Alleviation: An International Journal of Nutrition, Gender & Social Development, ISSN 2348-9340
Volume 2, Number 2 (2015) : 1-7
©Arya PG College, Panipat & Business Press India Publication, Delhi
www.aryapgcollege.com, www.apcjournals.com

Environmental Concerns and Household Purchase Practices of Working Women of Ludhiana City

1. Shifali Sharma,2. Surinderjit Kaur & 3. Gurdeep Kaur
1. M.Sc. Student, Department of Family Resource Management, College of Home Science, PAU,Ludhiana (Punjab), India
2. Professor, Department of Family Resource Management, College of Home Science, PAU, Ludhiana (Punjab), India
3. Assistant Professor, SDP College, Ludhiana (Punjab), India
E-mail: sjk2961@pau.edu

Introduction

Green consumerism is the practical concern for environment aimed at reducing, if not totally eliminating environmental damage (Mosiander & Personen 2002). Human activities have marred the environment in more than one way, the climate is changed, the forest cover is reduced, the species are getting extinct, quality of air and land is compromised. All these are tipping the balance of ecosystem to the levels that may be unsustainable. One of the biggest challenges for global environmental governance is increasing level of consumption (Dauvergne 2010, Mansvelt & Robbins 2011, Monika & Shukla 2010). Consumption has detrimental effect on the environment. Consumers are responsible for the ecological problems themselves rather than producers(Smith 2000). So this might be high time to understand and adopt green consumerism and devise strategies to make others follow green buying, consumption and disposal practices (Ferraro 2009).
A McKinsey survey conducted by Bonini and Oppenheim (2008) in developed and emerging economies showed that nearly 90 per cent of the consumers worry about the environment and social impact of the goods and services they buy. A few consumers buy green automobiles or detergents unless they also fully satisfy other desired attributes. By contrast, Figueiredo et al (2012) found that the most popular green products among consumers are efficient lighting and organic foods. Green product refers to a product that has one or more of the following characteristics; it is reusable, recyclable, made of recycled material, biodegradable, has no or minimum packing, involves less use of toxic or other environmentally harmful materials and is manufactured without deploring earth’s natural resources. In order to make ‘Green Consumerism’ effective, green products should also be used in eco-friendly manner and disposed off appropriately after using them.
Consumers cannot observe the production process of a product and therefore cannot assess environment friendliness of the product (Delmas and Grant 2008). That is why; the Eco-Mark Scheme was introduced to inform the consumers about the eco-friendliness of the product which deals with the identification of environment friendly products and serves as an interface between ill informed consumers and green properties of the product. Though Eco-labeling is an important tool for easy identification of environment friendly products, but awareness regarding eco-labeling is very less among the people. Unless the masses are aware of eco-labeling, green products and green consumption practices, the much needed concept of Going Green cannot be popularized. Efforts, actions and movements in this direction can gain momentum only if awareness, attitude, perception and acceptability of Green Products among consumers are studied and recommendations are made for popularizing green purchase and consumption practices. But not much has been done in this direction especially in Punjab state and Ludhiana city.
Taking into consideration the key role of women in family purchases, the present study was focused on women consumers from different professional categories with the following objectives:
1) To study the environmental concern of respondents while purchasing household items.
2) To study the post purchase (Disposing off) practices of respondents in relation to environmental concern.
Methodology
The study which is first of its kind in Ludhiana city has been conducted on working women only because the results of the pilot survey clearly indicated that analyzable data can be collected from this segment of female population only. The sample of the study was drawn through purposive random sampling technique. Five types of professionals viz. doctors, engineers, agricultural scientists, home scientists and school/college lecturers were selected as sample. Prior to selection of respondents from different categories, an exhaustive list of women professionals was prepared separately for the selected institutions. From this list, 25 professionals from each were selected randomly. Thus the final sample comprised 125 working women of Ludhiana City from the five selected professions. Questionnaire was prepared and pretested on twenty five non sampled respondents, five from each category. First part of questionnaire was to gather information about age, income, family size, education and job experience of respondents and second part pertained to purchase, usage and disposal practices of respondents with respect to environment. Modified Greendex Scale was used for studying purchase/consumption practices of respondents. Items included in the scale were related to respondents’ behavior in purchase, usage and disposal of selected household items. Purchase/consumption practices and frequency of engaging in the environment friendly behavior were studied on a three point scale i.e. always, sometimes, never with a score of 3, 2, and 1, respectively. Data were analyzed using suitable statistical techniques.
Results and Discussion
Demographic Profile of Respondents
The present study investigates purchase and usage practices of respondents regarding food items, clothing, home appliances, cleaning agents and shopping bags used. Post purchase or disposing off practices regarding kitchen and household waste were also studied. The results of the study have been discussed below:
Majority of respondents (72.8%) were between the 30 to 40 years of age group and 27.2 per cent belonged to between the 40 to 50 years of age group (Table 1). Percentage of Ph.D/MD degree holders was 48.8 per cent, followed by 46.4 per cent post graduates and 4.8 per cent graduates

They had job experience between 1 to 5 years (30.4%), 6 to 10 years (30.4%), 11 to 15 years (24.0%), 16 to 20 years (8.8%) and more than 20 years (6.4%). Ninety six percent of respondents belonged to a family size upto 4 members and four per cent were from 5 to 8 members’ families. Family income of 48.8 per cent respondents was upto Rs. 1,00,000 p.m. while 25.6 per cent had income ranging between Rs. 1,00,000-1,50,000 p.m. Respondents having income between Rs. 1,50,000-2,00,000 and above 2 lac were 21.60 per cent and 4.0 per cent, respectively.
Mean Scores of Respondents according to their Environmental Concerns While Purchasing Food Items The purchase practices were categorized as checking the shelf life of the product and checking the quality mark on the product, ingredient used and packaging material used (Table 2). It was found that Agricultural Scientists and Home Scientists followed the same approach to purchase the food items such as checking the shelf life of the product, checking the quality mark, followed by checking the ingredients used and packaging material with the mean score of 2.7, 2.6, 2.6, 2.2 and 2.8, 2.7, 2.5, 2.2 on a three point scale, respectively. Doctors and Engineers preferred to check the quality mark on the product followed by ingredients used, shelf life and packaging material with the mean score of 2.7, 2.6, 2.6, 2.2 and 2.5, 2.4, 2.4, 2.1, respectively. However, School/College Lecturers preferred to check the shelf life of the product, ingredients used, quality mark used and packaging material used with the mean score of 2.5, 2.4, 2.4 and 2.1. Thus agricultural scientists, doctors and engineers gave prime importance to quality mark whereas shelf life was checked first by home scientists and school or college lecturers. Material used for packing (2.1) food items was the least considered factor while purchasing food items in spite of its being a very important factor.
Consumers in developing countries are becoming increasingly health conscious and actively support greener lifestyle including clothing. The green purchase practices in clothing were categorized as identifying fiber content, dye used, finishes applied and quality mark and care labels on the clothing items.

Mean Scores of Respondents according to their Environmental Concerns while Purchasing Clothing Items The information in Table 3 reveals that Agricultural Scientists, Home Scientists and Doctors followed the same pattern for the purchase of clothing items; they preferred to check the care labels, quality mark, fiber content, finish applied and dye used. The mean scores in this respect were 2.6, 2.5, 2.1, 1.4, 1.4 and 2.6, 2.5, 2.4, 1.6, 1.6 and 2.7, 2.5, 2.4, 1.7, 1.8 respectively. Engineers preferred to check the quality mark followed by the fiber content, care labels, dye used and finish applied with the mean scores of 2.5, 2.4, 2.3, 1.6 and 1.5 respectively. However, School/College Lecturers preferred to check the fiber content and care labels followed by finish applied, quality mark and dye used with the mean scores of 2.5, 2.4, 2.2, 2.2 and 2.16, respectively. Chemicals in dyes/finishes, which contribute heavily towards environmental pollution, is the most important point to be kept in mind while purchasing clothing material but this was the least considered practice among all professionals. The results are in tune with that of Mahajan (2012), who also reported that almost half of the customers (49.5%) were not aware about the hazards that the textile industries are posing to the environment against less than one-third (31.0%) who had a little knowledge about harmful dyes and chemicals used in fibres by textile manufactures. Only one-fifth customers (19.5%) were aware of the dangers posed to the environment by the textile industries. Significant difference was observed among different categories of professionals in case of checking dyes used and finishes applied on the clothing material while making purchase indicating that their approach varied while purchasing green clothing.

Purchase behavior of the respondents while purchasing electronic items included practices like checking the BEE Star Rating on appliances, checking the rate of energy saving by the appliances, technology used for making the product more environment friendly, material used, noise of appliances while in operation and heat transmitted by the appliances.
It is apparent from Table 4 that Agricultural Scientists and Home Scientists followed the same pattern i.e. checking the technology used for making the product more environmental friendly, checking the BEE Star Rating on appliances, followed by checking for the noise of appliances while in operation, checking for the material used, checking how much energy the eco appliances save and checking the heat transmitted by the appliances with the mean

scores of 2.8, 2.7, 2.7, 2.7, 2.5 and 2.4 and 2.7, 2.7, 2.7, 2.4 and 2.4 respectively. On the other hand Doctors and Engineers, followed the similar purchase practices i.e. checking the material used, checking how much energy the eco appliances save, followed by checking the BEE Star Rating on appliances, checking the heat transmitted by the appliances, checking the noise of the appliances while in operation and checking the technology used for making the product more environmental friendly with the mean scores of 2.7, 2.6, 2.6, 2.6, 2.5 and 2.5 and 2.7, 2.5, 2.5, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.4. However, School/College Lecturers preferred to check the BEE Star Rating, followed by checking the material used, checking the technology used, checking the heat transmitted by the appliances, checking the noise of the appliances while in operation and lastly checking how much energy the eco appliances save with the mean score of 2.7, 2.6, 2.5, 2.3, 2.2 and 2.0 respectively. All these scores show that all the professionals were well aware of the points to be considered while purchasing home appliances.
Decision of Respondents Regarding Replacement of their Existing Home Appliances with Green Appliances Investigation of number of respondents who have already become green by changing their appliances with eco-friendly ones, who are in the process of making change and who have no intentions to change their existing appliances with the green appliances revealed that 68.0 per cent of the Agricultural Scientists had changed their existing TV set with eco friendly television, followed by Engineers and Home Scientists with 60.0 per cent and 56.0 per cent, respectively. However majority of School/College Lecturers i.e. 60.0 per cent were in the process of purchasing the eco-friendly television, followed by Doctors (36.0%), Home Scientists (32.0%) and Engineers (24.0%), respectively (Fig1a). Only 8.0 per cent of Agricultural Scientists / Engineers and 12 per cent of Home Scientists/ Doctors had no intentions to change their television to eco-friendly television. It was also seen that majority of respondents had no intentions to change their existing geysers with eco-friendly ones.

It was observed that 68.0 per cent of Engineers and 64.0 per cent of Doctors, 60.0 per cent of Agricultural Scientists and Home Scientists and 56.0 per cent of School/College Lecturers were through with the process of changing eco-unfriendly refrigerator to eco-friendly refrigerator; whereas 44.0 per cent of School/College Lectures, 32.0 per cent of Agricultural Scientists and 28.0 per cent of Doctors, Engineers and Home Scientists were in the process of changing their refrigerators to eco-friendly refrigerators and the remaining respondents had no intentions to change their appliances.
It can be seen from the Fig 1b that in case of air conditioner, microwave oven and tube lights, almost 50.0 per cent of the respondents from each category had already changed their existing appliances with green appliances and less than 40.0 per cent of respondents were in the process of replacing their appliances whereas only 10 per cent of respondents had no intention of changing their existing appliances.
In case of washing machine, 56.0 per cent Doctors, 44.0 per cent Engineers, 40.0 per cent Home Scientists and 24.0 per cent Agricultural Scientists and College/School Lecturers were through with the process of possessing eco-friendly washing machines, followed by 76.0 per cent of School/College Lecturers, 60.0 per cent Agricultural Scientists, 40.0 per cent Engineers, 36.0 per cent Home Scientists and 32.0 per cent Doctors who were in the process of having eco-friendly washing machines. While 24.0 per cent of Home Scientists, 16.0 per cent of Agricultural Scientists, 12.0 per cent of Doctors and Engineers respectively had no intentions to change their existing appliances because of the reason that their appliances were recently purchased and good in condition. So they were planning to change their appliances after a gap of 3 to 4 years.

Cleaning Agents Used by them for Different Purposes
Common household cleansers being used for home cleaning, washing clothes and cleaning utensils were studied. Lizol, phenyl, ariel, surf excel, vim, pril and tide were found popular among respondents (Fig 2). Majority of respondents (57.6%) used phenyl, followed by lizol (33.6%) for cleaning their home. Dettol (0.8%) and Nirma (0.8%) were used by negligible number of respondents.

Surf Excel was preferred by 61.6 per cent respondents followed by Ariel (19.2%), Tide (15.2%) and reethanut solution (5.0%). Utensils were cleaned with Vim and Prill by 69.6 per cent. Only vim was preferred by 24.8 per cent of respondents. Only 4.0 per cent preferred lemon with salt. Reetha nut solution was least used cleaning agent for clothes and similarly lemon and salt was also very less used utensil cleansing agents. Thus, it is evident that synthetic cleansers are preferred to natural ones due to their high efficiency, convenience of use and easy availability. So there is a need to create awareness about harmful effects of synthetic cleansers and benefits of natural cleansers.
*Multiple Responses
Mean Scores of Respondents for Carrying Different Types of Shopping Bags Majority of respondents preferred cotton bags and jute bags with a mean scores of 2.4 and 1.8, followed by loosely woven bags with a mean scores of 1.4, polythene and leather/rexine bags were used least with mean scores of 1.3 and 1.3 respectively (Table 5). It can also be noticed from the table that agricultural scientists, home-scientists, doctors and engineers used eco-friendly bags while school/college lecturers were not concerned much about the material of shopping bag. Significant differences were found in use of jute bags only.

Methods of Disposing Off Kitchen Waste by Respondents Household waste included both kitchen waste as well as garden waste. Kitchen waste can be disposed off in a number of ways for protecting the environment by using different methods viz. making separate bags of household waste and then throwing it into the garbage, by making vermin compost, compost and green manure etc.
Table 6 indicates that as large as 75.2 per cent of the respondents preferred not to segregate waste by making separate bags for biodegradable and non biodegradable waste, followed by 39.2 per cent of the respondents who prefer segregation method for disposing off the kitchen waste, whereas a negligible percentage i.e. 1.6 per cent of the respondents used the Bio-decomposition method to dispose off their kitchen waste. Here, results are in contradiction to the results of Samarasinghe (2012) who reported that 31 per cent of his respondents prepared compost at home.
The findings further reveal that 1/3rd of the respondents opted for burning of garden waste which is a non green practice. From the above findings, it can be concluded that as far as household waste is concerned, the respondents did not bother about the environment while disposing off their household waste. Being educated, they were aware of green practices but due to some limitations such as lack of time, space and dependence on domestic help, they were not as green as they could be otherwise. The most environmentally conscious category of professionals regarding disposing of kitchen waste were School/College Lecturers as 40 per cent of them were following green practices, while agricultural scientist (12%) were the least environmentally conscious group.

Ways of Disposing Off Discarded Household Items by Respondents Changing from a resource-consuming lifestyle to a resource conserving one, would help to maintain natural resources and create less waste production, less energy consumption, and use of more natural resources. How many of respondents were aware of these facts and do recycling, repairing, reusing of selected household items viz. used tins/containers, left over plastic bottles, waste clothes and old cell phones. The data in this regard are presented in Table 7.

Unused tins/containers were thrown by 67.2 per cent respondents which was not an eco friendly practice. These articles were reused by 28.0 per cent and sold/donated by 1.6 per cent respondents. Left over plastic bottles were sold by 79.2 per cent respondents whereas 5.6 per cent reused them. Plastic bottles were thrown away/donated by 3.2 per cent of respondents who were School/College Lecturers by profession. Old clothes were donated by 72.0 per cent of respondents but 11.2 per cent preferred to sell them. Clothes were reused and recycled by 8.0 per cent and 1.6 per cent respondents, respectively.

Conclusions
Purchase practices regarding selection and purchase of food items were categorized as checking shelf life, quality mark, ingredients and packaging materials used. From the results of the study, it is clear that most respondents checked shelf life, quality mark and ingredients used respectively for packed food items, packaging material used that comes in direct contact with foods and may be hazardous for respondents’ health and the environment. But still material used for packing food items was the least considered factor. Similarly in case of clothing, all respondents followed the practice of checking on the care label, quality mark and fiber content, whereas a small percentage of respondents checked for dyes used and finishes applied which are important aspects.
Working women of Ludhiana city were found to be following green purchasing practices while purchasing house appliances. They checked the BEE Star Rating, rate of energy saving, technology used for making the product more environment friendly, material used, noise of appliances during operation and heat transmitted by the appliances. Working women of Ludhiana preferred Lizol, Phenyl, Kleen, Colin, Ariel, Surf Excel, Tide, Vim and Pril for household cleaning. Natural cleansers like reethanut solution, lemon, salt etc, were used by negligible number of respondents. Thus it is clear that efficiency and convenience are given prime importance in usage of household cleansers. Similarly easy availability and convenience may be the factors that people can’t help using polybags. The respondents were found aware of green post purchase (Disposing off) practices but they did not follow these practices religiously. More than three fourth of respondents did not segregate their household waste, 32.8 per cent preferred burning garden waste, while a negligible proportion of respondents used bio decomposition method.
Used phones were reused and recycled by only 9.6 per cent of the respondents. From these findings, it can be inferred that respondents were well aware of green consumer practices and they used this knowledge while buying household items but they did not follow green post purchase (Disposing off) practices which might be because of their dependence on servants and lack of time because working women generally hire housemaids. Thus respondents were found to be aware of most of the aspects of green consumerism and a substantial number of them were following green purchase practices. Thus they seem to be on a fast track to be health conscious and actively support green life style.
References
Bonini S and Oppenheim J (2008) Cultivating the Green Consumers. Standard Soc Innovation Rev 6 (4): 56-61.
Dauvergne P (2010) The Problem of Consumption. Global Environmental Politics 10 (2): 1-10.
Delmas MA and Grant LE (2008) Eco-Labeling Strategies: the Eco-Premium Puzzle in the Wine Industries, available at link.sprinker.com/chapter.
Ferraro C (2009) The ACRS Thought Leadership Series. Melbourne: Monash University Press Inc: 6.
Figueiredo N, Guillen M and Zheng X (2012) Mapping the Universe of Green Products. In Figereiredo N and Guillen M (Eds) Green Product: Perspective on Innovation and Adoption. Boca Raton: CRC Productivity Press: 86-94.
Kaur S (2003) Empowerment of Women as Consumers in Ludhiana City.Ph.D. Dissertation, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
Mansvelt J and Robbins P (2011) Green Consumerism: An A to Z Guide. London: Sage Publications: 245-74.
Monika and Shukla C (2010) Assessment of Awareness Regarding Eco Mark Labelled Products among Youth at GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar. In Tikoo S (Ed) Professionalism in Home Science. New Delhi: Academic Excellence: 598-607.
Moisander J and Personen S (2002) Narratives of Sustainable Ways of Living: Constructing the Self and the Other as a Green Consumer. Mgmt Dec 40(4): 329-42.
Samarasinghe R (2012) Green Consumerism: Individual’s Ethics and Politics as Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behavior. Del Buss Rev13 (1): 41-47.
Smith (2000) The Myth of Green Marketing. J Macro Marketing 20(6): 103-07.