Vol 13 No. 2 JUL-DEC 2014 A RESEARCH JOURNAL OF DR. VIKHE PATIL FOUNDATION'S, PRAVARA CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, PUNE PRAVARA MANAGEMENT REVIEW PMR Print ISSN 0975-7201 Listed in Cabells International Directory PCMRD Online ISSN 2278-0165 Indexed in Indian Citation Index (ICI) 1. Bancassurance-Insurer's Delight or Customer's Plight 2. Women Empowerment through Self Help Group with Special Reference to Shirol Taluka 3. Status of Indian Agriculture: Empirical Insights 4. A Comparison of Haryana's Development and Its Neighbouring States 5. Eco Friendly Products Attitude towards Pricing 6. Role of Perceived Fairness in Employee Trust Development 7. A Study of the Factors Impacting Choice of Shopping Formats and Specific Stores in respect of specified Consumer Durables in NOIDA 8. Roadmap to Quality Research 9. Comparison of Financial Performance of Cooperative Banks through Productivity and Profitability: An Analytical Study 10. Marketers shifting from the Herd to the Swarm Fizz or Fizzle? 11. “Banking the unbanked” Through the collaboration of banks and post offices 12. A Study of Learners' Perception response to AV based teaching method Dr. Pooja Chatley, Dr Liaqat Ali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Dr. V. A. Patil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 M.R. Patil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Niyati Chaudhary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Dipti Shankar Barge, Dr. Dinkar Khashaba More, Dr. Sarang Shankar Bhola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Savita Kulkarni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Shrirang Altekar, Dr. Anil Keskar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Dr. Sarang Shankar Bhola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Dr. Shrikrishna S. Mahajan, Gauri Bhimrao Patil . . . . . . . . . . 54 Geetika Jain, Dr. Sapna Rakesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Rati Chandra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Dr. Sanjay Kaptan, Rajkumari Tamphasana Devi . . . . . . . . . 75
Transcript
Set-up in 1984 under the aegis of Dr. Vikhe Patil Foundation and presently led by Dr. AshokPatil, Pravara Centre for Management Research & Development (PCMRD) recentlycompleted two decades of imparting management education par excellence. PCMRD is
. PCMRDoffers the MBAprogramme.
Apart from rightfully finding a place amongst the highly ranked B-Schools in nationwidesurveys, PCMRD has successfully and more importantly - found a place in the hearts of itsstudents. Not surprisingly, PCMRD boasts of a strong alumni network eager to furtherstrengthen its alma mater. The alumni network together with the constant industry interface hasalways ensured a smooth passage to the students into corporate careers. As a testimony to itsconstant industry interface, PCMRD is one of the only two postgraduate institutions inMaharashtra chosen under the Young Indians Programme by the Confederation of IndianIndustry (CII).
With a centrally located picturesque campus equipped with all the infrastructural facilities,PCMRD is easily one of the most sought after B-Schools in Pune. But what sets PCMRD apartis not all brick & mortar but its human assets. A motivated, highly qualified and richlyexperienced faculty committed to the cause of quality management education is the real andcore strength of PCMRD. Effective management requires decisions based on contextualanalysis and insights. To simulate the intellect and enhance intellectual capabilities, the casemethod of learning is extensively used. Case discussions are supplemented with lectures,seminars, games, role-plays, industrial visits, and group exercises. This, coupled with ajudicious mix of academic and extra-curricular activities has enabled PCMRD to consistentlydeliver well-groomed managers competent enough to fulfill the corporate demands.
In constant pursuit of its vision to emerge as a leader in the field of value centered managementeducation in India, PCMRD's mission is to impart quality education and conduct sociallyrelevant research in the field of modern management while retaining traditional Indian values.
(Permanently affiliated to Pune University)
2 Years Full time Post Graduate Masters Degree Programme
permanently affiliated to the Pune University and is also approved by the AICTE
Programme offered by PCMRD
Master of Business Administration (MBA)
About PCMRD
Vol 13 No. 2 JUL-DEC 2014
A RESEARCH JOURNAL OF
DR. VIKHE PATIL FOUNDATION'S,
PRAVARA CENTRE FOR
MANAGEMENT RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT, PUNE
PRAVARA MANAGEMENT REVIEW
PMRPrint ISSN 0975-7201
Listed in Cabells International Directory
PCMRD
Online ISSN 2278-0165
Near Patrakar Nagar, Off Senapati Bapat Road, Pune - 411016Tel.: (020)2565 1104 / 2565 1499. Fax: (020)2566 0551E-mail: [email protected] www.pcmrd.org
PRAVARA CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENTRESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
DR. VIKHE PATIL FOUNDATION'S
Published by Director, PCMRD, Pune on behalf of Dr. Vikhe Patil Foundation's, Pravara Centre for Management Research & Development, Near Patrakar Nagar,
Off Senapati Bapat Road, Pune 411016.
Printed at Anupam Creations, 2/14, Marwa, 10/2A Kothrud, Pune 411029 and published at Dr. Vikhe Patil Foundation's, Pravara Centre for Management Research & Development,
Near Patrakar Nagar, Off Senapati Bapat Road, Pune 411016.
PCMRD
Indexed in Indian Citation Index (ICI)
1. Bancassurance-Insurer's Delight or Customer's Plight
2. Women Empowerment through Self Help Group withSpecial Reference to Shirol Taluka
3. Status of Indian Agriculture: Empirical Insights
4. A Comparison of Haryana's Development and ItsNeighbouring States
5. Eco Friendly Products Attitude towards Pricing
6. Role of Perceived Fairness in Employee Trust Development
7. A Study of the Factors Impacting Choice of ShoppingFormats and Specific Stores in respect of specified ConsumerDurables in NOIDA
8. Roadmap to Quality Research
9. Comparison of Financial Performance of Cooperative Banksthrough Productivity and Profitability: An Analytical Study
10. Marketers shifting from the Herd to the Swarm Fizz orFizzle?
11. “Banking the unbanked” Through the collaboration ofbanks and post offices
12. A Study of Learners' Perception response to AV basedteaching method
welcomes articles on all aspects ofmanagement, thought, research and practice.We publish empirical papers, review papers,executive experience-sharing, researchnotes, case studies and book-reviews. Theofficial editorial address of PMR is:
However, the authors may send soft copiesof their submissions directly to the Editor.Manuscripts should be submitted as softcopies. They should be typed in Times NewRoman font size 12, with 1.5 line spacingand with margins of one inch on all sides.The normal size of a paper is about 8,000-10,000 words
: Manuscript of a paper shouldhave a cover page providing the title of thepaper, the name(s), address(es), phone, faxnumbers and e-mail address(es) of allauthors and acknowledgements if any. Inorder to facilitate anonymous review of thepapers, please restrict the author-relatedinformation only to the cover page.
: Following the cover page, thereshould be an 'abstract' page, which should
contain the title of the paper, the subtitle'Abstract' and a summary of the paper insingle space, not exceeding 150 words. Thetext of the paper should not start on this page,but on a fresh page with the title of the paperrepeated.
: References should be cited inthe style prescribed in the PublicationManual of the American PsychologicalAssociation (4 ed.). Indicate the position ofthe reference in the text within brackets bythe author's last name and the year ofpublication; e.g.: '(Porter, 1980)' orincorporate it into a sentence, eg: 'as pointedout by Hannan and Freeman (1977)'. At theend of the text, references should be listed inthe alphabetical order of the last names of theauthors, with a title REFERENCES.Examples of how the references are to belisted at the end of the paper are given below.
: Porter, M.E. (1980), New York: Free
Press.
: Hannan,M.T. and Freeman, J. (1977) ThePopulation Ecology of Organizations,
82 (5):929-964
:Kanter, R.M. (1988) When a ThousandFlowers Bloom. In B. Staw and L.C u m m i n g s ( e d s ) ,
pp.169-211,Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Each Figure/Tableshould be printed on a separate sheet. Figuresand tables are to be separately numbered,titled and attached at the end of the textserially. The position of the figure or tableshould be indicated in the text on a separateline with the words "Table 1 about here".
At the end of theblind review process, the editor informs theauthor about the acceptance or rejection ofthe manuscript. On acceptance, the author isexpected to incorporate the modificationssuggested by the reviewers, if any, andsubmit a soft copy of the final revisedmanuscript.
Authors should ensure that the manuscriptsubmitted to is not simultaneouslysubmitted to any other journal or publisher.Similarly, it should not be submittedanywhere else during the pendency of thereview process which will take about 3-6months. Once a manuscript is accepted by orpublished in , it becomes the property of
, whose permission is required forany operations covered by the CopyrightAct.
“The Editor, PMR”
Pravara Centre for ManagementResearch & Development,
(If it is an article in periodical or newspaper):
(For Electronic documents):
Dr. Vikhe Patil Foundation's
Near Patrakarnagar, Off Senapati BapatRoad, Pune 411016. Maharashtra, India.Tel: (91) (020) 25651104, 25651499Fax: (91) (020) 25651550E-mail: [email protected]
Business standard 2004. Telcosworld leaders in profitability. July 23:1.
FinancialExpress. ICI yet to respond toAsian Paintsoffer.
http://www.expressindia.com/fe/daily/1998/0295:html Accessed on July 16,2003.
(1) Views expressed by contributors are not necessarily views of PMR.
(2) Reasonable efforts are made by the PMR to ensure that papers published do not contain plagiarized material.The ultimate onus for ensuring that no plagiarism has been resorted to however rests with the authors.
(3) Articles published in should not be reproduced/reprinted in any form, either in full or part, without priorwritten permission from the Editor. PMR is authorized to market the contents of the journal through re-licenseor sale of information products using any media (traditional or electronic) or formats presently known orhereafter discovered. Permission to make digital/hard copy of published work is granted without fee forpersonal or classroom use.
PMR
All correspondence regarding subscription and advertisements regarding PMR should beaddressed to
Subscription / Advertisement amount should be paid by Demand draft drawn infavour of " " payble at Pune.Dr. Vikhe Patil Foundation’s, PCMRD
Dr. Ashok Patil
Dr V. Sita
Dr. A. K. VashishtDr. Sugan Jain
ChairmanDr. Vikhe Patil Foundation Pune
Professor & DeanSchool of Management StudiesUniversity of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Dean & ProfessorFaculty of Business Management &CommerceUniversity Business School. PanjabUniversity, Chandigarh
Vice-PresidentRajasthan Chambers of Commerce and IndustryJaipur
,
Dr. Sanjay Kaptan
Dr. S. V. Kadvekar
Dr. P.C. Shejwalkar
Dr. Anil Keskar
Dr. Sarang Bhola
Head, Department of Commerce andResearch Centre, University of PunePune
Professor and Head,Dr. D S. Savkar Chair, University of Pune,Pune
Professor EmeritusFaculty of Management,University of PunePune
Advisor,D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth,Pune
Associate ProfessorKarmaveer Bhaurao Patil Institute of ManagementStudies and Research,Satara.
Dr. Manoj NarwadeDirector,
PCMRD, Pune
Dr. Puja BhardwajEditor-PMR
Associate Professor, PCMRD, Pune
1
Contents
PMR JUL - DEC 2014
ABOUT Pravara
Management Review (PMR)
The Philosophy:
Pravara Management Review(PMR) invites innovative andpreferably research-based articlesin any area of management.Practicing managers are welcometo submit data-based case studiesfor publication. All authors shouldaim at advancing existing thoughtand/or practices in the relevantfield and hence should endeavourto be original and insightful.Submissions should indicate anunderstanding of the relevantliterature and the contribution ofthe submissions to this body ofresearch. Empirical articles shouldhave an appropriate methodologyand be able to relate their findingsto the existing literature.Methodological articles mustattempt to show how they furtherexisting theory.
The review process: The reviewprocess followed by PMR issystematic and thorough. Articlessubmitted to the journal areinitially screened by the editor forrelevance and overall quality asjudged by the presentation ofconcepts, methodology andfindings. Inappropriate or weaksubmissions are not forwarded fora formal review. Those consideredappropriate are submitted to adouble blind review process.
Potential Contributors: Everyresearch-oriented individual andinstitution, and every researchstudent, faculty working anywherein the world is invited to explorefruitful connections with PMR.
1. Bancassurance-Insurer's Delight or Customer's Plight
2. Women Empowerment through Self Help Group with
Special Reference to Shirol Taluka
3. Status of Indian Agriculture: Empirical Insights
Dr.
4. A Comparison of Haryana's Development and Its
Neighbouring States
5. Eco Friendly Products Attitude towards Pricing
6. Role of Perceived Fairness in Employee Trust Development
7. A Study of the Factors Impacting Choice of Shopping
Formats and Specific Stores in respect of specified Consumer
Durables in NOIDA
8. Roadmap to Quality Research
9. Comparison of Financial Performance of Cooperative Banks
through Productivity and Profitability: An Analytical Study
10. Marketers shifting from the Herd to the Swarm Fizz or
Fizzle?
11. “Banking the unbanked” Through the collaboration of
banks and post offices
12. A Study of Learners' Perception response to AV based
28 PMR JUL - DEC 2014 29Eco Friendly Products Attitude towards Pricing
Introduction
Review of Literature
Last two decades the environmental issues are the most discussedmatters in all the summits and conferences. The end result isincreased awareness of buying of environment friendly productspopularly known as 'Eco- friendly Products” . The research ineco-friendly products has gained tremendous attention. But themajor cause of concern for majority consumers is the price of theeco-friendly products. It has observed that, theeco-friendlyproducts are highly priced. Customers though attracted towardsthese products don't get converted as the money factor is crucial.An attempt has been made to study the price effect on buying theeco-friendly product.
With the zest of ascertaining the attitudes of buyers towardspricing of eco-friendly products, researchers have studiedarticles across the globe that focused on studying the buyerbehavior of customers with respect to price of eco-friendlyproducts.
(Hae Jin Gam, 2010),the results showed that consumers are lesslikely to purchase organic cotton clothing(OCC) when it has a60% higher price so it can be assumed that the consumersconsider the available organic cotton clothing (OCC) tooexpensive. Similar results were observed in a research(AfzaalAli, 2012), where consumers will purchase green products moreoften, if businesses offer competitive green products in terms ofprice and quality as compared to traditional products to thosecustomers who are willing to give preference to environmentfriendly businesses.(Christopher Gan, 2008)Observed that, thehigher price has a negative effect on the probability of consumerspurchasing green products. Consumers are less likely to purchase
green products if the products are more expensive.(Durif,2012)Also found that, consumers feel that they are getting lessfor their money (financial loss) since they perceive that greenproducts cost more than traditional products.
Contradictory results were observed in a research of (Dr.H.C.Purohit, 2011), it has observed that an overwhelming majority(92%) of the respondents are agreeing with the statement that 'Iam ready to pay more prices of eco-friendly products'. Parallelresults were observed in a research of (K. P. V. Ramanakumar,2012), where, a majority (81%) of the respondents agree to thestatement that 'I would like to purchase those products which arecostlier but causing less environmental pollution'. In a researchof (Magali Morel, 2012), it was found that, the majority ofsample was willing to pay extra for green products' price (in astudy: +10%).However (Bjork, 1998), observed that therespondents were on average willing to pay a 6.5 percent higherprice for a detergent marked with a green label and 20 percentmore for a more environmentally friendly refrigerator. But thereis also a large group of consumers who are not willing to pay ahigher price. In a research of (Jurate Banyte, 2010), it was foundthat, when the respondents were asked about the amount ofmoney (in percent) they are ready to spend for eco-friendly foodproduct in comparison to an identical conventional product, itemerged that 15 percent of respondents are ready to pay anamount higher by 50 percent, and another 20 percent would paythe amount higher by 25 to 50 percent; 24 percent of respondentswould pay from 5 to 10 percent more for an eco-friendly productand only 3 percent would not pay more for it. Besides, crossanalysis of results show that the consumers who are more likelyto contribute to environmental conservation and are moresensitive to environmental issues tend to pay more for eco-
the United Kingdom: An Inaugural Lecture “ in Kaldor,N.(1978), ,Duckworth, London.
Kaldor, N.(1970) ,” The Case for Regional Policies” ,,Vol.17, pp.337-348.
Kiran, R. and Kaur, Manpreet (2007), “ Is liberalizationassociated with Higher Productivity? A Case Study ofPunjab Manufacturing” ,
, Vol.11, No.4, Oct-Dec, pp.53-64.
Kumar, Rakesh (2007), “ Input-Output Relationship,Productivity, Efficiency and Technical Change inManufacturing Sector in Haryana: A Stochastic FrontierProduction Function Estimation”
, Vol.11, pp.41-63.
Kumar, S. (2006),” Liberalization: Efficiency, Productivityand Production Function Behaviour in IndianManufacturing Sector” , Vol.LXXXVI, No.344, pp.37-53.
Kumar, Satinder and Singh, Parminder (2011), “TechnicalEfficiency in the Small Scale Industrial Sectors of Punjaband Haryana A Comparative Analysis” , ,November.
Kuznets, S. (1965),, W. W. Norton and Company Inc., New
York.
Singer, Hans (1950), "The Distribution of Gains betweenInvesting and Borrowing Countries",
pp. 473-486. The State Domestic Product isdefined .
*Assistant Professor, Gourishankar Institute of Management Sciences, Limb, Satara.
** Associate Professor, Arts and Commerce College, Ashta, Sangli.
*** Associate Professor, Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Institute of Management Studies and Research, Satara.
30 PMR JUL - DEC 2014 31Eco Friendly Products Attitude towards Pricing
Table 1 presented above indicates the attitudes of samples about pricing of eco-friendly products. Samples have given 1 rank to thestatement of readiness of purchasing those products which are costlier but causing less environmental pollution, with 4.12 mean and1.1 S.D. For the statement of “accepting paying extra price for eco-friendly products to preserve our environment” samples gave 2rank with 3.94 mean and 1.36 S.D. Samples have given 3 rank to a statement “purchasing recycling products even they are moreexpensive.” With 3.85 mean and 1.34 S.D. Samples opine that, the benefits of protecting the environment do not justify the expenseinvolved with mean value of 3.65 and 1.5 S.D. with 4 rank. This signifies that samples feel that even though the prices of eco-friendlyproducts are more, the benefits that they are going to get by unpolluted environment are more. These benefits are incomparable. In thecontrary, samples are not ready to pay more taxes to support government in implementing eco-friendly policies, with 3.31 mean and1.61 S.D. This attitude secured 5 rank. At last samples gave 6 rank to a statement which says, personal economic concern is moreimportant than preserving the environment with 3.06 mean values and 1.03 S.D.
Samples have shown favorable attitude towards pricing of eco-friendly products. Samples have found ready to spend more amountsfor products that cause less environment pollution and products that are recycled with 4.12, 3.85 mean and 1.1, 1.34 S.D. respectively.But samples have shown unfavorable attitude towards paying more tax to support government for developing environment friendlypolicy (mean 3.31and S.D. 1.61).
st
nd
rd
th
th th
Table.2
Table.3 Attitude of samples about pricing according to SEC a test of significance
Attitude of samples about pricing according to Socio Economic Class
Tukey HSD (n=160)
friendly products.
On similar lines, (Bryunina Daria, 2011) revealed that, most ofthe respondents (56 people) answered that they may buy organicproducts despite the higher price. Twice less (26) answered thatthey are not inclined to overpay for organic products. The rest ofrespondents (18 respondents) did not think about thisquestion.(Michel Laroche, 2001), observed that, Individuals whoare married (56 percent) and have children living at home (57percent) are more willing to pay a higher price for green products.It may be suggested that these individuals are more inclined tothink of how a ruined environment may negatively impact notonly on their partner, but on their children's future. Interestingly,(Khandoker Mahmudur Rahman, 2011), discovered that, whileconsumers are willing to pay a price premium for a green brand,this willingness to pay has a price ceiling. Price elasticity ofdemand is no more inelastic beyond this price ceiling.
Researchers have observed from above review that, customershave contradictory attitudes towards price of eco-friendlyproducts. Customers are unanimous on a fact that, eco-friendlyproducts are expensive than its non-eco-friendlycounterpartproducts. However, it has noticed that, the customers are ready topay the higher price for these products, for various reasons, like,environment consciousness, health reasons, status and so on.Even though, this willingness to pay premium has observed priceceiling that ranges from, 5 to 50 percent. On the contrary,researchers observed that, customers are not ready to paypremium for eco-friendly products. A common attitude observedthat, eco-friendly products should be available at competitiveprices, without compromising its quality. These contradictoryattitudes towards pricing of eco-friendly products, posed fewquestions in the mind of researchers, as whether customers fromvarious socio-economic classes exhibit different attitude towardspricing of eco-friendly products? Whether environmentconscious customers are willing to pay more for eco-friendlyproducts? What is the attitude of customers that are non-buyers ofeco-friendly products, towards pricing of customers? With thesequestions in mind, researcher framed following objectives of thestudy.
Present study has used diagnostic research design put to test thehypothesis i.e. customers are not indifferent of price whilepurchasing eco-friendly product. The prime objective of thestudy is to know the attitude of customers towards pricing of eco-friendly products.
Quota sampling technique was used for selecting the samples.Quota was decided on the basis of 12 Socio-Economic Classes,A1 to E12. From these socio economic classes 160 samples wereidentified as users of eco-friendly products, while 151 wereidentified as non-users of eco-friendly products. Structuredquestions seeking attitude towards pricing of eco-friendlyproducts has been asked to both the groups. Attitudes of users ofeco-friendly products were measured on five point likert scale (1-Strongly Agree to 5 - Strongly Disagree). These variables were, Iaccept paying extra price for EFPs to preserve our environment, I
am ready to pay more taxes to support government implementeco-friendly policies, I purchase those products which arecostlier but causing less environmental pollution,(K. P. V.Ramankumar, 2012)I purchase recycled products even they aremore expensive, the benefits of protecting the environment donot justify the expense involved, Personally, I have economicconcerns which I consider more important than preserving theenvironment. For non-users these statements were modified as Iwould accept paying extra price for environmentally-friendlyproducts to preserve our environment, I would be willing to paymore taxes to support government implement eco-friendlypolicies, I believe that the price of environmentally safe productis usually more than the other products, I would like to purchasethose products which are costlier but causing less environmentalpollution, I will purchase recycled products even they are moreexpensive, the benefits of protecting the environment do notjustify the expense involved and Personally, I have economicconcerns which I consider more important than preserving theenvironment. The variable “ I believe that the price ofenvironmentally safe product is usually more than the otherproducts” has been added, as these samples are aware about eco-friendly products, but do not use it assuming the perceived highprice of a eco-friendly products.
Responses and analysis has been presented below.
Data was analyzed using various statistical tools of SPSSsoftware.
Mean, Standard deviations were used to study the attitude ofsamples towards pricing of eco-friendly products. For studyingthe differences if any, between socio economic classes aboutpricing of eco-friendly productsAnalysis of Variance has broughtin use. For testing the hypothesis Kolmogorov Smirnov test hasbeen used.
Samples have asked to express their attitude about pricing of eco-friendly products. Samples have provided with followingstatements. Mean, S.D. and rank of statements have presentedbelow.
(Source: Field Data)
Research Methodology
Data analysis
1. Attitude about Pricing of Eco friendly Products -Users of
eco-friendly products
Table.1 Attitude about Pricing of Eco friendly
Products(users of eco-friendly products) (n=160)Sr. Statements Mean S.D. Rank
1I accept paying extra price for EFPsto preserve our environment
3.94 1.36 2
2I am ready to pay more taxes tosupport government implement eco-friendly policies
3.31 1.61 5
3I purchase those products which arecostlier but causing lessenvironmental pollution
4.12 1.1 1
4I purchase recycled products eventhey are more expensive
3.85 1.34 3
5The benefits of protecting theenvironment do not justify theexpense involved
3.65 1.5 4
6
Personally, I have economicconcerns which I consider moreimportant than preserving theenvironment
30 PMR JUL - DEC 2014 31Eco Friendly Products Attitude towards Pricing
Table 1 presented above indicates the attitudes of samples about pricing of eco-friendly products. Samples have given 1 rank to thestatement of readiness of purchasing those products which are costlier but causing less environmental pollution, with 4.12 mean and1.1 S.D. For the statement of “accepting paying extra price for eco-friendly products to preserve our environment” samples gave 2rank with 3.94 mean and 1.36 S.D. Samples have given 3 rank to a statement “purchasing recycling products even they are moreexpensive.” With 3.85 mean and 1.34 S.D. Samples opine that, the benefits of protecting the environment do not justify the expenseinvolved with mean value of 3.65 and 1.5 S.D. with 4 rank. This signifies that samples feel that even though the prices of eco-friendlyproducts are more, the benefits that they are going to get by unpolluted environment are more. These benefits are incomparable. In thecontrary, samples are not ready to pay more taxes to support government in implementing eco-friendly policies, with 3.31 mean and1.61 S.D. This attitude secured 5 rank. At last samples gave 6 rank to a statement which says, personal economic concern is moreimportant than preserving the environment with 3.06 mean values and 1.03 S.D.
Samples have shown favorable attitude towards pricing of eco-friendly products. Samples have found ready to spend more amountsfor products that cause less environment pollution and products that are recycled with 4.12, 3.85 mean and 1.1, 1.34 S.D. respectively.But samples have shown unfavorable attitude towards paying more tax to support government for developing environment friendlypolicy (mean 3.31and S.D. 1.61).
st
nd
rd
th
th th
Table.2
Table.3 Attitude of samples about pricing according to SEC a test of significance
Attitude of samples about pricing according to Socio Economic Class
Tukey HSD (n=160)
friendly products.
On similar lines, (Bryunina Daria, 2011) revealed that, most ofthe respondents (56 people) answered that they may buy organicproducts despite the higher price. Twice less (26) answered thatthey are not inclined to overpay for organic products. The rest ofrespondents (18 respondents) did not think about thisquestion.(Michel Laroche, 2001), observed that, Individuals whoare married (56 percent) and have children living at home (57percent) are more willing to pay a higher price for green products.It may be suggested that these individuals are more inclined tothink of how a ruined environment may negatively impact notonly on their partner, but on their children's future. Interestingly,(Khandoker Mahmudur Rahman, 2011), discovered that, whileconsumers are willing to pay a price premium for a green brand,this willingness to pay has a price ceiling. Price elasticity ofdemand is no more inelastic beyond this price ceiling.
Researchers have observed from above review that, customershave contradictory attitudes towards price of eco-friendlyproducts. Customers are unanimous on a fact that, eco-friendlyproducts are expensive than its non-eco-friendlycounterpartproducts. However, it has noticed that, the customers are ready topay the higher price for these products, for various reasons, like,environment consciousness, health reasons, status and so on.Even though, this willingness to pay premium has observed priceceiling that ranges from, 5 to 50 percent. On the contrary,researchers observed that, customers are not ready to paypremium for eco-friendly products. A common attitude observedthat, eco-friendly products should be available at competitiveprices, without compromising its quality. These contradictoryattitudes towards pricing of eco-friendly products, posed fewquestions in the mind of researchers, as whether customers fromvarious socio-economic classes exhibit different attitude towardspricing of eco-friendly products? Whether environmentconscious customers are willing to pay more for eco-friendlyproducts? What is the attitude of customers that are non-buyers ofeco-friendly products, towards pricing of customers? With thesequestions in mind, researcher framed following objectives of thestudy.
Present study has used diagnostic research design put to test thehypothesis i.e. customers are not indifferent of price whilepurchasing eco-friendly product. The prime objective of thestudy is to know the attitude of customers towards pricing of eco-friendly products.
Quota sampling technique was used for selecting the samples.Quota was decided on the basis of 12 Socio-Economic Classes,A1 to E12. From these socio economic classes 160 samples wereidentified as users of eco-friendly products, while 151 wereidentified as non-users of eco-friendly products. Structuredquestions seeking attitude towards pricing of eco-friendlyproducts has been asked to both the groups. Attitudes of users ofeco-friendly products were measured on five point likert scale (1-Strongly Agree to 5 - Strongly Disagree). These variables were, Iaccept paying extra price for EFPs to preserve our environment, I
am ready to pay more taxes to support government implementeco-friendly policies, I purchase those products which arecostlier but causing less environmental pollution,(K. P. V.Ramankumar, 2012)I purchase recycled products even they aremore expensive, the benefits of protecting the environment donot justify the expense involved, Personally, I have economicconcerns which I consider more important than preserving theenvironment. For non-users these statements were modified as Iwould accept paying extra price for environmentally-friendlyproducts to preserve our environment, I would be willing to paymore taxes to support government implement eco-friendlypolicies, I believe that the price of environmentally safe productis usually more than the other products, I would like to purchasethose products which are costlier but causing less environmentalpollution, I will purchase recycled products even they are moreexpensive, the benefits of protecting the environment do notjustify the expense involved and Personally, I have economicconcerns which I consider more important than preserving theenvironment. The variable “ I believe that the price ofenvironmentally safe product is usually more than the otherproducts” has been added, as these samples are aware about eco-friendly products, but do not use it assuming the perceived highprice of a eco-friendly products.
Responses and analysis has been presented below.
Data was analyzed using various statistical tools of SPSSsoftware.
Mean, Standard deviations were used to study the attitude ofsamples towards pricing of eco-friendly products. For studyingthe differences if any, between socio economic classes aboutpricing of eco-friendly productsAnalysis of Variance has broughtin use. For testing the hypothesis Kolmogorov Smirnov test hasbeen used.
Samples have asked to express their attitude about pricing of eco-friendly products. Samples have provided with followingstatements. Mean, S.D. and rank of statements have presentedbelow.
(Source: Field Data)
Research Methodology
Data analysis
1. Attitude about Pricing of Eco friendly Products -Users of
eco-friendly products
Table.1 Attitude about Pricing of Eco friendly
Products(users of eco-friendly products) (n=160)Sr. Statements Mean S.D. Rank
1I accept paying extra price for EFPsto preserve our environment
3.94 1.36 2
2I am ready to pay more taxes tosupport government implement eco-friendly policies
3.31 1.61 5
3I purchase those products which arecostlier but causing lessenvironmental pollution
4.12 1.1 1
4I purchase recycled products eventhey are more expensive
3.85 1.34 3
5The benefits of protecting theenvironment do not justify theexpense involved
3.65 1.5 4
6
Personally, I have economicconcerns which I consider moreimportant than preserving theenvironment
It can be concluded from the table 3, mentioned above that, there is no significant difference in attitude about pricing among all socioeconomic classes.
Researcher wanted to study attitudes of samples about pricing of eco-friendly products. Even though the samples from this category donot purchase any eco-friendly product, they are aware of eco-friendly products. Hence, researcher felt it important to know theirattitudes about pricing.
(Source: Field Data)
Table 4 presented above depicts the attitude of samples about pricing of Eco friendly products. It is clear from the table that, samplesbelieve that the price of environmentally safe product is usually more than the other products, with 4.6 mean value and 0.492 S.D. Thisattitude secured 1 rank. The 1 rank secured by this statement is consistent with the reason statement “ It seems a costly product” givenby samples. As samples gave 1 rank to this reason statement as one of the major reason for not buying eco-friendly products, theyreally believe that the price of eco-friendly product is really more.
The attitude of “Benefits of protecting the environment do not justify the expenses involved” received 2 rank with mean value 4.49and S.D. 0.502. The attitude statement of “ I would accept paying extra price for environmentally-friendly products to preserve ourenvironment” received 3 rank with 4.46 mean value and 0.5 S.D. “ I would be willing to pay more taxes to support governmentimplement eco-friendly policies” secured 4 rank with 4.31 mean and 0.521 S.D. “ I would like to purchase those products which arecostlier but causing less environmental pollution” secured 5 rank with 4.22 mean and 0.416 S.D. This indicates that, samples are notready to purchase costlier product that reduce environment pollution. Similarly, “ I will purchase recycled products even they are moreexpensive.” This statement too secured lower rank of 6 with mean value of 4.17 and S.D. 0.373. The last rank 7 was received by astatement “Personally, I have economic concerns which I consider more important than preserving the environment” with mean value1.57 and S.D.0.685. So it can be concluded that, even though samples are not ready to pay more price for eco-friendly products, theyreally concern more for the environment preservation than personal economic concerns.
As compared to users of eco-friendly products, it has observed that, non-users have unfavorable attitude towards pricing of eco-friendly products, as samples believe that the price of environmentally safe product is usually more than the other products, with 4.6mean and 0.492 S.D. They are not ready to purchase those products which are costlier but causing less environmental pollution (mean4.22, S.D.0.416) as well as samples do not show readiness to purchase recycled products even they are more expensive (mean 4.17,S.D.0.373). This unfavorable attitude about pricing is one of reason that these samples do not buy eco-friendly products despite beingaware of.
4. Attitudeabout Pricing of Eco friendly Products Non Users of eco-friendly products
Table.4
Attitude about Pricing of Eco friendly Products (Non users of eco-friendly products)
st st
st
nd
rd
th
th
th th
(n=145)
Sr. Statements Mean S.D. Rank
1I would accept paying extra price for environmentally-friendlyproducts to preserve our environment
4.46 0.5 3
2I would be willing to pay more taxes to support governmentimplement eco-friendly policies
4.31 0.521 4
3I believe that the price of environmentally safe product is usuallymore than the other products
4.6 0.492 1
4I would like to purchase those products which are costlier butcausing less environmental pollution
4.22 0.416 5
5 I will purchase recycled products even they are more expensive 4.17 0.373 6
6The benefits of protecting the environment do not justify theexpense involved
4.49 0.502 2
7Personally, I have economic concerns which I consider moreimportant than preserving the environment
1.57 0.685 7
32 PMR JUL - DEC 2014 33Eco Friendly Products Attitude towards Pricing
E2 E3 0 0.569 1 -1.93 1.93*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
It can be concluded from the table 3, mentioned above that, there is no significant difference in attitude about pricing among all socioeconomic classes.
Researcher wanted to study attitudes of samples about pricing of eco-friendly products. Even though the samples from this category donot purchase any eco-friendly product, they are aware of eco-friendly products. Hence, researcher felt it important to know theirattitudes about pricing.
(Source: Field Data)
Table 4 presented above depicts the attitude of samples about pricing of Eco friendly products. It is clear from the table that, samplesbelieve that the price of environmentally safe product is usually more than the other products, with 4.6 mean value and 0.492 S.D. Thisattitude secured 1 rank. The 1 rank secured by this statement is consistent with the reason statement “ It seems a costly product” givenby samples. As samples gave 1 rank to this reason statement as one of the major reason for not buying eco-friendly products, theyreally believe that the price of eco-friendly product is really more.
The attitude of “Benefits of protecting the environment do not justify the expenses involved” received 2 rank with mean value 4.49and S.D. 0.502. The attitude statement of “ I would accept paying extra price for environmentally-friendly products to preserve ourenvironment” received 3 rank with 4.46 mean value and 0.5 S.D. “ I would be willing to pay more taxes to support governmentimplement eco-friendly policies” secured 4 rank with 4.31 mean and 0.521 S.D. “ I would like to purchase those products which arecostlier but causing less environmental pollution” secured 5 rank with 4.22 mean and 0.416 S.D. This indicates that, samples are notready to purchase costlier product that reduce environment pollution. Similarly, “ I will purchase recycled products even they are moreexpensive.” This statement too secured lower rank of 6 with mean value of 4.17 and S.D. 0.373. The last rank 7 was received by astatement “Personally, I have economic concerns which I consider more important than preserving the environment” with mean value1.57 and S.D.0.685. So it can be concluded that, even though samples are not ready to pay more price for eco-friendly products, theyreally concern more for the environment preservation than personal economic concerns.
As compared to users of eco-friendly products, it has observed that, non-users have unfavorable attitude towards pricing of eco-friendly products, as samples believe that the price of environmentally safe product is usually more than the other products, with 4.6mean and 0.492 S.D. They are not ready to purchase those products which are costlier but causing less environmental pollution (mean4.22, S.D.0.416) as well as samples do not show readiness to purchase recycled products even they are more expensive (mean 4.17,S.D.0.373). This unfavorable attitude about pricing is one of reason that these samples do not buy eco-friendly products despite beingaware of.
4. Attitudeabout Pricing of Eco friendly Products Non Users of eco-friendly products
Table.4
Attitude about Pricing of Eco friendly Products (Non users of eco-friendly products)
st st
st
nd
rd
th
th
th th
(n=145)
Sr. Statements Mean S.D. Rank
1I would accept paying extra price for environmentally-friendlyproducts to preserve our environment
4.46 0.5 3
2I would be willing to pay more taxes to support governmentimplement eco-friendly policies
4.31 0.521 4
3I believe that the price of environmentally safe product is usuallymore than the other products
4.6 0.492 1
4I would like to purchase those products which are costlier butcausing less environmental pollution
4.22 0.416 5
5 I will purchase recycled products even they are more expensive 4.17 0.373 6
6The benefits of protecting the environment do not justify theexpense involved
4.49 0.502 2
7Personally, I have economic concerns which I consider moreimportant than preserving the environment
1.57 0.685 7
32 PMR JUL - DEC 2014 33Eco Friendly Products Attitude towards Pricing
E2 E3 0 0.569 1 -1.93 1.93*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
34 PMR JUL - DEC 2014 35Eco Friendly Products Attitude towards Pricing
Similar findings were observed in a study (K. P. V. Ramankumar,2012) shows that consumers are ready to pay more prices for theproductswhich are causing less environmental pollution. Thisresult contradicts the findings of previous research of (AfzaalAli,2012), which states that the price and quality are still the mostimportant ones that are considered by consumers while makingpurchasing decision. The effect of competitive product price &quality in influencing the purchase of a green product is verystrong for respondents from environment friendly businesseshaving a positive image toward the protection of theenvironment. Findingsof(Christopher Gan, 2008)reveals that,the higher Price has a negative impact on the consumers'likelihood to buy green products. According to research findingsof (Bhardwaj, 2012), price factor is key issues people and lots ofpeople are not willing to pay more for carbon label product that'swhy they opt other product. Research done by (KhandokerMahmudur Rahman, 2011) observed that consumers are willingto pay a price premium for a green brand; this willingness to payhas a price ceiling. Green price and green purchasing behavior, apositive significant relation was found, in a research of (Boztepe,2012)
Users of eco-friendly products exhibited favorable attitudetowards pricing of eco-friendly products. Users have expressedreadiness of purchasing those products which are costlier butcausing less environmental pollution. As against this, non-usersof eco-friendly products have unfavorable attitude towardspricing of Eco friendly products, as samples believe that the priceof environmentally safe product is usually more than the otherproducts.This unfavorable attitude about pricing is one of reasonthat these samples do not buy eco-friendly products despite beingaware of.
Afzaal Ali, I. A. (2012). Environment Friendly Products:Factors that Influence the Green Purchase Intentions ofPakistani Consumers. (1),84-117.
Bhardwaj, N. l. (2012, October ). Consumer Buying BehaviourToward Carbon Labelling (FMCG) in Tesco Supermarket.
(2), 1-11.
Bjork, P. (1998). The Value of Green Labels a ConsumerPerspective. , 273-287.
Bryunina Daria, K. S. (2011).
Department of Sustainable Development ofSociety and Technology.
Hae Jin Gam, H. C. (2010). Quest for the eco-apparel market: astudy of mothers willingness to purchase organic cottonclothing for their children.
, 648-656.
Jurate Banyte, L. B. (2010). Ivestigation Of Green ConsumerProfile: A Case of Lithuanian Market of Eco-Friendly FoodProducts. , 374-383.
K. P. V. Ramankumar, M. C. (2012, Feb). Consumer AttitudeTowards Green Products of FMCG Sector: An EmpiricalStudy.
(2), 34-38.
Khandoker Mahmudur Rahman, M. H. (2011, May). ExploringPrice Sensitivity of a Green Brand: A Consumers' Perspective.
(2), 84 - 97.
Conclusion:
References:
Pak Journal of Eng. Technol. Sci., 2
International Journal of Data & Network Security, 1
LTA, 3
The Influence of Eco-Labeled
Products on Consumer Buying Behavior by Focusing on Eco-
Labeled Bread.
International Journal of Consumer
Studies
Economics And Management
International Journal of Research in Commerce &
Management, 3
World Review of Business Research, 1
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis
Table. 5 Test of significance for attitude statements about pricing of eco friendly products
Findings and Discussion:
H0: customers are not indifferent of price while purchasing eco-friendly product.
Ha: Customers are indifferent of price while purchasing Eco Friendly Products.
For testing the hypothesis presented above Kolmogorov Smirnov test has been used. Data of attitude about pricings of users ofeco-friendly products has been used, hence n=160
The test is executed independently for variables under test.
1. Users of eco-friendly products have shown favorable attitude towards pricing of eco-friendly products. Samples have given 1 rankto the statement of readiness of purchasing those products which are costlier but causing less environmental pollution, with 4.12mean and 1.1 S.D. In a research by (K. P. V. Ramankumar, 2012), it has observed that an overwhelming majority (81%) of therespondents agree to the statement that 'I would like to purchase those productswhich are costlier but causing less environmentalpollution.Samples have found ready to purchase products that are recycled, with 3.85 mean and 1.34 S.D. These findings areconsistent with the research findings of (H.C.Purohit, 2011). But samples have shown unfavorable attitude towards paying moretax to support government for developing environment friendly policy (mean 3.31and S.D. 1.61) (Table.1)
2. No substantial difference has been observed, in attitudes about pricing of eco-friendly products among all socio economic classes,as significant values are greater than 0.05. Samples belonging to all the socioeconomic classes have a similar attitude towards Ecofriendly products (Table.2 and Table.3)
3. As compared to, users of eco-friendly products, it has observed that, non-usersof eco-friendly products have unfavorable attitudetowards pricing of Eco friendly products, as samples believe that the price of environmentally safe product is usually more than theother products, with 4.6 mean and 0.492 S.D. They are not ready to purchase those products which are costlier but causing lessenvironmental pollution (mean 4.22, S.D.0.416) as well as samples do not show readiness to purchase recycled products even theyare more expensive (mean 4.17, S.D.0.373). This unfavorable attitude about pricing is one of reason that these samples do not buyEco friendly products despite being aware of.(Table.4)
4. Samples are ready to extra price for EFPs to preserve our environment. (Table.5)
5. Samples are ready to pay more taxes to support government implement eco-friendly policies. (Table.5)
6. Samples purchase those products which are costlier but causing less environmental pollution (Table.5)
7. Samples purchase recycled products even they are more expensive. (Table.5)
8. Samples feel that the benefits of protecting the environment do not justify the expense involved. (Table.5)
9. Samples feel that, “Personally, I have economic concerns which I consider more important than preserving the environment” .(Table.5)
st
Sr. Statements
KS MaxAbsoluteDifference(D)
CriticalValue at 5%Level (Dc)
DecisionregardingNullHypothesis
1I accept paying extra price for EFPs topreserve our environment
0.38 0.10 Rejected
2I am ready to pay more taxes to supportgovernment implement eco-friendly policies
0.11 0.10 Rejected
3I purchase those products which are costlierbut causing less environmental pollution
0.46 0.10 Rejected
4I purchase recycled products even they aremore expensive
0.34 0.10 Rejected
5The benefits of pro tecting the environment donot justify the expense involved
0.26 0.10 Rejected
6Personally, I have economic concerns which Iconsider more important than preserving theenvironment
0.20 0.10 Rejected
34 PMR JUL - DEC 2014 35Eco Friendly Products Attitude towards Pricing
Similar findings were observed in a study (K. P. V. Ramankumar,2012) shows that consumers are ready to pay more prices for theproductswhich are causing less environmental pollution. Thisresult contradicts the findings of previous research of (AfzaalAli,2012), which states that the price and quality are still the mostimportant ones that are considered by consumers while makingpurchasing decision. The effect of competitive product price &quality in influencing the purchase of a green product is verystrong for respondents from environment friendly businesseshaving a positive image toward the protection of theenvironment. Findingsof(Christopher Gan, 2008)reveals that,the higher Price has a negative impact on the consumers'likelihood to buy green products. According to research findingsof (Bhardwaj, 2012), price factor is key issues people and lots ofpeople are not willing to pay more for carbon label product that'swhy they opt other product. Research done by (KhandokerMahmudur Rahman, 2011) observed that consumers are willingto pay a price premium for a green brand; this willingness to payhas a price ceiling. Green price and green purchasing behavior, apositive significant relation was found, in a research of (Boztepe,2012)
Users of eco-friendly products exhibited favorable attitudetowards pricing of eco-friendly products. Users have expressedreadiness of purchasing those products which are costlier butcausing less environmental pollution. As against this, non-usersof eco-friendly products have unfavorable attitude towardspricing of Eco friendly products, as samples believe that the priceof environmentally safe product is usually more than the otherproducts.This unfavorable attitude about pricing is one of reasonthat these samples do not buy eco-friendly products despite beingaware of.
Afzaal Ali, I. A. (2012). Environment Friendly Products:Factors that Influence the Green Purchase Intentions ofPakistani Consumers. (1),84-117.
Bhardwaj, N. l. (2012, October ). Consumer Buying BehaviourToward Carbon Labelling (FMCG) in Tesco Supermarket.
(2), 1-11.
Bjork, P. (1998). The Value of Green Labels a ConsumerPerspective. , 273-287.
Bryunina Daria, K. S. (2011).
Department of Sustainable Development ofSociety and Technology.
Hae Jin Gam, H. C. (2010). Quest for the eco-apparel market: astudy of mothers willingness to purchase organic cottonclothing for their children.
, 648-656.
Jurate Banyte, L. B. (2010). Ivestigation Of Green ConsumerProfile: A Case of Lithuanian Market of Eco-Friendly FoodProducts. , 374-383.
K. P. V. Ramankumar, M. C. (2012, Feb). Consumer AttitudeTowards Green Products of FMCG Sector: An EmpiricalStudy.
(2), 34-38.
Khandoker Mahmudur Rahman, M. H. (2011, May). ExploringPrice Sensitivity of a Green Brand: A Consumers' Perspective.
(2), 84 - 97.
Conclusion:
References:
Pak Journal of Eng. Technol. Sci., 2
International Journal of Data & Network Security, 1
LTA, 3
The Influence of Eco-Labeled
Products on Consumer Buying Behavior by Focusing on Eco-
Labeled Bread.
International Journal of Consumer
Studies
Economics And Management
International Journal of Research in Commerce &
Management, 3
World Review of Business Research, 1
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis
Table. 5 Test of significance for attitude statements about pricing of eco friendly products
Findings and Discussion:
H0: customers are not indifferent of price while purchasing eco-friendly product.
Ha: Customers are indifferent of price while purchasing Eco Friendly Products.
For testing the hypothesis presented above Kolmogorov Smirnov test has been used. Data of attitude about pricings of users ofeco-friendly products has been used, hence n=160
The test is executed independently for variables under test.
1. Users of eco-friendly products have shown favorable attitude towards pricing of eco-friendly products. Samples have given 1 rankto the statement of readiness of purchasing those products which are costlier but causing less environmental pollution, with 4.12mean and 1.1 S.D. In a research by (K. P. V. Ramankumar, 2012), it has observed that an overwhelming majority (81%) of therespondents agree to the statement that 'I would like to purchase those productswhich are costlier but causing less environmentalpollution.Samples have found ready to purchase products that are recycled, with 3.85 mean and 1.34 S.D. These findings areconsistent with the research findings of (H.C.Purohit, 2011). But samples have shown unfavorable attitude towards paying moretax to support government for developing environment friendly policy (mean 3.31and S.D. 1.61) (Table.1)
2. No substantial difference has been observed, in attitudes about pricing of eco-friendly products among all socio economic classes,as significant values are greater than 0.05. Samples belonging to all the socioeconomic classes have a similar attitude towards Ecofriendly products (Table.2 and Table.3)
3. As compared to, users of eco-friendly products, it has observed that, non-usersof eco-friendly products have unfavorable attitudetowards pricing of Eco friendly products, as samples believe that the price of environmentally safe product is usually more than theother products, with 4.6 mean and 0.492 S.D. They are not ready to purchase those products which are costlier but causing lessenvironmental pollution (mean 4.22, S.D.0.416) as well as samples do not show readiness to purchase recycled products even theyare more expensive (mean 4.17, S.D.0.373). This unfavorable attitude about pricing is one of reason that these samples do not buyEco friendly products despite being aware of.(Table.4)
4. Samples are ready to extra price for EFPs to preserve our environment. (Table.5)
5. Samples are ready to pay more taxes to support government implement eco-friendly policies. (Table.5)
6. Samples purchase those products which are costlier but causing less environmental pollution (Table.5)
7. Samples purchase recycled products even they are more expensive. (Table.5)
8. Samples feel that the benefits of protecting the environment do not justify the expense involved. (Table.5)
9. Samples feel that, “Personally, I have economic concerns which I consider more important than preserving the environment” .(Table.5)
st
Sr. Statements
KS MaxAbsoluteDifference(D)
CriticalValue at 5%Level (Dc)
DecisionregardingNullHypothesis
1I accept paying extra price for EFPs topreserve our environment
0.38 0.10 Rejected
2I am ready to pay more taxes to supportgovernment implement eco-friendly policies
0.11 0.10 Rejected
3I purchase those products which are costlierbut causing less environmental pollution
0.46 0.10 Rejected
4I purchase recycled products even they aremore expensive
0.34 0.10 Rejected
5The benefits of pro tecting the environment donot justify the expense involved
0.26 0.10 Rejected
6Personally, I have economic concerns which Iconsider more important than preserving theenvironment
