourne, W. and Pickett, G. (2008) ‘How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and
environmentally responsible behavior’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61, No. 9,
pp.885–893.
Kreidler, N.B. and Joseph-Mathews, S. (2009) ‘How green should you go? Understanding the role
of green atmospherics in service environment evaluations’, International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.228–245.
KSG Working Paper Series No. RWP03-012 (2003) Carbon prices can be internalized, either
through the imposition of a carbon tax or by setting emissions limits and use markets to
allocate across users (cap and trade). The uncertainties in the mechanisms through which GHG
effluents affect climate, as well as the uneven distribution of impacts, makes designing and
implementing a global climate mitigation scheme extremely difficult. For a critical analysis of
climate change policy architectures, see Aldy, J., Barret, S. and Stavins, R. ‘Thirteen plus one:
a comparison of global climate policy architectures’.
Kumar, P. and Ghodeswar, B.M. (2015) ‘Factors affecting consumers’ green product purchase
decisions’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 33, No. 3, p.330.
Lam, S.P. (2006) ‘Predicting intention to save water: theory of planned behavior, response
efficiency, vulnerability and perceived efficiency of alternative solutions’, J. Appl. Soc.
Psychol., Vol. 36, No. 11, pp.2803–2824.
Lane, K.K. (1993) ‘Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity’,
Journal of Marketing. Vol. 57, No. 1, pp.1–22.
Lee, K. (2009) ‘Gender difference in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing
behaviour’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.87–96.
Luchs, M.G., Naylor, R.W., Irwin, J.R. and Raghunathan, R. (2010) ‘The sustainability liability:
potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74,
No. 5, pp.18–31.
Lutzenhiser, L. (1994) ‘Innovation and organizational networks barriers to energy efficiency in the
US housing industry’, Energy Policy, Vol. 22, No. 10, pp.867–876.
Matzler, K. and Hinterhuber, H. (1998) ‘How to make product development projects more
successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality function
deployment’, Technovation, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.25–38.
Moss, S., Prosser, H. and Costello, H. (1998) ‘Reliability and validity of the checklist for detecting
psychiatric disorders in adults with intellectual disability’, Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp.173–183.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parikh, J., Panda, M., Ganesh-Kumar, A. and Singh, A. (2009) ‘CO2 emissions structure of Indian
economy’, Energy, August, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp.1024–1031 [online] http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2009.02.014 (accessed June 2015).
 Determinants of technology-based product adoption by consumers 99

Prashant, K. and Bhimrao, M. (2015) ‘Factors affecting consumers’ green product purchase
decisions’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.330–347 [online]
https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-03-2014-0068 (accessed December 2015).
Reinhardt, F.L. (1998) ‘Environmental product differentiation: implications for corporate strategy’,
California Management Review, Summer, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp.43–73.
Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. (Eds.) (1991) Measures of Personality and
Social Psychological Attitudes, Academic Press, San Diego.
Schultz, P.W. (2001) ‘The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people and
the biosphere’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.327–339.
Sener, A. and Hazer, O. (2008) ‘Values and sustainable consumption behaviour of women: a
Turkish sample’, Sustainable Development, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp.291–300 [online]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.329 (accessed June 2015).
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991) ‘Why we buy what we buy: a theory of
consumption values’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.159–170.
Shourmatoff, A. (2007) For a Vivid Description of the Impact of our Daily Actions, An Eco-System
of One’s Own, Vanity Fair.
Sriram, V. and Forman, A.M. (1993) ‘The relative importance of products’ environmental
attributes: a cross-cultural comparison’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 10, No. 3,
pp.51–70.
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Johnson, L.W. (1999) ‘The role of perceived risk in the
quality-value relationship: a study in a retail environment’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75,
No. 1, pp.77–105.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001) Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed., Allyn & Bacon,
Needham Heights, MA.
Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011) ‘Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha’, International Journal of
Medical Education, Vol. 2, pp.53–55 [online] http://www.pbl.nl (accessed April 2015).
Trends in Global CO2 emissions (2014) Report PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency.
US Household Electricity Report (2005) Energy Information Administration, US Department of
Energy, 14 July.
Wheale, P. and Hinton, D. (2007) ‘Ethical consumers in search of markets’, Business Strategy and
the Environment, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.302–315 [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.484
(accessed May 2015).
Williams, J., Memery, J., Megicks, P. and Morrison, M. (2010) ‘Ethics and social responsibilityin
Australian grocery shopping’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
Vol. 38, No. 4, pp297–316.
Williams, K. and Dair, C. (2007) ‘What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers
experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments’, Sustainable
Developments, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.135–147.
Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S. and Oates, C.J. (2010) ‘Sustainable consumption: green
consumer behaviour when purchasing products’, Sustainable Development. Sust. Dev.,
Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.20–31
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) ‘Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp.2–22.
Zimmer, M.R., Stafford, T.F. and Stafford, M.R. (1994) ‘Green issues: dimensions of
environmental concern’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.63–74.
Zou, S., Fang, E. and Shuming, Z. (2003) ‘The effect of export marketing capabilities on export
performance: an investigation of Chinese firms’, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 11,
No. 4, pp.32–55.