bachelor's thesis

Bachelor’s Thesis

Spring 2015

Consumers’ Perceptions of

Responsibility for Sustainability

& the Use of Messages

Economics and Business Administration - Sustainability

Student: Marc Sejr Eggen

ID: 20112401 / 510260

Supervisor: Jessica Aschemann-Witzel _________________________________________________________________________

Characters: 108,991 excl. blanks (1,600 in figures and tables)

Bachelor’s Thesis Marc Sejr Eggen, 20112401 Spring 2015

2 of 61

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 4

2. Introduction and Research Focus ....................................................................................... 6

3. Context and Literature ...................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 12

4. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Interviews ................................................................................................................... 14

4.2 Photo Elicitation ......................................................................................................... 15

4.3 Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 16

4.4 Selected Photos for Interview ..................................................................................... 19

4.5 Interview Guide .......................................................................................................... 21

4.6 Methods for Analysis .................................................................................................. 23

4.7 Changes to Methodology ............................................................................................ 24

5. Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 26

5.1 Separate Interviewees ................................................................................................. 26

5.1.1 Franck ................................................................................................................... 27

5.1.2 Christensen ........................................................................................................... 28

5.1.3 Genefke ................................................................................................................ 29

5.1.4 Jacobsen ............................................................................................................... 30

5.1.5 Pedersen ............................................................................................................... 32

5.1.6 Roed ..................................................................................................................... 33

5.1.7 Jessen ................................................................................................................... 35

5.1.8 Skou ..................................................................................................................... 37

5.1.9 Hansen .................................................................................................................. 38


3 of 61

5.1.10 Bach ................................................................................................................... 40

5.2 Cumulative Tendencies .............................................................................................. 41

5.2.1 Before and After Photos ....................................................................................... 43

5.2.2 Sorting Photos ...................................................................................................... 44

6. Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 46

6.1 Personal Characteristics .............................................................................................. 46

6.2 Perceptions .................................................................................................................. 48

6.3 Fear ............................................................................................................................. 49

6.4 Influence of Process and Interviewer ......................................................................... 51

7. Quality of Research .......................................................................................................... 53

7.1 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 53

8. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 55

8.1 Luchs & Miller Model ................................................................................................ 56

8.2 Use of Messages ......................................................................................................... 57

9. List of References ............................................................................................................. 59

9.1 Personal Interviews ..................................................................................................... 59

9.2 Theoretical Literature ................................................................................................. 59

10. List of Appendices .......................................................................................................... 61


4 of 61

1. Executive Summary

This Bachelor’s Thesis focused on consumers’ perceptions of responsibility for

sustainability, or PRS. It dealt with how consumers feel responsible for acting in a

sustainable manner. It also dealt with how consumers attributed responsibility for

sustainability and sustainable behaviour to companies and governments. This focus was

based on a model by Luchs & Miller dealing with the distribution of the responsibility for

sustainability between these three actors; consumers, companies, and governments. The

goal of the thesis and its research was twofold: One was to explore what happens to

consumers’ PRS when they are presented with photos carrying messages about

responsibility for sustainability. This represented the main research question. The other was

to explain why Luchs & Miller’s quantitative model looks the way it does; this was done by

answering how consumers talk about their responsibility for sustainability, as well as what

influences consumers’ PRS. These represented the two secondary research questions; the

answers to which would also help answer the main research question. Aside from the

theory by Luchs & Miller, the research was built up around two other theoretical papers on

consumers’ PRS, one on the use of fear appeals in messages, as well as a definition of the

term perception.

Because of the nature of its research questions, the thesis focused on qualitative research

and methods. The methodology chosen for this thesis and research was centred on the

method of photo elicitation; bringing pictures into the interview setting and discussing

them. The interview guide was structured so that it first posed introductory questions asking

for the consumer’s view on her or his responsibility, as well the responsibility of companies

and governments. Next step was to introduce 22 different “photos” - pictures, graphs,

tables, drawings - along with one video into the interview process. The interviewees were

asked to pick two photos that caught their attention the most, and were asked questions

about these photos in connection to responsibility for sustainability. The interviewer had

selected three other groups of photos as well as the video and introduced those into the

interview for similar questioning. The final step was re-asking the introductory questions to

see whether the interviewees changed the way they answered them. Ten interviewees were

gathered in eight interviews.


5 of 61

The analysis of the interview data was done by looking at tendencies and themes within the

interviewee’s individual answers as well as adding the ten separate analyses to look for

cumulative tendencies.

When discussing the results and analysis and concluding on the research, many themes and

points stood out:

Consumers’ PRS did not change much by being subject to photo discussions. The

interviewees came into the interview with strong perceptions on the responsibility for

sustainability, which were hard to affect or change. But it did still show the importance of

educating consumers with new knowledge that can challenge and evolve their PRS.

The words used by the consumers to describe their responsibility for sustainability were

such as influence, power, consequences, and future generations. These words indicated a

focus on human beings; not nature or animals. Hence for messages to have a true impact on

consumers, they should focus on the human and social aspects of sustainability.

Many things influence the consumers’ PRS. The trends that emerged from the research

showed five personal characteristics that are important to how a consumer creates and

evolves her or his PRS. These characteristics are: The consumer’s optimism or scepticism.

Whether the consumer has a logical or sensitive mind-set. The information’s relatability to

the consumer’s everyday life. The consumer’s ability to put things into perspective. And

the degree of knowledge that the consumer has about sustainability.

These conclusions all helped explain the Luchs & Miller model. They also make up the

basis for a suggestion on how to design messages regarding responsibility for sustainability.

Finally, the author suggested how these trends and hypotheses could be tested by further,

quantitative research.

_________________________________________________________________________

Count: 3,573 characters excl. blanks


6 of 61

2. Introduction and Research Focus

This Bachelor’s Thesis deals with the sense of responsibility felt by consumers regarding

the broad term of sustainability. The most commonly used definition of sustainability

originates from the 1987 Brundtland Report - nicknamed after the chairman of the EU

Commission behind the report. Its definition sounds: “Sustainable development is

development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs.” (World Commission on Environment and

Development, 1987, p. 41). In most instances it is further defined as sustainable

development in environmental, social, and economic terms.

This thesis consists of eight chapters, including the executive summary and this one. This

chapter of the thesis will clarify exactly what the thesis and its research will focus on as

well as argue why this research focus is important. This represents the first stage of the

research design and defines the basis which all subsequent research choices are made in

accordance with.

This thesis deals with the topic of consumers’ perceptions of responsibility for

sustainability, from now on mainly referred to as consumers’ PRS. This term is understood

as how consumers feel and think about who bears the responsibility for sustainable and

unsustainable behaviour, and in particular the responsibility they feel for their own

behaviour. Previous research has been done on consumers’ felt of responsibility, although

not in a large quantity - some of this research is mentioned in this chapter and the

subsequent one on Context and Literature. However, one particular research paper helps

form the basis of this thesis: Luchs & Miller’s 2012 paper entitled Sustainability,

Responsibility, and Consumption: A Scale of Consumers’ Felt Responsibility for

Sustainability. This paper included a model simplifying responsibility for sustainability and

through quantitative methods produced a version of the model showing how consumers

distributed responsibility for sustainability between three actors: Consumers, governments,

and companies (Luchs & Miller, 2012, p. 12). This model is shown on the next page.


7 of 61

Figure 1: Average distribution of responsibility for sustainability

(Luchs & Miller, 2012, p. 12)

This particular model allows for a simplification of the discussions about responsibility for

sustainability due to its two axes of three aspects as well as the three actors splitting the

responsibility between them. This thesis and research seeks to both expand on the previous

research - by Luchs & Miller as well as others on same topic - and dig deeper into some of

the more exploratory and explanatory aspects not mentioned in the original research papers.

These aspects contain such aspects as consumers’ feelings, reactions, explanations, and

argumentations when talking about responsibility for sustainability. Most of these papers

mention the qualitative methods used to create a starting point for their subsequent research

on responsibility for sustainability, but do not expand on the findings and themes of this

exploratory research. The purpose of the focus and methods in this thesis is then to

understanding underlying structure of feelings and perceptions consumers have regarding

responsibility for sustainability; how interviewees speak about responsibility for

sustainability. This could thereby serve to validate previous research and add an important

explanation of why e.g. the distribution in Luchs & Miller’s model looks as it does.

ProductionPurchase &

usageDisposal

Environmental

Social

Economic

19%

29%

52% 52%

20%

28%

42%

30%

28%

36%

29%

35%

30%

35%

35%

26%

35%

39%


8 of 61

However, the main focus of this research will be to expand on the previous research by

focusing specifically on the impact negative or positive messages can have on consumers’

perceptions of responsibility. This thesis does not deal with finding a far-reaching

perspective but rather understanding the reasoning behind consumers’ PRS. The conclusion

of the thesis will then include suggestions for which words, messages, themes, and

arguments - that seem to affect consumers’ PRS - can be the focus of further, more

quantitative research.

For both focuses - building new theory and elaborating previous theory - this thesis will

focus on qualitative methods to explore these aspects. As part of both digging deeper into

and possibly expanding on previous research, this research will use the technique of photo

elicitation which “is based on the simple idea of inserting a photograph into a research

interview” (Harper, 2002, p. 13). Through use of photos carrying messages concerning

responsibility for sustainability, the research will try to affect consumers’ perceptions and

feelings of responsibility. Hence, this research will be based on an exploratory research

question:

What happens to consumers’ perceptions of responsibility for sustainability

when shown messages?

Secondary research questions will be such as: How do consumers talk about their

responsibility for sustainability? What influences consumers’ perceptions of responsibility

for sustainability? Aside from adding to the academic research within this field, this thesis

and research will create valuable knowledge for the worlds of business and governance.

Sustainability is a buzzword for companies and governments, so any further understanding

of consumers’ perceptions and feelings can be extremely valuable. Companies in particular

should know how consumers are affected by messages and their own perceptions of

responsibility. Social marketing and CSR are in this day and age a part of most companies’

communications and marketing strategy. As another research team puts it in their 2011

paper on consumers’ perceptions of responsibility for sustainability; “From a marketing

perspective, what is more significant is the consumer’s sense of responsibility, and how

they perceive and ascribe responsibilities for the environmental consequences of products,

production impacts, purchase behaviour, and consumption and disposal behaviours.”

(Wells et al., 2011, p. 8). So any implications that the consumers’ PRS would have for the


9 of 61

design and use of social and commercial marketing are important to understand. Such

marketing is often done proactively, but companies can also be subject to an attack from

organisations such as Greenpeace and would then benefit from knowing on which premises

to counter that attack. In frank terms, companies and governments can possibly learn how

to manipulate consumers’ PRS with messages or decrease the responsibility attributed to

them.

Ultimately, consumer behaviour is incredibly hard to predict even though large amounts of

research - academic and commercial - are done within this field. This research focuses on

the thoughts behind that behaviour - and will try to conclude on how to keep these thoughts

and emotions into consideration when acting as a consumer, company, or government.


10 of 61

3. Context and Literature

As mentioned in the previous chapter, sustainability is a buzzword in our current society. It

influences national and international political discussions and agendas. It affects

companies’ choices of how to construct their supply chain, marketing plans, and many

more aspects of their value chain. It is the focus of extensive academic research trying to

explain and understand the many underlying aspects of this broad term. Consumers,

politicians, advocates, and many others try to stir up the debate and make other people take

a stand and act on this topic. But the question of who bears the responsibility for

sustainability is hard to answer. What can be concluded is that going towards a sustainable

future has to include consumers; so anything done to further understand how they feel, is

very important.

Aside from the sustainability definition in Chapter 2, another definition is important to

include in this thesis. It relates to discussions of consumers’ perceptions of responsibility

for sustainability - perception is the way we see and understand things. The way in which

we form our perceptions is based on 3 stages: exposure, attention, and interpretation

(Solomon, 2013, p. 46).

Felt responsibility for sustainability as well as the effect of messages is an under-researched

aspect of sustainability. However, important research has been done on this topic within the

past decade and a handful of research papers are worth mentioning in this regard. These

papers, and the theory it includes, will all be an important part of the subsequent analysis

and discussions in this thesis.

Already mentioned is the work done by Luchs & Miller in their 2012 research paper. The

paper produces a nine-aspect model with two axes or dimensions. On one axis are the

behaviours of Production, Purchase & usage, and disposal. On the other axis are the

outcomes of Environmental, Social, and Economic (Luchs & Miller, 2012, p. 4). The

division of responsibility between three actors - consumers, companies, and governments -

allows for a clear distribution of responsibility. Furthermore, their research created to

factors to predict product choices/behaviour: Consumers’ Felt Responsibility for

Sustainability (CFRS) and Sustainability Importance (SI). They conclude that a high sense


11 of 61

of responsibility and placing a high importance on sustainability means higher probability

of sustainable consumer purchases/choices (Ibid., p. 17).

Some of the earlier research on consumers’ PRS was Devinney, Auger, Eckhardt &

Birtchnell’s The Other CSR from 2006. They talk about consumer social responsibility, or

CnSR, being the counterpart of CSR done by companies - and that a gap exists between

consumers’ opinion and behaviour (Devinney et al., 2006, p. 31). They also argue that

demography does not matter when looking at behaviour and introduce five steps for

companies to be more proactive towards CnSR (Ibid., pp. 36-37).

In 2009, a very interesting research paper by O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole focused on the

impact of pictures and messages on people’s engagement with climate change. It focused

on finding appeals that would stimulate engagement and how fear images affect personal

priorities of importance and personal feeling of being able to do something. Numerous

things were concluded (O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole, 2009, pp. 375-377): Climate change

does not appeal to a personal and tangible level. Internal individual fear controls cause less

engagement and felt responsibility. It is important to include small-scale and everyday

impact in messages for them to have an effect. Images that made climate change feel most

important to people meant less personal feeling of being able to do something.

The final literature to be mentioned for now is the paper Behaviour and Climate Change:

Consumer Perceptions of Responsibility by Wells, Ponting, and Peattie in 2011. They

focused on trying to predict the behaviour of consumers, diving behaviours into categories.

What they found was that perceived responsibility was lower for leisure and travel

activities, things that are not part of everyday life. Also, they talk about understanding the

effect it has on consumers when responsibility is shared between multiple actors

responsible. They conclude that most consumers want governments to lead the way in

climate change solutions and that “Effectively communicating such developments to

consumers in such a way that encourages them to take responsibility for changing their

behaviours will be an important future challenge for commercial and social marketers

alike.” (Wells et al., 2011, pp. 30-31).


12 of 61

3.1 Assumptions

Based on the literature and context described above, some assumptions will be made and

thereby form the basis of and influence the work done in this thesis.

First of all, consumers are assumed to have generally positive attitudes towards

sustainability. But in spite of their positive attitudes, consumer behaviour is not assumed to

be equally sustainable - a positive attitude does not actual behaviour, only intent.

Demographic variables - sex, age, education, income level, etc. - are assumed to be able to

help explain some differences in opinion, but cannot be said to stand alone as an

explanation of sustainability attitude and behaviour (Wells et al., 2011, pp. 4-5). Hence it

will for the most part not influence the qualitative research done in this thesis. Finally, as

learned through O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole’s Fear Won’t Do It, one has to be careful to not

use too much fear; if fear is used it must be limited to avoid paralysis.


13 of 61

4. Methodology

The research focus described in Chapter 2 gives the arguments and direction for the

methodology; focusing on consumers’ thoughts and feelings clearly imply the use of

qualitative methods. Essentially, this thesis and research will use personal interviews to try

to answer the stated research questions. This chapter will first provide an overview of the

thoughts behind the chosen methodology. Next up are explanations of the use of interviews

and photo elicitation, before describing the author’s choices made regarding sampling,

photos chosen for photo elicitation, the interview guide, and finally choices for analysis of

the data from the interviews.

The focus of this thesis and research is to see the world through the eyes of consumers - in

this case represented by the interviewees. Qualitative research is not meant to be

representative; but instead exploratory. Because of this, the number of interviews and

interviewees cannot be predetermined: When the data from new interviews becomes

redundant and too similar to the rest of the analysis, the research has hit a saturation point.

When hitting the saturation point, the researchers can then redesign the methodology and

interview guide if they feel more, but different data is needed. If the data gathered from

interviews has been substantial enough to answer the research questions, there is no need

for further interviews and data gathering. While the number of interviews cannot be

predetermined, researchers often set a goal of doing at least ten interviews, as the saturation

point is less likely to arrive before that number. This thesis and research was no different

and set the target at ten interviews.

When using an explanatory research focus and question, the research should take on a

cross-sectional design. This means the research will provide data and observations at only

one point in time - a snapshot so to speak - and not for a period or duration of time. Hence,

it is a retrospective study. This disadvantage of this snapshot and retrospective approach is

that the research does not include the feelings and thoughts of the consumers in the time

after the interviews. By doing another interview at a later point, it could become clearer if

and how the interview and talks within it had had an impact on the interviewee’s thoughts

and feelings, possibly even by help developing them. However, using the cross-sectional

design allows for better comparison of variables within the research.


14 of 61

Because of its research focus and question, this thesis does not use method triangulation;

using both qualitative and quantitative methods to increase the strength of the data. Instead

the research done in this thesis will be used to make suggestions on avenues for future

quantitative research that would further explore the merit and importance of the themes in

this thesis.

4.1 Interviews

As mentioned, the purpose of interviews is to enter the world and perspective of

interviewees. Discussions during interviews provide “continually new insights into the

subjects’ lived world” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 123) if done right. Another way of

putting it is as a previous researcher on anthropological interviewing, Spradley, does it - as

cited by Kvale & Brinkmann: “I want to understand the world from your point of view. I

want to know what you know in the way you know it. I want to understand the meaning of

your experience, to walk in your shoes, to feel things as you feel them, to explain things as

you explain them. Will you become my teacher and help me understand? (Spradley, 1979,

p. 34) (Ibid., p. 124). To achieve such an immersion of the interviewer into the world of the

interviewee, all steps of the interview have to be carefully planned and considered - both in

preparing the interview, the approach taken by the interviewer during the interview, as well

as the use of the interview data afterwards. The preparations - such as sampling

interviewees and constructing the interview guide - will be discussed in subsequent sections

of this chapter, as will the analysis of the interview data. This section will discuss the

structure and process within the interview.

To obtain valuable and unbiased data from the interviews, the role of the interviewer in the

interview itself is clearly defined. The interviewer must be flexible, objective, a good

listener, but still persuasive enough to get the answers needed to answer a research

question. The interaction between the interviewer and interviewee dictates the outcome and

value of the interview: “In the interview, knowledge is created ‘inter’ the points of view of

the interviewer and interviewee.” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 123). Aside from

remaining objective and persuasive, it is important to make interviewees comfortable

during the interview: “The setting of the interview should encourage the interviewee to

describe their points of view on their lives and worlds.) (Ibid., p. 128). This can be done by


15 of 61

clearly stating the purpose of the interview, the interviewer’s expectations of the

interviewee, and generally creating a comfortable atmosphere where they feel free to speak

their mind.

Another part of the interviewer’s role is the non-participant observation where the

interviewer documents actions of interviewees, as well as interactions between interviewees

when having more than one. It requires the interviewer to keep a distance to the observed

interviewees, avoid reacting, and influencing actors’ behaviour. So preferably the interview

includes two researchers: One in the role of the interviewer and one as the observer. In this

case the research team consisted of only one person. Observation allows for selective notes

on e.g. body language and tone of voice during specific questions and activities. These

observations might add relevant context to the interviewee’s thoughts and feelings on a

specific topic. It allows the interviewer to look at the exact situation during the analysis and

interpret why the interviewee acted in a certain way, e.g. held back due to fear or

discomfort. However, observations are also a tricky thing to manage: It is hard to

understand the true meaning interviewee’s actions from their perspective and the risk of

misunderstanding exactly what caused a certain reaction or action is quite high. Also, it is

very hard and maybe even unlikely for interviewers to constantly stay in the role of the

observer and not have a minor influence or impact on the observed interviewees.

4.2 Photo Elicitation

Making photographs and pictures a part of the interviews is not a simple task. It should not

be just conceived as adding pictures to the interview process; rather it calls for the process

to be built around the pictures. Elicitation - meaning to bring forth - of pictures have

numerous benefits that can make the data from interviews even more valuable. In his paper

on photo elicitation Harper argues that “images evoke deeper elements of human

consciousness than do words; exchanges based on words alone utilize less of the brain’s

capacity than do exchanges in which the brain is processing images as well as words.”

(Harper, 2002, p. 13). Harper also cites much older research by Collier from 1957 in which

photo elicitation is argued to facilitate “longer and more comprehensive interviews but at

the same time helped subjects overcome the fatigue and repetition of conventional

interviews (Collier, 1957:858)” (Ibid., p. 14). There are two main ways of including photo


16 of 61

elicitation in one’s interviews: Letting either the interviewees or researchers decide on the

photos to use during the interviews. Interviewees can introduce photos to the interviews by

having them take the pictures, e.g. if the research focus and interviews deal with the

interviewees’ local environment. It would then allow for the interview to focus on why the

interviewees took these specific pictures and brought them into the interview. Letting the

researcher decide which photos to use simply means bringing carefully chosen pictures into

the interview process - and it is this latter method that has been used in this thesis and

research. Researcher-driven photo elicitation is of course no perfect method. As Van

Auken, Frisvoll & Stewart point out: “Since the researcher, planner or consultant controls

the stimuli, though, this version is relatively top-down and closed-ended. Consequently,

there are questions about its ability to address concerns about representation (Stewart and

Floyd 2004) and the validity of the data it produces (Crisman 2006).” (Van Auken et al.,

2010, p. 375). Steps were taken to avoid this closed-ended format, see the section 5.4 on

Selected Photos for Interview.

Another interesting part of using photo elicitation is the interaction between interviewee

and interviewer. As mentioned in the previous section, a good and positive interaction

between these two actors is critical to producing good data from an interview. In 1986,

Collier pointed out that using photo elicitation helps not only the interviewee, but also the

interaction and the analysis done by the interviewer afterwards: "We were asking questions

of the photographs and the informants became our assistants in discovering the answers to

these questions in the realities of the photographs. We were exploring the

photographs together" (Collier Jr. & Collier, 1986, p. 105). It is important to consider this

collaborative aspect of the interview and include it to get the most out of the use of photo

elicitation.

4.3 Sampling

The methods chosen for getting or sampling interviewees for the research are again

dependent on the research focus and question. It is critical to consider which and how many

interviewees are needed to answer the research question. It is equally important to consider

the goal of the study; is it to gain a broad scope of data or a deep scope of data? In this

thesis and research, the number of interviews needed to answer the research questions was


17 of 61

set at ten. This is due to the exploratory nature of the research questions as well as the

practical constraints of thesis such as this one. The goal and scope of the research was

determined to be a bit of both: The research should bring forth a broad range of

perspectives that also had a deep and exploratory nature.

Due to its qualitative nature, the research is not meant to be representative. Instead it needs

to get the relevant information to answer the research questions. This implies that the

sampling should be non-probability based and purposeful. Purposeful indicates that the

interviews should consist of people being able to give the most valuable answers to the

research question; not people representing any certain demography. This does not mean a

wide variety of consumers is not relevant or interesting to the research, but the main goal is

making sure the interviewees are sufficiently informed and knowledgeable to answer the

questions in the interview. Hence, the people desired for this research were chosen to be

mainly consumers who think about sustainability and have opinions on and attitudes

towards it - negative or positive - as this would best bring forth data with a deeper focus. To

get a wide range of perspectives on consumers’ perceptions of responsibility for

sustainability, interviewees who did not have a strong stand on sustainability and could e.g.

be more reactionary to the pictures in the interview, were also interesting to include, if

possible. As mentioned under the assumptions in chapter 3, no particular group of people

can be said to be “the sustainable consumer”. As put by Devinney, Auger, Eckhardt &

Birtchnell: “Contrary to what some might believe, CnSR is not just the purview of wealthy,

highly educated females in liberal Western democracies. Rather, it is something embedded

in the psyche of individuals.” (Devinney et al., 2006, p. 35). Since characteristics and

demography vary, no particular people were chosen as the desired interviewees.

Based on the discussion and choices above, convenience sampling was chosen as the

preferred method of getting interviewees. Convenience sampling simply implies that the

researcher recruits people who are easy to access, often in the author’s own network

(Patton, 2001, p. 309). Facebook was chosen as the method to reach prospective

interviewees. Through a post on this media platform - see Appendix K for the actual post -

several people volunteered to participate in the interviews. Of the volunteers, only people

who had a non-existent or limited relationship to the author were chosen. This was done to

remove any bias and increase the objectivity of the interaction between the two actors. A


18 of 61

few volunteers came from people within the author’s network who distributed the request

for interviewees to their own network - this is known as snowball sampling, (Ibid., p. 270).

Furthermore, the sampling happened continuously: After getting the first handful of

volunteers and executing the first couple of interviews, the author analysed the results and

followed that up by another round of sampling. This allowed for the choosing of particular -

different or the same - types of consumers for the subsequent interviews.

In the end, the recruiting of interviewees resulted in eight interviews with a total of 10

interviewees; two interviews consisted of two interviewees. This was slightly less than the

goal set before beginning - mainly due to practical difficulties - but was still enough for it

to feel substantial; that it would provide the data need to answer the research questions.

Each interviewee started by filling out a questionnaire that gave a basic profile of their

sustainability attitude and demography. The ten interviewees ended up being a broad group

of consumers: Three of them were volunteers with the political party, Alternativet - a party

very focused on sustainability. Six of them were students. Seven were male, three women.

Half were aged 21-30, the rest all the way up to 60+. The interviewees’ profiles can be

found in Appendix C.

A ninth interview was actually done but not used for the analysis due to multiple reasons.

One, the interview was a continuation of the themes talked about in the three interviews

done before this one and had therefore hit a saturation point of similar beliefs, thoughts, and

arguments. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that these first four interviews - including

the one not used - came from the same group of people: Volunteers with the political party,

Alternativet. Second, the interviewee misunderstood certain aspects of the interview - the

structure and process of the interview will be explained in section 5.5 on Interview Guide.

But to explain briefly, the misunderstandings included the focus on her role as a consumer

as well a task within the interview where she was asked to sort the photos used in the

interview. When sorting, she instead did it by how well she thought the messages within the

photos were delivered; not whether or not the core message was positive or negative.


19 of 61

4.4 Selected Photos for Interview

When the researcher decides which photos to bring into the interview, it is important to

carefully consider the photos’ content as well as how the photos are presented. For this

research, a conscious choice was made to bring a wide variety of “photos” into the

interview; pictures, tables, and graphs - even one video. Common for them all was only that

they contained a message that related to the perceived responsibility for sustainability. The

messages were chosen in accordance with the Luchs & Miller model previously mentioned

- this meant messages that represented each actor: Consumers, companies, and

governments. The messages were also chosen to have either a positive or negative message

regarding responsibility for sustainability. In basic terms, this meant e.g. photos that both

tried to pin the responsibility for sustainability on companies as well as photos underlining

companies acting on their responsibility. A few photos were also chosen that seemed to pin

the responsibility on no actor in particular. Furthermore, some of the photos were easy to

understand while some required more time for the interviewee to read and understand the

message. These parameters - type of “photo”, negative and positive, easy and hard to

understand - were chosen deliberately as part of the interview process. It was done because

it would be interesting to see which ones would attract the interviewees - more on this in

the next section on Interview Guide. The “photos” chosen came from a wide variety of

sources, be it Greenpeace or other activist organisations, companies, artists, government

agencies, etc. All of the above choices regarding the photos were done in hopes of getting a

broad pallet of photos - ending up in a total of 22 “photos” and one video. But what the

author chose on the idea of it being e.g. a negative message was quickly challenged by the

interviewees, so the pallet ended up apparently having a different look than intended - for

more, see the end of Chapter 5.

An explanation of all the chosen photos follows below in Table 1 - see Appendix A for the

actual photos as well as the source of each one. Worth mentioning is that CP is short for

Company - i.e. these photos focus on companies’ responsibility for sustainability - while

CS is short for Consumer, GV for Government, and UK for Unknown. Unknown were the

photos pinning the on no actor in particular.


20 of 61

Table 1: Selected Photos for Interview

Code Title Positive /

Negative

Content

CP01 Nestlé Palm Oil Negative Orang-utans posing outside

Nestlé’s buildings

CP02 John West Tuna Negative A bleeding can of tuna

CP03 Apple Green Wish Negative Slogan calling for sustainable

Apple products

CP04 Emission Responsible Negative Pie chart showing actors

responsible for CO2 emissions

since 1750

CP05 ROCKWOOL Energy

Consumption

Positive Chart showing ROCKWOLL’s

decreasing energy consumption

CP06 Who’s Doing Most? Positive Industries doing the most and least

for sustainability

CS01 Frying the Planet Negative Earth in a frying pan

CS02 Necessary Trip? Negative 1950’s-style poster with cars

CS03 Think.Eat.Save Negative Factory with text explaining

impact of food waste

CS04 Shopping Cart Affects Oceans Negative Slogan pointing out connection

between products in your

shopping cart and its effect on

oceans

CS05 Wear More, Wash Less Negative Washing guidelines with text

explaining impact of washing your

clothes

CS06 Willing to Pay Higher Price Positive Statistics on willingness to pay for

sustainable products in different

areas of the world

GV01 Leaders Keep Loafing Negative Picture with slogan stating world

leaders are not acting

GV02 Leaders Frying the Planet Negative Stop sign with Earth in a frying

pan

GV03 Solar Panels Needed Negative Areas in Sahara desert needed to

be filled with solar panels to get

electricity for areas of the world

GV04 Desired vs. Actual Priority Negative Graph showing political priority

of climate change in countries

GV05 Local Leaders Positive Text explaining local leaders are

acting on sustainability

GV06 Buildings in Risskov Positive Drawings of sustainable housing

project in Risskov, Aarhus

UK01 Severed Gorilla Negative Gorilla on branch with head cut

off and a baby gorilla on its back

UK02 Aarhus Creek Negative Floods by Aarhus Creek

UK03 Bangladesh Rising Sea Level Negative Map of Bangladesh before and

after rising sea level


21 of 61

UK04 Denmark Rising Sea Level Negative Map of Denmark before and after

rising sea level

Video FedEx: Enchanted Forest Positive Fairy-tale setting in forest while

narrator explains FedEx’s work

for sustainability

4.5 Interview Guide

The purpose of an interview guide is to give the process and course of the interview some

structure - the degree of structure is then dependent on the research focus. Exploratory

qualitative research like in this thesis is supposed to be based on an open-ended approach

where the interview and questions allow for the interviewee to control the outcome; not

where the interviewer leads them down a certain path. It is up to the researcher to evaluate

and decide beforehand to which degree the interview guide should be followed stringently,

“or whether it is the interviewer’s judgment and tact that decides how closely to stick to the

guide and how much to follow up on the interviewees’ answers and the new directions they

may open up” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 130). Hence, the word “guide”. Having the

same structure and stringently following the same interview guide for multiple interviews

increases comparability. In this case, it was determined that the overall structure in the

interview guide - which will be described below - was pretty set. But the order of the

questions was allowed to shift around if it felt more natural, and questions asking for

elaboration such as “Why do you say that?” and “Why/why not?” could be posed at any

time. All interviews were conducted in Danish.

The questions that make up the interview guide were deliberately chosen to give the best

possible data to answer the research question. Questions are supposed to have a thematic fit

- meaning they focus on the topic of the research - as well as a dynamic fit where they

“promote a positive interaction, keep the flow of the conversation going, and stimulate the

subjects to talk about their experiences and feelings” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 131).

Both of these aspects were carefully considered when creating the interview guide as well

as during the interviews. The latter meant adapting the wording of a question during a few

interviews to make the interviewee sitting across the table comfortable - especially when

they were not as knowledgeable about sustainability as other interviewees or the author.


22 of 61

When creating the interview guide - which can be seen in Appendix B in its entirety - its

structure was divided into four overall parts:

First up is a monologue by the interviewer explaining the focus and purpose of the research

and interview. This includes introducing the Luchs & Miller model and three actors;

consumers, companies, and governments. This introduction was done using a printout of

the model itself, as seen in Figure 1 from Chapter 2. Also, it includes explaining that the

interviewee is asked to answer from the point of view of a consumer.

Next are some introductory questions about sustainability and the interviewee’s attitude

towards responsibility for sustainability. This includes questions such as “Why do you, as a

consumer feel responsible for sustainable ways of living?” and “Is there a difference in the

responsibility of the three actors?”. Seven questions were asked during this part of the

interview.

In the third and biggest part of the interview the photos are introduced. The 22 photos are

laid out in front of the interviewee and they are asked to choose the two photos that catches

their attention the most; that talks to them the most. After letting the interviewee spend a

few minutes looking through the photos, they are asked seven questions about each of the

two photos they choose. These questions include “Why this photo?”, “What emotions do

you feel when seeing this photo and message?”, “Do you feel this photo pins responsibility

to any of the three actors?”, and “Does this photo change or underline how you feel the

responsibility is divided between the three actors?”. After discussing the two interviewee-

chosen photos, four other “rounds” of photos are chosen by the interviewer for discussion -

if they had not already been chosen by the interviewee before this. These four rounds of

photos are the same for all interviews: UK03-04 being the first, CP01-03 being the second,

CS03 being the third, and the video about FedEx as the final one. For each of these rounds,

six of the questions from the earlier discussions were asked again, only excluding “Why

this photo?”. But these four rounds were chosen deliberately as they were perceived to

focus on other interesting aspects that would be relevant to ask the interviewee about. For

UK03-04, additional questions were asked such as “Do these phots affect you differently?

Why/why not?” and “Does the time horizon and/or distance from Denmark impact the

power of the message to you?”. CP01-03 are all photos created by Greenpeace, blaming

companies for not acting sustainably and thereby not living up to their responsibility. These

photos are partially based on messages of fear and anger, so questions such as “Do you


23 of 61

approve of Greenpeace attacking certain companies like these? Why/why not?” and “Do

you approve of using fear as a tool to create change?” are asked. CS03 carries a message

that claims how much greenhouse gas is emitted due to food waste. This photo is chosen to

make sure the interviewee talks about pictures concerning all three actors; this one

representing a focus on consumers. Only the six standard questions are asked for this photo.

The final photo brought forth is the video about FedEx and their steps towards sustainable

behaviour. It has a duration of 61 seconds, and the six standard questions are asked for this

“photo”. As a final step in this photo-based part of the interview, the interviewee is asked to

sort the 22 photos in two piles - not including the video - depending on whether they found

the photo to have a positive or negative message.

In the fourth and final part of the interview, the introductory questions asked before the

photo elicitation, are now asked again. This is done to see whether the interviewee uses

different words to describe their opinion and whether they now make different points and

arguments. Of course, some of the outcome from such an exercise is random - the words

and explanations of the interviewees can change randomly, without any deeper

significance. But some changes can possibly be due to the impact of the interview process

on the interviewee, and it is up to the author to objectively and sceptically evaluate any

such connection.

An additional video created by Greenpeace - which was very focused on fear messages - as

well as another task - which asked interviewees to sort the photos depending on where they

felt it pinned responsibility - was originally considered but left out of the final interview

guide. It was clear during the first interviews that this choice was the correct one. One, fear

messages were already a big part of the conversations, so the additional video with such a

message seemed to be redundant and would not give new data. Second, the interviewees

rarely saw the pictures as pinning responsibility with only one of the three actors and would

possibly only have added confusion and irritation to the task.

4.6 Methods for Analysis

For qualitative research to have merit and value, the findings and data must be subject to

interpretation. The focus of the author was to subsequently go meticulously through the

data to look for any tendencies and reappearing themes in the feelings, wordings,


24 of 61

arguments, etc. of the interviewees. Also, the focus was put on the interviewees’ attitudes

and which aspects they focused on. By looking at these aspects throughout the interview,

the author would look for tendencies and changes possibly brought by the process of the

interview. The data was scanned meticulously from beginning to end. Furthermore, the

introductory questions posed in the second and fourth part of the interview process were

compared to each other side-by-side to look for any meaningful differences. This work was

done for each of the eight interviews individually. The interpretation of the interviews

continued until the author felt satisfied with the degree of detail - both regarding width and

depth. As put by Flick, ”The procedure of interpreting data, like the integration of

additional material, ends at the point where theoretical saturation has been reached (i.e.

further coding, enrichment of categories, and so on no longer provide or promise new

knowledge).” (Flick, 2009, p. 312). So when the knowledge gained from the interview data

seemed to saturate, the analysis was laid to rest.

Only the first four interviews were transcribed as it was deemed to not be crucial to the

analysis done by the author. Although audio interviews are often transcribed, it was not

deemed necessary and beneficial by the author to the work of analysing the words of the

interviewees. The author found it equally valuable to listen to the words spoken and the

manner in which the words were spoken, or tone of voice.

Furthermore, no coding - open, axial or selective - as well as discourse or narrative analysis

was done on the data from the interviews. Of course, these choices can all be feared to have

a negative impact on the analysis - decreasing the value and academic approach of this

research. This is something that will be discussed in Chapter 7 on Quality of Research.

4.7 Changes to Methodology

By analysing some of the interviews and data before executing the next interviews, it

allowed the author the possibility of considering any changes to the methodology.

However, the data seemed to be on point with the research focus and no major changes

were therefore done to the chosen methodology of the research. The only change was that

an additional question was posed in the final three interviews. When talking about these

three rounds of photos chosen by the interviewer - UK03-04, CP01-03, and CS03 - the


25 of 61

interviewee was asked “Why did you not choose this photo?”. This allowed these

interviewees to elaborate on the feelings - or lack thereof - that this photo had provoked.


26 of 61

5. Analysis

Some important notes on how this chapter is built up: All interviews were done in Danish,

as were the four transcripts done. All references to the interviews are therefore based on the

author’s translation of the words spoken in Danish. Any direct quotes have been translated

and will be shown without quotation marks. References are shown by the interviewee’s

surname as well as a timecode. This will allow the reader to find the exact quote in the

audio file or transcripts which are all appendices to this thesis. For the four transcribed

interviews the timecode refers to the start of the time period in which the referenced words

were spoken - some of these time periods cover several minutes, but the words or meaning

quoted can be found somewhere within that time period. For the four non-transcribed

interviews the timecode refers to the sentences in the audio files where the referenced

words were spoken.

The analysis below is a mix of the two things: The interviewee’s opinions and feelings

described through quotes, shown by its reference. And the author’s observation and

analysis on the interviewee’s words, arguments, body language, tone of voice, etc. In

Appendix E, the reader can find additional notes by the interviewer taken during the

interviews. These notes have also been included in the analysis. First, this chapter will go

through the data from each interviewee to highlight tendencies and key words, feelings,

arguments, etc. showing the perception, attitude and worldview that person describes.

Afterwards, it will bring up a summation of these individual data to look for any cumulative

tendencies that will also help answer the research questions.

5.1 Separate Interviewees

For each of the interviewees, tendencies showed in their wording, arguments, feelings, etc.

Below are their thoughts along with the author’s analysis; this is limited to the data most

important to the research focus. It is also limited by the fact that not every interviewee’s

answer to a question brought forth important data - e.g. the talks about the interviewer-

chosen photos did not all bring valuable data for analysis, so the notes on this part will

differ quite a bit between the interviewees. The interviewees are listed here in a chronologic


27 of 61

order, depending on the date of their interview. For more information on who each

interviewee is - demography and sustainability attitude - go to Appendix C.

5.1.1 Franck

Frank, a male aged 51-60, believes that a consumer has duty to act sustainably (Franck,

2015, Interview 02:30). He also believes consumers do not have enough influence on

companies and governments (Ibid., 02:43), that governments have largest responsibility,

and incentives have a strong influence on sustainable behaviour (Ibid., 05:45). This is the

attitude and perception he showed during the introductory questions.

Franck chooses photo CS05 “Wear More, Wash Less” because he can see the tiny changes

he can do in his everyday life, so the message makes him feel like he has the power; not the

politicians (Ibid., 20:09). This makes it an extremely positive message to him, shown in the

positive and optimistic words he uses to describe it. However, it does not change the

division of responsibility at all in his eyes (Ibid., 24:53). His other choice is GV04 “Desired

vs. Actual Priority” as it confirms to him that others want governments to take

responsibility too (Ibid., 25:43). It seems that choosing this photo also allows him to

expand on his opinions on responsibility being mostly placed with the governments. Franck

also has some interesting thoughts when talking about UK03-04: He believes consumers

cannot act collectively, meaning their responsibility is low (Ibid., 39:32) - also he is not

emotionally affected by this photo (Ibid., 41:19). Franck finds the FedEx video cute (Ibid.,

58:43), but does not believe the message.

The way Franck talks about responsibility for sustainability before and after discussing the

photos does seem to change a bit. In the beginning, he talks about his own responsibility

and behaviour when talking about his responsibility as a consumer. After the photos, his

way of answering the same question centres on a sense of community and responsibility

towards people of future generations. When answering the question “Do you believe one of

the three actors has the most responsibility?” he first argues it to be governments and the

institutions created by governments. After the photos, he argues it to be all us people, as we

are within the institutions. But he also stays on point with his placement of responsibility

with governments and argues that they must put us into position to succeed and serve us.

In general, Franck chooses photos that confirm his beliefs and thoughts. He claims to not be

affected by negative messages because he has seen so many of them, and his reaction to

fear is mostly non-existent - he just rejects these photos as uninspiring. He seems


28 of 61

“prepared” for such messages - that he is either honestly unaffected, or that he has decided

upfront to not be affected by such messages. He talks about consumers needing to be very

knowledgeable to make sustainable decisions, but also underlines that it is very difficult

(Ibid., 50:53). He seems to be very knowledgeable and enlightened on sustainability topics.

Probably due to this knowledge, he is very sceptical of most messages and wants more

humbleness from e.g. FedEx when delivering a positive message (Ibid., 1:00:02). And he

clearly relates the most to messages that confirms his ideas and perceptions.

5.1.2 Christensen

Christensen, a male aged 31-40, feels his consumer responsibility because he is a parent.

He talks about individuals having limited power (Christensen, 2015, Interview 02:05). He

therefore believes that applied responsibility and change lies with companies and

governments, but that individuals are still morally responsible (Ibid., 04:23). He is sceptical

of how sustainably people really act and even laughs while talking about trusting

companies (Ibid., 02:50). He believes that the community must be respected and that

consumers lack knowledge to act sustainably (Ibid., 07:26).

Christensen ends up choosing four photos which are then talked about in pairs. He chooses

CP04 “Emission Responsible” and CS06 “Willing to Pay Higher Price” and believes them

at first; he talks about them being reasons and incentives for companies to change. He likes

the factual approach of these two photos. But then he starts to question their legitimacy and

remembers that these numbers do not equal to real behaviour, that they are relative facts,

and that people are dumb (Ibid., 19:24). He also chooses UK01 “Severed Gorilla” and

UK02 “Aarhus Creek”. He finds UK01 to be macabre (Ibid., 14:11) and it provokes strong

feelings from him: Anger, he calls it ridiculous (Ibid., 22:49), and that he is tired of these

types of messages (Ibid., 24:40). He talks about UK02 coming close to reality and feels

some powerlessness (Ibid., 21:53) - he seems a bit overwhelmed and stunned. When talking

about UK03-04, he seems to be figuratively shaking his head at the behaviour of Western

countries (Ibid., 27:15). He talks about it going to be slow steps towards change (Ibid.,

30:35) and wishes companies did more on their own so we would not have to force them

(Ibid., 33:20). When talking about CS03, he finds it positive when there is something for

him to change in everyday life (Ibid., 36:44).

The way Christensen talks about responsibility for sustainability before and after discussing

the photos is mostly consistent. When explaining why he feels responsible as a consumer,


29 of 61

both before and after the photo discussions he talks about consumers doing what we can to

controlling our own consumption because other things we cannot control. When talking

about who has the most responsibility, his attitude is again the same before and after - but

he seems to be clearer in his arguments afterwards. He talks about individuals having the

most responsibility as they make up the people within governments and companies as well.

He also argues that knowledge equals more responsibility and not having that knowledge

means having no responsibility.

In general, Christensen chooses photos that surprise him and provoke his feelings in a good

or bad way. Fear has an impact on him in the short term - as he points out while talking

about UK01. But he also believes fear pushes people with other opinions away, and argues

that to reach those people communication needs to be built on empathy and understanding

instead (Ibid., 34:10).

5.1.3 Genefke

Genefke, a female aged 41-50, talks about feeling responsibility as a consumer by wanting

a proper life for herself and future generations - she explains that she wants proper food and

being able to breather proper air (Genefke, 2015, Interview 01:27). She fears the

consequences that unsustainable living might have for her family and future generations,

and cannot fathom why people do not care more - using wordings as I simply cannot

understand and It puzzles me (Ibid., 02:06). She believes consumers have big part to play

(Ibid., 03:54).

Genefke chooses CS06 “Willing to Pay Higher Price” because its message fits her opinion

of consumer power and responsibility - she finds the message optimistic and positive (Ibid.,

16:22) and sees it as an incentive for companies to change their products. She also chooses

UK01 “Severed Gorilla”. She uses words like harsh, repulsion, awful, appalled to describe

her reaction and feelings towards the photo (Ibid., 21:56). She associates herself with the

gorilla and the baby gorilla as her son (Ibid., 23:35). This photo also enforces her opinion

of her own and other consumers’ responsibility. This is even though she sees it as blaming

companies - using words like fight, expose and pressure to describe how this message

makes her feel towards them (Ibid., 25:58). When talking about UK03-04, Genefke keeps

talking about the impact on her life and her impact on others (Ibid., 28:29). She anticipates

denial and dismissal towards a prognostic message like these ones (Ibid., 30:08). When the

discussion hits CS03, she gets riled up. She talks about feeling guilty about her impact on


30 of 61

others - I feel so bad about throwing any food out - and is annoyed at people’s indifference

- Food waste is absurd when thinking of people starving (Ibid., 40:32). She founds this

photo and message to be powerful as she did not realise it was this bad (Ibid., 57:58). The

FedEx video has a similar strong effect on her: She refuses the message totally and talks

about consumers’ having to be sceptical towards such messages.

The way Genefke talks about responsibility for sustainability, before and after discussing

the photos, is very consistent. When talking about her responsibility as a consumer, she

talks about it being a big-scale problem but her wanting to have a positive impact both

before and after photo discussions. When talking about who has the most responsibility she

starts of by arguing that responsibility is equally distributed between the three actors, but

that consumers have the biggest opportunity for changing the status-quo. Afterwards she

argues that consumers must change their mind-set to include responsibility. When

answering the question “Is it important who creates problems as to deciding who has to

deal with them?” the answer was the same before and after: She believes the answer is yes

and that governments thereby can send a message to companies as well as influence

consumers.

In general, Genefke sees everything as underlining her opinion of consumer responsibility -

she basically sees what she wants to. She clearly and enthusiastically believes that

consumers have the power to change things and should take the responsibility. Her

emotions can be affected temporarily but she soon returns to own opinions (Ibid., 39:52).

She was actually emotionally affected by all photos discussed - also the three Greenpeace

photos (Ibid., 31:38 & 33:45) - and also reacted strongly to fear-based messages. She

prefers fear to be used as little as possible but that it serves well as an eye-opener (Ibid.,

37:54).

5.1.4 Jacobsen

Jacobsen, a male aged 31-40, is quickly agitated when talking about his responsibility as a

consumer: He thinks it is a damn mess with all the waste and that his kids deserve good

future (Jacobsen, 2015, Interview 02:36). He blames people and companies for this mess

(Ibid., 04:21). He clearly believes that if you have enough money to help, you should (Ibid.,

07:56), and that consequences should be severe - show no mercy (Ibid., 11:53). He finds it

scary that we have destroyed so much in such short time (Ibid., 13:24).


31 of 61

Jacobsen chooses CS01 “Frying the planet” which includes the slogan “Because what can

one person do when 6.8 billion are frying the planet?” (Appendix A, p. 7). He relates to

this feeling and argues that if we all thought like this, nothing would happen - we have to

start somewhere as he says (Ibid., 22:15). He finds it frightening and worrying how things

are and project to be - and that we are not acting now (Ibid., 24:20). He seems almost

distraught and ponders how much could happen if only people took it seriously and acted

personally (Ibid., 26:59). He also chooses UK01 “Severed Gorilla”. He finds it to be a

powerful image and quickly states that people could not care less and it is totally bonkers

(Ibid., 30:55). He finds this situation frustrating and mega hard (Ibid., 32:11). He reiterates

these feelings at the end of the interview when thinking back to this photo - it is

overwhelming, frustrating and hard to do something about it (Ibid., 1:21:04) - so they seem

to have stuck with him throughout the interview. For UK03-04, he keeps talking about what

each consumer can do (Ibid., 37:40) even though this photo indicates a big-scale problem.

For CP01-03, he keeps talking about imposing big consequences for companies and seems

distraught - It cannot be true that companies can do this (Ibid., 43:34). He is clearly irritated

- So easy to get away with it (Ibid., 44:56) and gets increasingly annoyed and mad at

companies - If they weren’t so damn greedy (Ibid., 47:04). The trend continues with CS03

where he labels it a damn disgrace (Ibid., 54:29) that we waste so much food. He is still

irritated and dismayed (Ibid., 55:30).

The impact of the photo elicitation and discussions are very clear, as Jacobsen seems

overwhelmed and tired when having to answer the introductory questions the second time

around. This results in much shorter answers after - but his arguments still stay on point and

are consistent with his answers before. When talking about his responsibility as a

consumer, he goes from talking about consumers and companies being responsible to just

mentioning consumers. When talking about the difference in responsibility between the

three actors, he strongly believes companies should act both before and after the photo

discussions. When answering if any one actor has the most responsibility he goes from

saying everyone has equal responsibility to saying it is mostly companies. The interview

seems to have underlined for him the blame that he feels companies deserve. This fits with

his answer on the question of whether who is causing problems should also deal with them:

Both before and after he strongly thinks that greed and problems caused on purpose should

mean responsibility and punishment.


32 of 61

In general, Jacobsen is clearly emotionally impacted by the discussions. He gets riled up

and increasingly irritated and angry. He almost cannot fathom the problems and solutions

and seems increasingly dismayed throughout the interview - it almost consumes him. Only

the FedEx video gets him excited again - he finds it very cool and describes it as happy

(Ibid., 1:04:33). Even though he is greatly impacted by it, he approves of the use of fear -

he thinks it is good to have some fear in you (Ibid., 48:37). He finds CP01-03 to be not

fearful enough and argues that we must put some fear into people - it is only way we stop

this (Ibid., 52:10). He keeps thinking about each consumer’s responsibility and actions

(Ibid., 1:01:48) even when the discussions focus on other things. And his lack of trust in

companies means he believes governments must act.

5.1.5 Pedersen

Pedersen, a male aged 21-30, was interviewed together with Roed - the next interviewee to

be analysed. When talking about his responsibility as a consumer, he says he felt it was

needed because of limited resources (Pedersen & Roed, 2015, Interview 02:45) and that

next generations should not be worse of (Ibid., 02:52). He believes governments must act

on the future while consumers have an easier time acting on what they experience now.

From the beginning his answers has a very practical nature; e.g. talking about companies

doing what is cost-effective (Ibid., 03:29) and using sustainability as a sales argument

(Ibid., 04:11). He believes everybody has a part to play and responsibility for sustainability.

Pedersen chooses CP05 “ROCKWOOL Energy Consumption” - Because it relates to my

education (Ibid., 15:31) and interests (Ibid., 19:10). He is impressed that we can continue to

lower energy consumption (Ibid., 16:30). Although he enjoys the factual nature of this

photo, he thinks people go crazy and react more when shown pictures, not numbers and

tables (Ibid., 20:55) - this is said with a bit of contempt. He also chooses CS03

“Think.Eat.Save” as it relates to everyday life. He did not know food waste was this severe

and is quite surprised (Ibid., 24:53). He says it underlines how bad we are (Ibid., 25:50), but

that it is something we can all do something about. When seeing UK03-04, the perspective

of the larger impact on Bangladesh causes him to say in contempt: Danes would cry more

(Ibid., 30:55). He is sceptical of Greenpeace and it shows in his reaction to the photos made

by them. He calls CP01 stupid (Ibid., 38:06) and not serious (Ibid., 45:49). He believes it is

hard to do something about the dilemma brought up in CP03 (Ibid., 39:13). Finally, he is

also critical of the FedEx video, described it as silliness (Ibid., 49:23). He is sceptical and


33 of 61

does not believe message. Also he could relate more to the message if it was a Danish

company like Rockwool (Ibid., 53:00).

The way in which Pedersen answers the introductory questions before and after the photo

discussions changes a bit. When talking about his responsibility as a consumer, he mentions

limited resources, a long-term outlook, and a regard for future generations as arguments at

first. After the photo discussions his answer revolves more around the consequences for

others. When talking about any differences in responsibility between the three actors, he

starts off by saying that all steps include individuals. Also he argues that responsibility is

equal and common in theory, but that it is probably different in reality. Afterwards he says

that everybody is still responsible just for different aspects and depending on focus. Also he

now says governments have the most responsibility. When answering whether causing a

problem should mean that actor had to solve the problem, he is consistent before and after:

All actors have a part in the act, so the responsible actor is never just one.

In general, Pedersen is very practical, sensible, reasonable, and factual. He wants simple

messages without too much emotion that relates to everyday life - only a message such as

CS03 caused him to be a bit affected and overwhelmed. He finds it OK to use fear if it is

done in a sober and thoughtful manner (Ibid., 43:30) - but he still thinks it has only a short-

term effect.

5.1.6 Roed

Roed, a male aged 21-30, believes the consumers have some power (Pedersen & Roed,

2015, Interview 02:22) but that government has the biggest opportunity to act (Ibid.,

04:59). He chooses CS06 “Willing to Pay Higher Price” because he finds it fun to see that

Europe is the least willing to pay higher prices (Ibid., 15:00). At first he is appalled by this

aspect (Ibid., 15:59), but the overall improvement that all areas of the world show end up

becoming the main point for him (Ibid., 16:14). He also chooses GV03 “Solar Panels

Needed” and is surprised by how little it actually takes (Ibid., 23:39). But he also finds it

frightening that more is not done (Ibid., 25:41). At first, he describes UK03-04 as focusing

on long-term consequences that you do not concern yourself with as much (Ibid., 29:55).

But he still gets himself involved in the message and soon describes it as awful (Ibid.,

30:01). He puts the situation into perspective by saying that in Bangladesh it concerns

human lives, whereas in Denmark it probably only concerns basements (Ibid., 30:35). He


34 of 61

says that we just know that this is going to cost human lives (Ibid., 32:30) and that

governments must act because it is critical (Ibid., 36:14). He ends up being somewhat

overwhelmed, asking how can we change this or stop this? (Ibid., 1:06:53). He cannot

relate to photo CP02: This because he does not know John West, but realises the message is

still awful (Ibid., 39:42).He also does not believe the message behind the FedEx video,

showing scepticism like many others.

Roed’s way on answering the questions changes quite a bit, and he even changes his

opinion on some of the topics after the photo discussions. He even states a few times that he

has changed his opinion. As he explains to the interviewer after the interview, he does not

often think about sustainability, so it is possible this expose to a discussion about it simply

made him more clear-minded. When he talks about having responsibility as a consumer, he

goes from saying that a consumer has power and influence to saying that consumers cannot

push responsibility away; but must accept it and try to have an impact by one’s small

choices. So the focus is still on the consumers, but the focus and arguments are different.

When answering whether the actors have different amounts of responsibility he goes from

saying that the responsibility is equal and common to saying that consumers choose

governments, that governments and companies can act more easily, and that governments

are the most responsible. When answering whether causing problems means that actor has

to solve them, he starts by saying that is it more important who tries to prevent (Ibid.,

06:27), and that those with the most money must do the most. After the photo discussions

he instead argues that everybody is involved. Finally, he also gives interesting answers to

the question of whether it affects his perceptions of responsibility when the conversation is

focused on either present consequences or future consequences. He starts of by saying that

although he thinks it is wrong, present issues are easier to feel responsible for and he argues

that consumers act on the now. After, he answers that he feels an equal sense of

responsibility for future consequences, saying: Bangladesh caused me to rethink.

In general, Roed talks less than Pedersen during their common interview, but his thoughts

and feelings are still effectively portrayed. He is objective but his thoughts are also based a

lot on emotion, with the exception of the Greenpeace photos. He is focused on the bigger

picture and sees the messages as highlighting different actors’ responsibility. He thinks that

using fear is a tough way to approach these discussions (Ibid., 42:56), and that fear has only

a short-term effect.


35 of 61

5.1.7 Jessen

Jessen, a male age 21-30, talks about us having to make this world last as long as possible

(Jessen, 2015, Interview 01:55). He believes individuals have to act on government and

company changes for it to have an effect (Ibid., 02:40), but he also has some mistrust for

companies’ behaviour (Ibid., 03:53). He thinks an important question to ask ourselves is

why are we entitled to good life but not our remnants? (Ibid., 04:42). In general, he finds

long-term consequences too abstract (Ibid., 09:14).

Jessen chooses GV03 “Solar Panels Needed” because he finds it striking that it does not

take more (Ibid., 17:32), and therefore stupid that we do not do it (Ibid., 18:23). He

describes his contempt (Ibid., 18:34) for such inaction and calls it a pity that 150 people

make 6.5 billion and our remnants pay for their disagreements (Ibid., 19:32). He believes

there is not very much for consumers to do in this case. He also chooses GV04 “Desired vs.

Actual Priority” and calls it striking that the US do not do anything (Ibid., 22:42). He is

disappointed but not surprised with the US. He is also sceptical of China and India, who are

fairly highly ranked in the graphs (Appendix A, p. 16). He says they are ignoramuses (Ibid.,

23:58) and that people are gullible (Ibid., 25:20). This message confirms his prejudices

(Ibid., 25:58) and he calls for consumers to be more sceptical. He even chooses a third

photo, CS01 “Frying the Planet”. He finds this one relatable, saying what the hell should I

do when other people do not care? (Ibid., 27:16). He talks about this mantra being a part of

his upbringing, which makes it more relevant to him. When talking about UK03-04 he

describes being surprised at first but also a bit sceptical, saying it is hard to imagine these

scenarios. He argues that because Bangladesh is not part of my everyday life and identity

(Ibid., 33:05), he relates more to Denmark which seems more concrete to him. He blames

companies based on his preconceived notion of companies polluting the most (Ibid., 33:51),

and talks about 2050 being far into the future (Ibid., 36:50), decreasing its relatability.

When talking about CP01-03, he rejects critique of Apple in CP03, calling it too cliché. He

has pity for the orang-utans in CP01 because he finds them cute. He thinks the CP02 photo

is brutal, and says it scares him a bit but is not relatable because of the foreign brand. He

cannot relate to CS03 and rejects its basis by saying what the hell should we do without

food? (Ibid., 48:27). He does not believe vegetables can be compared to the two most

polluting countries in the world (Ibid., 51:44). He finds the FedEx video cute (Ibid., 54:54).

He is actually sceptical of the message in the video but still allows himself to be affected -


36 of 61

he points this out himself. He argues that the video targets people’s gullibility (Ibid., 56:53)

and moves the ignorance to FedEx’s competitors (Ibid., 59:19).

Jessen’s answers to the introductory questions are consistent before and after the photo

discussions - but he expands more in his explanations and answers after. When he talks

about having responsibility as a consumer, he starts by arguing it to be a common problem

but that we must act individually (Ibid., 02:04). Later, he says that demanding sustainable

products influences companies and that everybody should do a little bit. When talking

about whether the actors’ responsibilities differ, he starts by saying that he wants it to be

equal but that it is harder for individuals to cause change. Later, he uses the same saying of

wanting it to be equal but now elaborates that companies and governments should go

forward because it is harder for individuals to cause change. When answering whether one

actor has the most responsibility, he starts by saying that it should be companies but they do

acknowledge it because of their focus on profits (Ibid., 06:08). Later, he argues that

companies should accept they have to change. When answering whether causing problems

should also mean solving it, he starts by saying that everybody causes the problem because

there is an interaction between the actors. Later, he still points out that everybody causes

the problem, but adds that consumers could demand more sustainable products, drive less,

and that the Americans should change the most. Finally, he also gives interesting answers

to the question of whether it affects his perceptions of responsibility when the conversation

is focused on either present consequences or future consequences. He starts by stating that

he definitely feels more responsibility for the present as it is more concrete (Ibid., 09:02).

Later, he stills feels more responsibility for the present as it is tangible and the future is

hard to predict. So generally, he stays on message, but just puts it in other and more

elaborated ways.

In general, Jessen keeps a perspective when discussing but can still be affected and

overwhelmed by many of the photos and messages. He chooses messages that confirm his

opinion; only GV03 challenges it a bit. He finds it OK to use fear but thinks it has to show

the impact on humans; not on animals (Ibid., 44:35). He also thinks the photos have to be

relatable. To underline his opinions and attitude, he ended the interview with a monologue

arguing that the US, China, India, Russia, and similar large countries should go out in front.


37 of 61

5.1.8 Skou

Skou, a male aged 61+, believes that consumers should feel responsible if they are not

indifferent about society and future (Skou, 2015, interview 02:02). He believes

governments should have most responsibility (Ibid., 06:55) and that governments are afraid

of challenging companies (Ibid., 10:22), causing a lot of inaction. He talks about consumers

having an incredibly small influence (Ibid., 11:44).

Skou chooses CS06 “Willing to Pay Higher Prices”. He points out that non-Western

countries want to do most and that we take things for granted (Ibid., 23:12). He is positively

surprised (Ibid., 23:52) by the non-Western countries, while feeling a mild head-shaking

over the Western countries (Ibid., 24:30), as he had not imagined it to be like this (30:48).

He argues that it is the responsibility of companies and governments to start change. He

also chooses GV04 “Desired vs. Actual Priority”, liking the data-based approach of both

this photo and CS06. He is not surprised about the low US ranking but positively surprised

about India and China (Ibid., 25:20). Again, he argues why the responsibility to do

something lies with companies and governments. He even chooses a third photo, GV03

“Solar Panels Needed”. After seeing it, he states that the solution is simple and already here

in principle (Ibid., 37:51) - which leads him to talk about impatience and that he does not

understand nobody has acted on this. He talks about simplicity and implies governments

and companies are somewhat negligent which is shameful (Ibid., 43:26). The simplicity to

him lies in the argument that such solar panels plants take up no space (Ibid., 45:48)

compared to their benefits. He even suggests Vestas can use this kind of message in their

marketing. When discussing UK03-04, he cannot imagine UK04 and therefore somewhat

rejects it (Ibid., 51:13). He then wants more background info - fitting well with the

impression of him as being a realist and factual. He argues that a consumer cannot relate to

this (Ibid., 54:24), that it is too overstated and vague which makes it ineffective (Ibid.,

58:20). When discussion CP01-03 he simply states that we know this already (Ibid.,

1:02:00) but will still buy the products. He argues that consumers cannot change this (Ibid.,

1:16:20). He believes the message in CS03 is true (Ibid., 01:19:13). But he does not

appreciate that it tries to make consumers feel responsible when governments have a part to

play (Ibid., 1:22:50). So he does not buy premise of consumer responsibility (Ibid., 1:23:47)

in this regard.

As was the case with interviewee Jessen, Skou gives longer explanations and answers to the

introductory questions when they are again posed after the photo discussions. Some of his


38 of 61

answers stay consistent while others focus on different aspects the second time around.

When he talks about having responsibility as a consumer, he starts by saying it comes down

to minimising waste and using as few resources as possible. Later he talks about

consumers’ limited impact but that they still have a principle and moral responsibility.

When answering whether the actors’ responsibilities differ, he starts by stating that he feels

it should be governments because consumers cannot change enough on their own. Later, he

answers by saying that it is hard to ask for change in companies and that government

decisions have bigger and faster effect (Ibid., 1:58:26). He believes governments have the

most responsibility both before and after the photo discussions. When answering whether

causing equals having to solve problems, his attitude is similarly consistent: He starts by

answering yes, in some way it should mean that. Later, he hesitates, again answers yes but

now underlines that everybody has played a part in the problem-creation. When considering

whether future or present consequences impact his perception of responsibility, he starts by

saying that is makes no difference, and underlines again that consumers cannot influence

much. Later, he still answers that it makes no difference, but now talks about it being sad to

see political disagreements and lack of action (Ibid., 02:01:34).

In general, Skou is clearly a realist and a bit cynical, while always focusing on real-life

implementation. He rejects UK03-04 because he finds them too speculative. However, a

photo like GV03 - which is also highly speculative - catches his attention and praise. He

can be argued to only see what he wants to see. Similarly, he keeps talking about

government and company responsibility. He does absolutely not approve of using fear

(Ibid., 1:13:42). Skou is asked fewer questions from the interviewer as he answers most of

them by himself during his long periods of explaining; basically short monologues.

5.1.9 Hansen

Hansen, a female aged 21-30, was interviewed together with Bach - the next and final

interviewee to be analysed. Hansen believes consumers have a societal responsibility

(Hansen & Bach, 2015, Interview 01:56) to act sustainably. She talks about community but

also deciding for yourself. She thinks it is important to educate people in third world

countries to act sustainably and not just do it the “Western way” - she argues that

governments can force and educate (Ibid., 09:25).

Hansen chooses CS01 “Frying the Planet” because it reinforces her feeling that it is hard to

work alone (Ibid., 24:13). The photo gives her a bad conscience (Ibid., 26:40), but also


39 of 61

encourages you to join the community (Ibid., 26:49) and not disregard it. She also chooses

CS04 “Shopping Cart Affects Oceans”, as it also is relatable for her. She says we are not

sufficiently enlightened (Ibid., 31:45). Again it hits her bad conscience, but it is more

rewarding for me (Ibid., 32:30), and she still finds message positive because you can

improve (Ibid., 33:49). She is clearly attracted to these relatable messages which she can

visualise into her everyday life. As she so simply puts it: Shopping I can relate to and the

ocean I can relate to (Ibid., 35:28). When talking about CS06 - a photo chosen by Bach -

she talks about Westerners being spoiled (Ibid., 23:04). She calls UK03-04 tangible (Ibid.,

38:49) and is irritated because she things we are spoiled here in Denmark (Ibid., 39:50);

people feel sorry for themselves (Ibid., 40:28). She even relates the time frame on UK03 to

own life pondering how it will affect her and her future children, and is uncomfortable with

the fact that the message does not tell her how she can help stop it (Ibid., 44:25). She finds

Greenpeace’s happenings somewhat silly, which causes annoyance with photo CP01. She

finds CP02 more relatable as it brings back negative memories of a documentary on tuna

she once saw. And she is too loyal an Apple customer to accept CP03. She enjoys that the

FedEx video has fairy-tale elements and that its cosiness makes it positive. But she fears

some lecturing and a negative message (Ibid., 1:03:23) halfway through the video as the

fairy-tale elements start disappearing.

Hansen’s answers to the introductory questions evolve somewhat from the first to second

time the questions are asked. She describes consumer responsibility as being focused on

community but also individual choice before the photo discussions. After, she talks about

consumers affecting supply and demand and how consumers must lead the way. When

answering whether the actors’ responsibilities differ, she starts by saying that individuals

are more responsible, but are restricted by acting in world decided by government and

companies. After, she talks about how government can set up framework but consumers

together can have a large impact. She believes individuals have the most responsibility both

before and after the discussions, but adds arguments about the influence of government and

their rules after, as well as stating that she would love if companies did more (Ibid.,

1:20:42). On the question of whether causing equals having to solve problems, her answer

is the same before and after: Everybody plays a part and should help, although companies

are easier to target. When considering whether future or present consequences impact his

perception of responsibility, she starts by saying a message should use emotions to show


40 of 61

personal consequences (Ibid., 11:07), and again using her own life - the day I have kids - to

feel responsible (Ibid., 11:30). After, she talks about how visualisations about now and the

future both help, but how they must relate to her own life (Ibid., 1:15:38).

In general, Hansen is very focused on how it will affect her life and which personal

consequences she can see. Relatability is the keyword in all messages; she is very visual

and makes associations to everyday life - e.g. shopping in stores - throughout the interview.

She does not have a clear opinion on the use of fear, instead only explaining that if she saw

the scenario in CP01 when coming to work she would be annoyed - again the relatability.

5.1.10 Bach

Bach, a female aged 21-30, believes you as a consumer should decide for yourself whether

you live sustainable (Hansen & Bach, 2015, Interview 02:11). She talks about how

individuals make up companies and governments (Ibid., 06:02). She also wants messages to

be relatable, saying: Consumer topics work because I cannot do anything about big-scale

problems (Ibid., 29:55). She prefers tangible messages with personal consequences even

though it has only a short-term effect (Ibid., 10:25) - she finds the future is too abstract.

Bach Chooses CS06 “Willing to Pay Higher Prices” because she finds it thought-provoking

those poor countries want to do most (Ibid., 14:43). She feels guilty on behalf of Western

countries (Ibid., 22:57), referring to the data as horribly low numbers for Western countries

(Ibid., 26:13). She chooses CS03 “Think.Eat.Save” because it is relatable. She talks about

the statement having two effects: It is not surprising but also insane (Ibid., 30:27), She uses

words as shock (Ibid., 30:39) and crazy (Ibid., 34:30) to describe her reaction to it. She

calls CS01 - photo chosen by Hansen - a bad excuse (Ibid., 19:24) and argues that

individuals cannot push responsibility away - she shows clear irritation. When talking about

UK03-04, she talks about looking for personal solutions (Ibid., 39:30), and it showing so

much impact for Bangladesh (Ibid., 43:08) in comparison with Denmark. For CP01-03, she

prefers more constructive messages (Ibid., 51:36). She finds the FedEx video cute by

underlines that it is still her responsibility to choose right solution (Ibid., 1:02:27).

Bach does not have a lot to say during the introductory questions, both before and after the

photo discussions - instead allowing Hansen to answer most of them. When talking about

consumer responsibility she goes from talking about the individual choice to arguing that

consumer must lead the way. She thinks individuals are the most responsibility both before

and after. When talking about whether causing equals having to solve problems, she starts


41 of 61

by saying everybody plays a part. After, she argues Western countries should be more

responsible but everybody should still help.

In general, Bach focuses on personal consequences and prefers concrete, not abstract

messages. She is somewhat sceptical of many messages. Although having no clear opinion

on the use of fear, when seeing UK01 “Severed Gorilla” the first time, her discomfort was

very clear as she said: OK, let us put that away now (Ibid., 16:10).

5.2 Cumulative Tendencies

By looking at all the individual interviewees’ wordings and arguments this section will

establish whether some similarities and themes show themselves in the data. When

describing the similarities, the distinctions some, many, and most will be used to highlight

how much of a common theme it was. Since this research is not quantitative, there is no

point in saying e.g. 6 of 10. The search for similarities and themes will go through the four-

part structure of the interview, starting with the introductory questions.

Generally, when the interviewees were talking about responsibility for sustainability,

certain words and phrases keep reappearing and mattering to most of the interviewees:

Influence, power, consequences, future generations, individuals making up governments

and companies. The interviewees often use these terms in a broad and vague sense such as

“we must look out for future generations”. But they are sometimes also used to explain a

real-life example such as “politicians and board members are consumers and individuals as

well”.

When choosing photos that catch their attention, most interviewees are interested in

relatable messages that deal with their everyday, personal life. Most also choose photos that

fit with their overall thoughts on who is most responsible - they seem to seek out

confirmation. Many interviewees allow themselves to choose emotionally, mostly photos

that provoke negative feelings - when the interviewees are negatively shocked by a photo

they seem to want to discuss the injustice and anger behind it. As a final trend, they actually

all choose a photo that has an element of surprise to them - giving them some new

information, be it negative or positive.


42 of 61

Of the 22 photos, 11 different ones were chosen. A handful of them were only chosen once:

CP04, CP05, CS04, CS05, and UK02. CS03 was chosen by an interviewee in both of the

two-man interviews, thereby making the interview process a little shorter. CS01, GV03,

GV04, and UK01 were all chosen three times. These four are very different messages:

Whereas GV04 is a data-filled graph, the other three are visual and have a fairly simple

look and message. CS06 - which was chosen five times - seemed to be appealing because it

was so full of different information: Some chose it for the lower numbers on Western

countries and some for the higher numbers on non-Western countries. Some chose it for the

globally improving numbers, indicating a higher priority on sustainable products. There

seemed to be no real theme in whether visual or more information-heavy photos were

preferred - only that it depended on the personal preferences of the people choosing. When

explaining why they had found the different messages appealing, the arguments were

equally widespread: Colours, fonts, data with depth, simplicity, and much more.

When looking at the interviewer-chosen messages, other themes appear as well. UK03-04

triggered a few different reactions: Many find it hard to imagine these scenarios and try to

relate it to their own lives. The distance and time horizon seems to have a clear impact on

how the messages are perceived and accepted by the interviewees. Furthermore, something

the author found interesting and rather strange was that some interviewees kept talking

about their personal impact and responsibility, even during discussion of these two photos.

These interviewees were the ones who were already focused on their impact as a consumer,

such as Genefke and Jacobsen. To the author, personal consumer impact seems like an odd

thing to discuss when dealing with messages regarding big-scale floods of entire countries.

This could indicate interviewees getting fixated on their own perceptions, not allowing

them to be challenged. It could also indicate that some types of consumers will always

relate what they are seeing to their own personal life, no matter the scope of a message.

The three Greenpeace photos - CP01-03 - were interesting as well. Many reject them

because they find them to be not constructive enough, too fear-based, or even annoying.

Some interviewees are affected by them and get angry at the companies. Some talk about

consumers’ indifference to these, saying that we already know this but still do not act.

Photo CS03 surprises most in a bad way, causing such words and phrases as: Shock,

disgrace, shows how bad we are, crazy, insane, absurd, etc. Most interviewees enjoy the

relatability of this message; that it is something we can change ourselves. The interviewees


43 of 61

sound positive about that aspect but most sort it as negative image anyway. This indicates

that the emotions triggered by this photo are more powerful than the optimistic feeling it

also gives most of them. Some reject the message by saying this is not a consumer problem.

It is of course not only a consumer problem, but these interviewees might be slightly biased

when arguing that it is company and government responsibility instead.

Most find the FedEx video cute and well-done. Some believe the message totally, some

would like to believe it, but many are sceptical of its legitimacy.

The use of fear in the photos and messages also has a large scale of approval. Some do not

like at all, some find it OK if done in a sober manner, and some think it is very useful. Most

believe it has only a short-term effect and can serve only as an eye-opener. Some point out

it still has to relate to their life.

5.2.1 Before and After Photos

Asking the introductory questions both before and after the photo discussions had some

effects, although not as substantial as one could have imagined. In general, the interviewees

showed some different tendencies. When answering the questions for the second time, most

would either get more realistic and down-to-earth with their explanations, or they would

take on a more abstract and principled approach. Most used about the same amount of

words and time to answer as before the photo discussions. Only a few would speak a lot

more or a lot less - either because they were now “warmed up”, or overwhelmed and tired,

respectively. No one said exactly the same thing both before and after, but that is just a part

of the randomness. All interviewees did answer at least one question differently; not

necessarily changing their perception but instead choosing different words and arguments

to describe their perception and opinion.

When looking at the specific questions, a few tendencies show as well. Not all interviewees

gave fulfilling answers to these questions, but it is still relevant to discuss the answers that

were valuable. When talking about feeling responsibility as a consumer, it is different

whether people go from principled explanation to concrete action ideas, vice versa, or just

stay with a principled or action-based approach. But many actually go from a principled

explanation before the photo discussions to an action-based approach afterwards. They talk

about how consumers can specifically have an impact and accept their responsibility. It

indicates that they - through the photos and its messages - have been shown the ways and


44 of 61

areas to impact as a consumer; the messages help highlight the everyday impact of a

consumer.

When talking about whether the three actors’ responsibilities differ, some talk about a

principle and moral responsibility versus how responsibility looks in real life or actuality.

Most keep their same focus and elaborations, and some get clearer in their wording.

When talking about whether one of the actors has the most responsibility, most just stay on

point and explain the same opinion. Some expand on it and include more factors.

When answering the question of whether causing a problem should mean having to solve it

as well, most stay on message and give the same opinion. Many find it difficult to simplify

responsibility in such a way and instead believe all actors are involved. Some finds this

setup useful; being able to use consequences as weapon or message towards companies in

particular - but even then, they say that both before and after the photo discussions.

When talking about the impact of present or future consequences on the interviewees’

perception of responsibility, most do not change their opinion or explanations. In general,

they are based on the present and something relatable being better; while the future is often

too abstract to imagine and feel responsible for.

5.2.2 Sorting Photos

The task of sorting photos had several interesting outcomes. One, some photos had a clear

message of either positive or negative nature according to all interviewees and the

interviewer. This was CP01, CP02, CP05, GV01, and UK01-04. Second, some photos and

messages had interesting ambiguity and meant different things to the interviewees, almost

at a 50-50 split between negative and positive. Photos such as CP03, CP06, GV02, and

GV04 were in this category. When looking at the talks about these photos during the photo

discussions it is clear that most interviewees found these photos to have double meanings

and carry both positive and negative messages. So the sorting of these photos must be

considered more unreliable and to a higher degree at a risk of chance; that the interviewees

mentally flipped a coin on where to put these if they found them twofold. Maybe the

interviewees even categorised the photos with the positive ones as it made them feel less

unhappy and overwhelmed to look at the photo in a positive way. Third, the author had

mistakenly thought of some photos to have a negative message when the interviews showed

that all or almost all of the interviewees disagreed with the categorisation of the author.

These photos are GV03, CS04, and CS05. The interviewees likely disagreed because these


45 of 61

photos included an action-based message with simple steps that clearly show the positive

impact it could have. And in hindsight, the interviewees were almost entirely right.


46 of 61

6. Discussion

In this chapter, the results and analysis performed will be linked to the context and

literature described in Chapter 3. Some clear tendencies showed in what impacted the

interviewees’ answers and perceptions of responsibility for sustainability, PRS. By putting

these tendencies into perspective with literature and discussion, it will later help answer the

research questions posed in the beginning of the thesis.

6.1 Personal Characteristics

Some specific personal characteristics turned out to be important for how the interviewees

talked and felt during the interviews, as well as perceived the photos. These are important

to understand and have in mind when trying to design messages intended to talk to

consumers’ PRS and facilitate discussions about sustainability topics. One was the

interviewees’ natural optimism or pessimism. An optimistic person would more often see

the positive and constructive aspects of a photo, and message. It also impacted how they

approached and talked about the sustainability challenges we are facing and discussed in

the interviews. It showed clearly during the discussions and also somewhat in the sorting

task. One interviewee - Franck - found only nine of the 22 photos to be negative, whereas

Hansen & Bach categorised 15 messages as negative. The sorting exercise has some

randomness and chance to it, but it can give an indication of how an optimistic or

pessimistic outlook impacts the perceptions of messages. Another important personal

characteristic is whether a person leans towards logical or sensitive thinking. This

influences the degree of appeal in the different types of photos. For instance, graphs and

tables generally do not attract people with a mind built for emotional and sensitive thinking.

It also showed in this research, as the interviewees clearly stated why they chose or did not

choose certain photos - and many mentioned it being either too technical or too emotional,

depending on their preferences.

One thing the analysis showed was that many of the effective photos allowed the

interviewees to relate the message to their personal and everyday lives, now or in the future.

The degree to which messages are relatable then also depend on the degree to which is

person is adept at visualisation. Most interviewees could describe themselves standing in


47 of 61

the store having to make a choice on e.g. a sustainable food product. But only a few were

able to visualise the impact of e.g. rising sea levels in Denmark and Bangladesh, and how

that might make their personal lives look differently. So the effect of a message or a

discussion on such topics depends on how well the person visualises such scenarios.

A fourth characteristic that showed to be important to the outcome of such discussions was

the interviewee’s ability to put the information into perspective or context. Many of the

interviewees showed great consideration and perspective by e.g. realising that the

consequences of rising sea levels in Bangladesh would most likely be a lot more severe

than in Denmark. This was shown by comments such as: In Bangladesh it concerns human

lives, whereas in Denmark it probably only concerns basements (Pedersen & Roed, 2015,

Interview 30:35), and how the maps are showing so much impact for Bangladesh (Hansen

& Bach, 2015, Interview 43:08) in comparison with Denmark. Perspective was also used a

lot when the discussion centred on food waste; how many of the interviewees felt sick

throwing away food or knowing that Western countries did it so excessively, when people

are starving all around the world. So to keep a discussion productive and reasonable, the

people involved must be able to put sustainability topics into perspective.

A final and very important thing, that impacted the course of the discussions as well as how

photos and messages were received, was the amount of knowledge about sustainability

topics that each interviewee had. The degree of enlightenment, unfamiliarity, or ignorance

within each person participating in such discussions, as well as being on the receiving end

of sustainability messages. The influence of level of knowledge was most obvious at two

ends of the spectre: Jacobsen was not very knowledgeable about sustainability. He was

explained the classic Brundtland definition before the interview started, but still had only a

very superficial idea of what it all was and meant. On the other end of the spectre were the

three interviewees from Alternativet; Franck, Christensen, and Genefke. These three could

be labelled as enlightened consumers, or at the upper end of such a scale. Many

interviewees talked about the extreme difficulty in being sufficiently informed to make

sustainable consumer choices. Franck put it well when referring to the palm oil dilemma

touched on in photo CP01: The consumer is subject to very, very difficult conditions when

wanting to act sustainably because if palm oil was the only thing you had to worry about

then it was damn easy, right. But you would have to read every label … and take a stand on

the principles of how they procure each and every raw material (Franck, 2015, Interview


48 of 61

50:53). So a fully enlightened consumer is surely and utopian idea. But sustainability

knowledge is not an exclusive thing, reserved for advocates of the cause. It also shows in

something like the interviewees’ reaction to photo CS06, which shows a global

improvement in consumers’ willingness to pay more for sustainable products (Appendix A,

p. 16). As mentioned in Chapter 3, most research shows that a positive attitude towards

sustainability does not correlate with sustainable behaviour. Hence its inclusion as an

assumption in this thesis. CS06 shows only an improved attitude towards sustainability.

Seven interviewees discussed this photo during the interviews, and only about half treated it

with general scepticism. Even the three Alternativet-interviewees were not all sufficiently

sceptical of its legitimacy, as Genefke seemed to believe it fully. So the level of knowledge

in a consumer regards many things. A final interesting aspect of a consumer’s knowledge

level is whether or not there is such a thing as too much knowledge. Knowledge increases

the scepticism of a consumer, as just mentioned above. Some of the interviewees talked

about having seen such messages too many times for it to have an effect anymore. Franck

and Skou in particular both seemed saturated and numb, saying multiple times that they

were not affected by it anymore. Knowledge can then be both a bad and a good thing:

When someone like Franck or Skou feels numb towards such negative discussions and

messages, they also seem to make a conscious choice to not be affected by it anymore. It is

not like their emotions can just shut off. On the other hand, knowledge can then help

decrease the negative effects of fear - e.g. paralysis or denial - and allow for a more

balanced discussion and reception of messages.

6.2 Perceptions

Another interesting part of analysis showed that many of the interviewees were quite set in

their opinions and perceptions about responsibility for sustainability. The interviewees had

strong and inflexible views and feelings on how responsibility was divided - and supposed

to be divided - between consumers, companies, and governments. Most of them chose

photos and messages that confirmed what they thought and clearly showed their

perceptions to the interviewer. They also talked about most of the other photos and

answered the introductory questions in a manner that showed their perceptions and

limitations thereof. The stringency of those perceptions seemed to depend on the amount of


49 of 61

knowledge and life experience that the interviewees had. The most senior interviewees

were - to put it harshly - set in their ways. Of course, it should not sound like having a clear

opinion and perception on responsibility for sustainability is only a bad thing - it is

obviously not. But when e.g. the interviewees get fixated on their personal impact as a

consumer when dealing with big-scale consequences such as rising sea levels, the

discussion gets off track and important messages get lost. A challenge like that requires

change and attention on all actors.

If following the teaching of Solomon, one of the difficult things with perceptions, attitudes

and opinions - how you see the world - is the matter of time. Nobody changes their opinion

in an instant. As mentioned in Chapter 3, a person must go through three stages when

forming her/his perception: Exposure, attention, and interpretation (Solomon, 2013, p. 46).

The interviewees have already been through this process before entering the interview

setting; processing their personal level of knowledge about sustainability - high or low -

into a perception and opinion on sustainability’s impact on our world and lives. When

entering the interview setting that perception will be exposed - stage 1 - to new knowledge

that challenges and adds to the knowledge and perception of each interviewee. But the next

two stages - attention and interpretation - are hard to do while simultaneously participating

in an interview where you have to answer many questions about sustainability. For the most

part, the new knowledge will not take effect until after the process where the mind has time

to give attention to the new knowledge - stage 2 - and then interpret this knowledge - stage

3. So interviewees exit with the same perceptions as they entered with, and changes to

one’s perceptions will for the most part not show until after the interview. Only two or

three of the interviewees in this research seemed to change their mind or evolve their

perceptions during the interviews. Two of them - Roed and Hansen - were part of two-

person interviews, so maybe the interaction with the other interviewee had an impact. It

could also just be their mental readiness to change perceptions. Changing perceptions is not

only a matter of time but also willingness.

6.3 Fear

In 2009, O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole called for research that tries to find other ways of

communication than through fear: “Future research attention in this field must concentrate


50 of 61

on how a much deeper personal concern and lifestyle engagement with climate change can

be encouraged through different methods and strategies of communication.” (O’Neill &

Nicholson-Cole, 2009, pp. 376-377). Fear can a very effective tool for some things, but

O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole along with previous research established that when using it fear

appeals to promote sustainability causes like climate change, the effect on engagement is

not long-term: “The “wicked” nature of climate change (Lorenzoni et al., 2006) makes it,

for many people, an impersonal and distant issue. This factor makes climate-related fear

appeals very difficult to sustain in the long term.” (Ibid., p. 361). Most of the interviewees,

included in the research of this thesis, talked about them believing negative and fear-based

messages would mostly have a short-term effect. Not only did they talk about it and convey

that belief, but it showed in their actions during the interviews as well. Many interviewees

were affected by their emotions for the first short period of time when looking at photos

with negative and fear-based messages. But almost all of them returned to their normal state

of mind and usual perceptions shortly thereafter. Then they could start talking about

responsibility for sustainability again. So the findings in this thesis are coherent with what

previous research has shown.

In this thesis’ research, several other points were brought up by the interviewees in regards

to the use of fear appeals, and in which form and manner they thought it should be used.

The first one comes from Christensen, who talks about a negative impact of fear appeals:

He also believes fear pushes people with other opinions away, and argues that to reach

those people communication needs to be built on empathy and understanding instead

(Christensen, 2015, Interview 34:10). To expand on his point, he argues that people who

are not necessarily sustainability advocates can be turned off by fear messages. Fear

appeals can be successful in mobilising the people who are already mobilised (Ibid., 34:10).

But people who do not believe the same as the advocates or the source of a fear message,

will possibly see this message as an attack on their beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and

perceptions. And if that happens, constructive dialogue is a longshot to happen. Instead,

Christensen suggests using appeals of empathy and understanding. This fits well with one

of the major themes in this research: Relatability. To build on a suggestion from Jessen: He

finds it OK to use fear but thinks it has to show the impact on humans; not on animals

(Jessen, 2015, Interview 44:35). Empathy and understanding for other humans must be said

to be easier to provoke than empathy and understanding for the impact on animals and


51 of 61

nature. Or put another way: More people probably feel empathy for other humans, than do

people feel empathy for animals and nature. So the target group is bigger. Some of the

photos and messages used in this research seemed to move towards a better balance of

negative messages which still includes relatability and provokes feelings of empathy and

understanding; e.g. a photo such as CS03. This focus on relatability fits well with another

quote from O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole which argues that “communications approaches that

take account of individuals’ personal points of reference (e.g., based on an understanding

and appreciation of their values, attitudes, beliefs, local environment, and experiences) are

more likely to meaningfully engage individuals with climate change.” (O’Neill &

Nicholson-Cole, 2009, p. 375). This quote supports a focus on relatability, empathy, and

understanding.

A final point worth making is one regarding a possible reaction to fear messages:

Discomfort leading to denial. The photo UK01 “Severed Gorilla” had a strong effect on

many of the interviewees - but none more than Bach. When seeing it, it did not take many

seconds before she said: OK, let us put that away now (Hansen & Bach, 2015, Interview

16:10). This shows a clear discomfort with the photo and message, and she simply decides

that it is better to move on from it, than to start discussing it. She ends up rejecting the

message and being unable to lead a constructive dialogue and discussion because the photo

and message has too strong an effect on her. Again this fits with aspects of the research

done by O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole: “These internal fear controls, such as issue denial and

apathy, can represent barriers to meaningful engagement.” (O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole,

2009, p. 363). So trying to avoid these barriers and avoid hitting people’s personal

discomfort and anxieties makes much to sense to include in the design of a message about

responsibility for sustainability.

6.4 Influence of Process and Interviewer

A final interesting aspect to discuss is whether the interview process itself and/or the

interviewer has had an impact on the thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of the

interviewee. First off, it became clear from the analysis that the question “Does this photo

change or underline how you feel the responsibility is divided between the three actors?”

did not have a significant impact. It helped underline the tendency that not much could help


52 of 61

change the interviewees’ perceptions. But only a few times did an interviewee say that a

photo changed the way she or he looked at the division of responsibility. This can of course

be the truthful and representative. But by so directly asking for a result that would be

interesting to the research, there is a risk of scaring that answer away.

Another interesting question to ponder is what effect it has to facilitate the topic of

responsibility for sustainability to a consumer. Does it give the consumer an epiphany,

make her or him overwhelmed, or something entirely else? Based on the interviewees’

reactions and feedback, it was probably a bit of both. Jacobsen said: This makes me think

more about it, want to do more (Jacobsen, 2015, Interview 1:20:22). However, Jacobsen

also seemed quite overwhelmed and disheartened at the end of the interview, so he

probably felt both feelings. Roed said this after conclusion of the interview: “This format

was good as it made me think a little extra about these topics and questions. Sustainability

is not normally something on my mind.” (Appendix E, p. 35). So for people with less

knowledge about sustainability, a discussion such as this can increase awareness and

involvement in the subject. But there is a balance to the length and depth of it. And how

long the involvement lasts is anybody’s guess.


53 of 61

7. Quality of Research

Research ethics are critical to the academic work done in thesis like this one. The ethics

must not only be reviewed at the end of the thesis, but includes in the considerations of all

steps of research before it is actually performed.

No deception was intended or used at any time of the research. Confidentiality was not

asked for or suggested, as the interviewees’ participation was not defamatory in any way.

The transferability of the research is good as it matches well with previous research.

Dependability is high as the research is built on a very structured process with explicit

arguments for the choices of each step. Credibility is high as the data gathered supports the

research focus and enables the author to answer the research questions. The interviews

stretched over a period of 26 days, but due to the data’s qualitative and individual nature, it

is hard to say whether another round of interviews over time would give the same results.

This makes reliability only medium. If similar interviews were done again with the same

interviewees at a later time, the author would be allowed to see whether the interview

process itself had changed some of the interviewees’ perceptions. Validity is also only

medium, as the analysis was not based on a lot of academic tools. However, the research

should still be generalizable, and its value to business world adds to the validity.

One interesting aspect to consider is what the influence of interaction in the two interviews

has been. It makes sense to wonder how only small group interviews or focus groups would

have affected the research - analysis, discussion, and outcome in particular. In the two

group interviews in this research, the interviewees were more likely to shift their opinions

and perceptions a bit, and the other interviewee seemed to contribute to that. The influence

of interaction in these interviews especially showed during the sorting task where they

agreed on the categorisation of the photos.

7.1 Limitations

As mentioned, more academic analysis tools could have strengthened the results of the

research. Open coding would make the most sense to use due to the research’s exploratory


54 of 61

focus - it would allow for the author to create labels based on the meaning that appears

from the data.

Principally, the questions posed in the research “should be brief and simple.” (Kvale &

Brinkmann, 2009, p. 134). This was not always the case, which caused some confusion and

necessitated further elaborations from the interviewer. However, it is hard to make

questions completely simple with a sometimes abstract and principled discussion about

responsibility sustainability.

The final limitation is due to the mix of Danish and English in the thesis: Interviews were

conducted in Danish, but needed to be translated into English for the analysis. The author

has sufficient skills to do proper translations; but it is always difficult to hit the exact tone

and point of something spoken in another language. So this could have had a minor effect

on the results and decrease validity slightly. However, if conducted in English the

volunteers would have been ever harder to get, and the interview process could have given

far less valuable data due to the language barrier. In this regard, the interviewees’ English

skills did have a small effect on understanding the video and some of the photos which

were based on the English language.


55 of 61

8. Conclusion

This final chapter will focus on answering the research questions posed in Chapter 2. It will

also evaluate the research’s impact on the Luchs & Miller model and describe the lessons

learned regarding the use of messages.

What happens to consumers’ perceptions of responsibility for sustainability

when shown messages?

Consumers do not seem to change their perceptions based on encountering just a few

photos and messages. The messages also need to facilitate a deeper discussion that will

challenge the consumers’ perceptions with new knowledge, allowing the perceptions to

evolve. As mentioned in Chapter 6, the steps to changing one’s perceptions are rarely

completed instantaneously. In this research, quick perception and opinion changes only

happened on a few occasions. The interviewees behind these changes seemed willing to

change their perceptions as they processed and interpreted the new knowledge during the

interview. The interviewees did actually all have at least one instance where their answer to

one of the introductory questions - posed before and after the photo discussions - changed.

This change was not necessarily a change in the underlying perception or opinion, but

rather describing their standpoint with new or elaborated aspects; meaning different words,

phrases, thoughts, and arguments. But for the most part, the interviewees were not

necessarily affected by the messages, but stayed on point with their perceptions. Many used

the messages as arguments for their own perception, whether the connection was obvious or

not. And many saw the different messages as highlighting the responsibility of one or more

of the three actors; but it rarely changed the consumers’ perceptions of responsibility for

sustainability, PRS.

How do consumers talk about their responsibility for sustainability?

In general, the words and phrases most used were such as: Influence, power, consequences,

future generations, individuals making up governments and companies. When looking at

those words, they have just one, important thing in common: At the core, they all focus to

other human beings. Humans are social creatures, so when talking about something like

sustainability - which sometimes turns into an abstract debate - we need to remember why

we seem to care: Because it affects other humans. Environmental sustainability deals with


56 of 61

our treatment of nature, but it also impacts the living standards of many, many people -

especially if the dire prognoses out there turn out to be true. Social sustainability deals with

how we treat our fellow humans; so here the connection is obvious. Economic

sustainability deals with our financial systems and setups, but also the impact that this has

on many people’s way of life. If using this human aspect when discussing sustainability, it

should seem most people would have the ability to feel engaged in its progress.

What influences consumers’ perceptions of responsibility for sustainability?

Many things seem to have an influence on how consumers’ PRS are created and preserved.

The flexibility of consumers’ perceptions - mentioned in the first section - seems to have an

impact. Fear appeals can shake the perceptions and attitudes in the short-run, but have not

yet been shown to have a lasting effect. More importantly, five personal characteristics

appeared through the research in this thesis. These characteristics seem to also have a large

influence on the perceptions from which interviewees felt, talked, and argued during the

interviews. The first is the consumer’s natural optimism or pessimism; determining the

degree of constructive attitude one sees the information with. The next is whether the

consumer has a logical or sensitive mind-set; what types of information appeals to her or

him. Very important is also relatability; being able to relate the discussions to one’s

everyday life - the way that a consumer normally experiences the world; their perceptions.

The ability to put the information into perspective or context is the fourth characteristic;

realising that others around the world are far worse off and need more help. The final and

very important characteristic is the amount of knowledge about sustainability topics that a

consumer has; the degree of enlightenment and insight one shows. Through influencing the

consumers’ PRS, these characteristics also influence how messages are received.

8.1 Luchs & Miller Model

As a stated goal in the research focus was to try to explain the underlying structure and

basis for the model created by Luchs & Miller. In this research it proved hard to affect to

consumers’ PRS. This insinuates that consumers show up with predetermined perceptions,

attitudes, and feelings on responsibility for sustainability. Not just their own but the other

actors’ responsibility as well. The research brought forth arguments about the influence of

five personal characteristic, the social and human aspect underlying discussion of PRS, and


57 of 61

more. It would seem essential to respect and understand these arguments and aspects when

working with the model. They could be important underlying explanations as to why it

looks as it does. So evaluating these aspects in connection to the model seems like an

interesting and valuable research focus.

Some interviewees in this research tried to distance themselves from responsibilities of

governments and companies. But most thought that sustainability was a common challenge

that could and should not be put on the shoulders of just one actor. And generally, most

interviewees agreed with the relatively equal division of responsibility between the three

actors. Finally, some trends also showed regarding the distinction between the three actors

as well. Most of the interviewees expressed that they saw themselves also as citizens in

society and electors of governments; not just consumers of products and services.

Furthermore, many talked about the companies and governments consisting of individuals -

basically consumers - as well. So the distinctions between the three actors were understood

somewhat more flexibly.

8.2 Use of Messages

First off, these thoughts for use of messages are not new or ground-breaking ideas. They

are based on what this research showed, and appear applicable to all types of

communication on sustainability between consumers, companies, and governments. The

key to more sustainable consumer behaviour is informing and educating the consumers.

Messages focusing on consumers’ PRS should be designed to appeal to the human aspect of

sustainability, while focusing on relatability, empathy, and understanding. This design

should be done while remembering the five personal characteristics that seem to influence

consumers’ PRS. If fear appeals are deemed valuable or necessary, they could be designed

to relatable; focus messages on consequences for humans; not nature and animals.

Companies should remember the sceptical mind-set of consumers when targeting them with

a message of PRS. This should help to satisfy Luchs & Miller’s request for more

communication focusing on consumers’ PRS: “A greater emphasis on felt responsibility for

sustainability could apply to a wide variety of media including product labeling, public

policy appeals and promotional messages. Though the gap between attitudes towards

sustainability and consumption behaviors remains wide, the current research suggests that


58 of 61

a greater focus on consumers’ felt responsibility for sustainability offers another lever

towards a more sustainable consumer marketplace.” (Luchs & Miller, 2012, p. 19).

Conclusively, the author will highlight parts of thesis that could be used for further

research, in particular of the quantitative kind. Such research could be done to test the

themes and hypotheses brought forth in this research. That would then either strengthen or

disprove those trends and ideas. Hopefully, the ideas could go from “Some say and express

X, which indicates that it influences consumers’ PRS” to e.g. “72 % say and express that X

influences consumers’ PRS”. The wide range of themes to focus on would be: How

perceptions change; the words focusing on the human aspect of sustainability; the five

personal characteristics; and the value of messages based on relatability, empathy, and

understanding. All of these themes could be evaluated against the Luchs & Miller model.


59 of 61

9. List of References

Below are the sources used for this thesis; all listed alphabetically, but divided into

different categories.

9.1 Personal Interviews

Christensen, P.Ø. Interviewed by: Eggen, M.S. (20th

March 2015)

Franck, P. Interviewed by: Eggen, M.S. (20th

March 2015)

Genefke, V. Interviewed by: Eggen, M.S. (26h March 2015)

Hansen, C.G. & Bach, S.K. Interviewed by: Eggen, M.S. (14h April 2015)

Jacobsen, J. Interviewed by: Eggen, M.S. (27h March 2015)

Jessen, T.H. Interviewed by: Eggen, M.S. (12h April 2015)

Pedersen, J.L. & Roed, M. Interviewed by: Eggen, M.S. (9h April 2015)

Skou, G. Interviewed by: Eggen, M.S. (13h April 2015)

9.2 Theoretical Literature

Devinney, Timothy; Auger, Patrice; Eckhardt, Giana & Birtchnell, Thomas (2006). The

Other CSR. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2006, pp. 30-37.

Luchs, Michael G. & Miller, Rebecca A. (2012). Sustainability, Responsibility, and

Consumption: A Scale of Consumers’ Felt Responsibility for Sustainability. Microcosm of

Economic Psychology. Proceedings of the IAREP Conference 2012, Wroclaw, Poland.

Collier Jr., John & Collier, Malcolm (1986). Visual Anthropology: Photography as a

Research Method (Revised Ed.). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Flick, Uwe (2009). In Introduction to Qualitative Research (4th Ed.). SAGE Publications.


60 of 61

Harper, Douglas (2002). Talking about pictures: a case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies,

Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 13-26. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Kvale, Steinar & Brinkmann, Svend (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative

research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

O’Neill, Saffron & Nicholson-Cole, Sophie (2009). Fear Won’t Do It: Promoting Positive

Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations. Science

Communications, Vol. 30, No. 3, March 2009, pp. 355-379.

Patton, Michael Q. (2001). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (2nd Ed.).

Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Solomon, Michael R. (2013). Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being (10th ed.).

Pearson.

Van Auken, Paul M.; Frisvoll, Svein J. & Stewart, Susan I. (2010).Visualising community:

using participant-driven photo-elicitation for research and application. Local Environment,

Vol. 15, No. 4, April 2010, pp. 373-388. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Wells, V.K.; Ponting, C. & Peattie, K. (2011). Behaviour and climate change: consumer

perceptions of responsibility. Journal of marketing management, 27 (7-8), pp. 808-833.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future.

Report, Oxford University Press.


61 of 61

10. List of Appendices

Below is an overview of the appendices to this thesis which will follow on the ensuing

pages. They are ordered by their importance and relevance to the reading of the thesis.

Audio files of the interviews can be found on the enclosed USB.

Appendix A - Photos Used in Interviews Pages 1-23

Appendix B - Interview Guide Pages 24-27

Appendix C - Interviewee Profiles Pages 28-30

Appendix D - Sorting of Messages by Interviewees Pages 31-32

Appendix E - Interview Notes Pages 33-36

Appendix F - Transcript of Franck Interview Pages 37-56

Appendix G - Transcript of Christensen Interview Pages 57-73

Appendix H - Transcript of Genefke Interview Pages 74-91

Appendix I - Transcript of Jacobsen Interview Pages 92-110

Appendix J - Interviewee Profile Questionnaire Pages 111-113

Appendix K - Recruiting Post for Facebook Page 114

bachelor's thesis

Documents