(mr)class a02b group7_presentationppt

AN ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER’S CONSIDERATION TOWARDS THE

PURCHASE OF ELECTRIACAL APPLIANCES WITH ENERGY LABEL

SPD3125 Marketing Research Class: A02B Group: 7

Tsang Hei Tung, Anna (13626998S)Wong Wai Kin, Chris (13610687S)

Yeung Wing Shan, Koey (13017542S)Yim Chin Wai, Molly (13625824S)

Yip Hei Man, Michael (13609850S)

Agenda1. Introduction

2.1 Research Objective2. 2 Management Decision Problem & Marketing Research Problem2. 3 Research Question2. 4 Hypothesis

2. Research Design3. 1 Data Collected Method3. 2 Questionnaire Design

3. Data Findings and Analysis4. Conclusions

5. 1 Managerial Implication & Recommendations

5. References6. Appendices

Introduction

Western studies Growing more environment conscious

Green Marketing Create a competitive advantage

A survey of 2,014 U.S aged 18 and older was conducted April,2010→ 67% : consider themselves buyers of green products have retained their level of green purchases.→ 25% : increased their green buying in light

A report of Centre for Retail Research (2010)→ had soared to 56 billion euros ($68.6 billion) in 2009 from 10.3 billion in 2010→2015, they would approximately double to 114 billion euros

Introduction

In Hong Kong, the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department runs a voluntary Energy Efficiency Labeling Scheme (EELS) for appliances and equipment, and for petrol-powered vehicles.

→ select more energy-efficient products→ achieve actual energy savings.

Research Objective

To analysis the relationship between green perceived value, green perceived risk, green trust and green purchase intention

Management Decision Problem• How to enhance the penetration of using the electrical appliances with energy label?

Specific Research Objectives• How these factors affect the purchase intention differently or jointly?

Marketing Research Problem1. How do customers decide on purchasing green product?2. What benefit is expected when customers are purchasing green product?3. How green products fulfill the expectation of customers?

Research Question

1. Green Perceived Value(How perceived value affect trust and purchase intention?)

2. Green Perceived Risk(How perceived risk affect trust and purchase intention?)

3. Green Trust (Is trust important for increasing purchase intention?)

4. Green Purchase Intention (How purchase intention being affected?)

Hypothesis

• H1: Green perceived value is positively associated with green trust.

• H2: Green perceived risk is negatively associated with green trust.

• H3: Green trust is positively associated with green purchase intentions.

• H4: Green perceived value is positively associated with green purchase

intentions.

• H5: Green perceived risk is negatively associated with green purchase

intentions.

• H6: Sex and the purchase of the appliances with Energy Efficiency

Labelling are related

Research Design

• Conclusive research design• Cross-sectional design• Advantages:– Easier for testing– Representative sampling

• Primary Data– Survey

• Secondary Data– Journals from Internet

Sampling Design

• Nonprobability sampling– Convenience sampling– Snowball sampling

• 250 participants• Choose the sample to send randomly and ask to forward

Data Collection:• Total returned:250• Excluding 27 with

no relevant experience• Final sample size: 223

Questionnaire Design

Questionnaire

Screening Question

Variables

Personal Information

Construct Table

Data Analysis & Findings

Gender Age


Education level Income levels


Descriptive Statistic

Perceived Value• Interviewee have the strongest agreement in the electrical appliances with energy

label have an acceptable standard of quality and energy label are economical


N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. DeviationValue consistent quality 223 1 7 4.68 1.224

Value reasonably price 222 2 7 4.75 1.063

Value for money 221 2 7 4.69 1.102

value acceptable quality

223 1 7 5.20 1.052

Value economical 216 1 7 5.07 1.061

Valid N (listwise) 216



Perceived Risk• Fewer people agree that they will suffer less on penalty and loss and harm on the

environment

N Minimum Maximum

Mean Std. Deviation

Risk wrong performance

223 1 7 4.21 1.254

Risk wrong design 222 1 7 4.12 1.293

Risk penalty & loss 220 1 6 3.53 1.343

Risk negatively affect environment

219 1 7 3.61 1.447




Descriptive StatisticGreen Trust• People do not have a preference towards one of the factor of trust• An average result towards reliable, dependable, trustworthy, meet customer’s

expectation and keep promises & commitment


N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Trust reliable 223 2 7 4.89 1.027

Trust dependable 222 2 7 4.97 1.024

Trust trustworthy 223 1 7 5.03 0.986

Trust meet expectations 220 1 7 4.91 1.069

Trust keep promises & commitments

220 2 7 5.04 1.057




Green Purchase Intention• People are willing to purchase appliances with energy label and continue purchasing them• They have a relatively lower intention in spending more on appliances with energy labels.

N Minimum Maximum

Mean Std. Deviation

Intension desire to buy

223 1 7 5.15 1.224

Intension spend more

221 1 7 4.95 1.125

Intension continue to buy

220 1 7 5.13 1.128

Intension recommend to others

219 2 7 5.50 0.999




H1: Green perceived value is positively associated with green trust.Correlation

Green Purchase Intention

Green Trust

Green Perceived Risk

Green Perceived Value

Green Purchase Intention Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N

1

215

.722**.000209

-.163**.009212

.531**.000209

Green Trust Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N

.722**.000209

1

216

-.147*.016210

.576**.000207

Green Perceived Risk Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N

-.163**.009212

-.147*.016210

1

216

-.144*.019210

Green Perceived Value Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N

.531**.000209

.576**.000207

-.144*.019210

1

213

Correlation

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

r = 0.576Fair relationshipPositive relationship

p-value=0.01 < 0.01

Accepted the hypothesis


H2. Green perceived risk is negatively associated with green trust.Correlation


Green Trust




1

215

.722**.000209

-.163**.009212

.531**.000209


.722**.000209

1

216

-.147*.016210

.576**.000207


-.163**.009212

-.147*.016210

1

216

-.144*.019210


.531**.000209

.576**.000207

-.144*.019210

1

213

Correlation


r = -0.147Weak relationshipNegative relationship

p-value=0.016 < 0.05



H3. Green trust is positively associated with green purchase intentions.Correlation


Green Trust




1

215

.722**.000209

-.163**.009212

.531**.000209


.722**.000209

1

216

-.147*.016210

.576**.000207


-.163**.009212

-.147*.016210

1

216

-.144*.019210


.531**.000209

.576**.000207

-.144*.019210

1

213

Correlation


r = 0.722Strong relationshipPositive relationship

p-value=0.000 < 0.01



H4. Green perceived value is positively associated with green purchase intentions.

Correlation


Green Trust




1

215

.722**.000209

-.163**.009212

.531**.000209


.722**.000209

1

216

-.147*.016210

.576**.000207


-.163**.009212

-.147*.016210

1

216

-.144*.019210


.531**.000209

.576**.000207

-.144*.019210

1

213

Correlation


r = 0.531Fair relationshipPositive relationship

p-value=0.01 < 0.01



H5. Green perceived risk is negatively associated with green purchase intentions.

Correlation


Green Trust




1

215

.722**.000209

-.163**.009212

.531**.000209


.722**.000209

1

216

-.147*.016210

.576**.000207


-.163**.009212

-.147*.016210

1

216

-.144*.019210


.531**.000209

.576**.000207

-.144*.019210

1

213

Correlation


r = -0.163Weak relationshipNegative relationship

p-value=0.009< 0.01



Regression

• The table showed the relation between green perceived value, green perceived risk and green trust

• R= 0.581 and R Square=0.337• Green perceived value and green perceived risk can only predict 33.7% green trust• → This is not a good predictor

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .581a .337 .331 .61673

Model Summary

a. Predictors: (Constant), New Green_Perceived_value, New Green_Perceived_risk


Regression

• The model-F can accurately explain variation in green trust• → The significant value= 0.000 = Low probability variation• Green perceived value and green perceived risk explains a significant portion of the

variation in green trust• → P=0.000 < 0.001• Change in green perceived value and green perceived risk resulted in changes in green

trust

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 RegressionResidual

Total

38.92176.450

115.372

2201203

19.461.380

51.165 .000a

ANOVAb

a. Predictors: (Constant), New Green_Perceived_value, New Green_Perceived_risk

b. Dependent Variable: New Green_Trust


Regression

1) Green perceived risk can lead to a decrease in green trust→ Negative regression coefficient (B=-0.052), p>0.05, reject the hypothesis.

2) Green perceived value can lead to an increase in green trust → Positive regression coefficient (B=0.587, p<0.01). → The green trust is increased by 58.7%. Accept the hypothesis

Model B Sig.

1 (Constant)

New_Green_Perceived _risk

New_Green_Perceived _Value

2.296

-.052

.587

.000

.231

.000

Coefficients a

a. Dependent Variable: New_Green_Trust


Regression

• The correlation coefficient is high at 0.758• R= 0.758 and R Square=0.575• Green perceived value , green perceived risk and green trust can predict 57.5% green

purchase intention• → This is a fair predictor for green purchase intention

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .758a .575 .569 .60128

Model Summary

a. Predictors: (Constant), New Green_Trust, New Green_Perceived_risk, New Green_Perceived_value


Regression

• The model-F can accurately explain variation in green trust→ The significant value= 0.000 = Low probability variation

• Green perceived value and green perceived risk explains a significant portion of the variation in green trust→ P=0.000 < 0.001

• Change in green perceived value and green perceived risk resulted in changes in green trust

ANOVAb

a. Predictors: (Constant), New Green_Trust, New Green_Perceived_value, New Green_Perceived_riskb. Dependent Variable: New Green_Purchase_intentino

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 RegressionResidual

Total

95.90370.860

166.764

3196199

31.968.362

88.423 .000a

Data Analysis & FindingsRegression

• B= -0.057 → Negative• p>0.05 → Reject

Green perceived risk ↓ Green purchase intention

• B=0.253 → Positive• p<0.01 → Accept

Green perceived value ↑ Green purchase intention

• B=0.738 → Positive• p<0.01 → Accept

Green trust ↑ Green purchase intention

Model B Sig.

1 (Constant)

New Green_Perceived _risk

New Green_Perceived _Value

New Green_Trust

.407

-.057

.253

.738

.295

.183

.001

.000

Coefficients a

a. Dependent Variable: New_Green_Purchase_Intention


CrosstabH0: Sex and electrical appliances with "energy label" purchase are not relatedH6: Sex and electrical appliances with "energy label" purchase are related

→ Chi-square statistics is 2.55 , Computed p-value is 0.110 >0.05→ Accept:H0 and Reject: H6→ Purchasing electrical appliances with "energy label" is not depends on gender

Chi- Square Tests

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12. 10.b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (1- sided)

Pearson Chi-SquareContinuity Correction b

Likelihood RatioFisher’s Exact TestLinear-by-Linear AssociationN of Valid Cases

2.559a

1.9462.546

2.549250

111

1

.110

.163

.111

.110.151 .082

Conclusion

Consumers have an average perception on green trust feel comfort overall to continue buying the product

Construct Relationship Green perceived value and green perceived risk have only affect 33.7% of green trust

Positive relations between green perceived value and trust, green trust and purchase intention, green perceived value and purchase intention

No direct relationship between perceived risk and purchase intention

No relationship between gender and purchase intention

Recommendations

Perceived ValueQ3: The electrical appliances with energy label have consistent qualityQ5: The electrical appliances with energy label offer value for money

Green Purchase IntentionQ18: I am willing to spend a little more money to buy the electrical appliances with energy label

The lowest mean score

We recommend :• Telling the people about the amount of money they can save • Emphasizing the benefit people can enjoy beside saving money• Promoting environmental protection through advertising and other social media channels

References1. Borin, N., Lindsey-Mullikin, J., & Krishnan, R. (2013). An analysis of consumer reactions to green

strategies. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22(2), 118-128. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421311320997

2. Bruwer, J., Fong, M., & Saliba, A. (2013). Perceived risk, risk-reduction strategies (RRS) and consumption occasions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(3), 369-390. Retrieved from http://lib.cpce-polyu.edu.hk/docview/1370335803?accountid=37289

3. Chen, Y., & Chang, C. (2013). Greenwash and green trust: The mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 489-500. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0)

4. Chen, Y.S. and Chang, C.H. (2012), Enhance green purchase intentions: The roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 502 – 520.

5. Durif, F., Roy, J., & Boivin, C. (2012). Could perceived risks explain the 'green gap' in green product consumption? Electronic Green Journal, (33), 0_1, 0_2, 1-15. Retrieved from http://lib.cpce-polyu.edu.hk/docview/1041243559?accountid=37289

6. Government News (2013), ” Voluntary Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme extended to gas cookers”, 14 November 2013, <http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201311/14/P201311140466.htm>

7. Government News (2013)” Voluntary Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme”, August 2013, < http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/environment/energy/efficiencylabel.htm>

http://lib.cpce-polyu.edu.hk/docview/1370335803?accountid=37289

References8. Hsin, H. C., & Su, W. C. (2008). The impact of online store environment cues on purchase intention.

Online Information Review, 32(6), 818-841. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/146845208109239539. Johnson, D. and Grayson, K. (2005), Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships, Journal of

Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 500-7.10. Jon F, K & Chris, K. and Bridget, S. (2011). Stakeholder perceptions of green marketing: the effect of

demand and supply integration, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, pp. 684-696 DOI 10.1108/09600031111154134

11. Kaman Lee (2009), Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior, Journal of Consumer Marketing 26/2 (2009) 87-96.

12. Lee, J., & Song, C. (2013). Effects of trust and perceived risk on user acceptance of a new technology service. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(4), 587-597. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.587

13. Lewis, D. and Weigert, A. (1985), Trust as a social reality, Social Forces, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 967-85.14. Ling-Yu Melody Wen and Shang-Hui Li (2013), a study on the relationship amidst health

consciousness, ecological affect, and purchase intention of green production, International Journal of Organizational Innovation Vol 5 Num 4 April 2013.

15. Maha Mourad, Yasser Serag Eldin Ahmed, (2012) "Perception of green brand in an emerging innovative market", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 4, pp.514 – 537

16. Maha, M. & Yasser, S. (2012). Perception of green brand in an emerging innovative market, European Journal of Innovation Management , pp. 514-537, DOI 10.1108/14601061211272402

References17. Mourad, M., & Yasser Serag, E. A. (2012). Perception of green brand in an emerging innovative

market. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(4), 514-537. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601061211272402

18. Regine, K. M. (2011). Generation Y consumer choice for organic foods. Journal of Global Business Management, 7(1), 1-13. Retrieved from http://lib.cpce-polyu.edu.hk/docview/896548074?accountid=37289

19. Reuters News (2010)” Green spending to double in Europe by 2015”, 30 May 2010,<http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/30/us-europe-retail-green-spending-idUSTRE64T2JK20100530>

20. Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M.A. and McCarthy, J.D. (2003), The researcher’s dilemma: evaluating trust in computer-mediated communication, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 759-81.

21. Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R. and Camerer, R. (1998), Not so different after all: a cross discipline view of trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404

22. Tseng,S.C., &Hung, S. W. (2013), A framework identifying the gaps between customers' expectations and their perceptions in green products reference, Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 174-184 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.050

23. Yu-Shan, C., & Chang, C. (2012). Enhance green purchase intentions. Management Decision, 50(3), 502-520. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741211216250)

24. Zheng, L., Favier, M., Huang, P., & Coat, F. (2012). CHINESE CONSUMER PERCEIVED RISK AND RISK RELIEVERS IN E-SHOPPING FOR CLOTHING. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 13(3), 255-274. Retrieved from http://lib.cpce-polyu.edu.hk/docview/1034895464?accountid=37289

http://lib.cpce-polyu.edu.hk/docview/1034895464?accountid=37289