Consumer Behavior in the Circular Economy Transition

Dimitris Georgantzis Garcia: Sheffield University Management School, UK Supervisors: Dr Efi Vasileiou: South East European Research Centre (SEERC), Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr Eva Kipnis: Sheffield University Management School, UK Dr Adrian Solomon: South East European Research Centre (SEERC), Thessaloniki, Greece 14th Annual Postgraduate Research Conference June 2020 The project has received funding from the European Union s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the MSCA-ITN-2018 scheme, grant agreement No. 814247 (ReTraCE).

Main Research Topic Research title: The role of consumer behaviour in the transition towards a Circular Economy (CE) This research aims to contribute to the academic knowledge on CE by enhancing our understanding of the role of internal (psychological and dispositional) and external (institutional context and governance) factors that drive consumer behaviour, in the transition towards a Circular Economy.

Motivation A sustainable society is a great idea, but how can the world's 5.7 billion people be redirected to adopt sustainable society practices? No one knows. (Fisk, 1998) Sustainable development: requires making changes to the economic system, the infrastructures and institutions, the power relationships and the dominant lifestyles and consumption culture. (Vergragt et al., 2014) Most CE initiatives assume the participation and active involvement of the consumer. It is essentialfor consumers to be on-board (at a practical level) for a successful transition. (Lenzen et al. 2007)

Objectives RO1: To identify how consumers perceive the Circular Economy and their perception s role in societal development, by focusing on their consumer behaviour. RO2:To identify the mechanisms that influence consumers adoption of CE practices. RO3: To provide recommendations and insight toward the development of the right institutional context (regulative and normative) in order to fill current gaps in consumers adoption of CE practices.

Background and Gaps I Most sustainable/ethical consumer behaviour research: Focus on understanding intention formation. (Carrington et al., 2014) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) and self-reported data. (Carrington et al., 2014) Limited by social desirability bias (Auger and Devinney, 2007) and a lack of understanding of the intentions-behaviour relationship (in sustainability). BI Bh ? Intentions-behaviour gap : The existence of a significant misalignment between consumers self-reported attitudes/intentions and actual behaviour is one of the most consistent findings in sustainable/ethical consumer behaviour literature. (Bernardes et al., 2018; Carrington et al., 2010) KEY BI - Behavioural intent Bh - Behaviour

Background and Gaps II The gap limits the utility of existing research and, while widely documented, it is still poorly understood. (Carrington et al., 2014) BI Bh ? My research focuses on understanding mechanisms by which self- reported intentions translate (or not) into actual behaviour. KEY BI - Behavioural intent Bh - Behaviour

Background and Gaps III Both methodological and theoretical limitations need to be addressed. BI Bh ? In order to contribute to the theoretical understanding of the gap, a conceptual model is proposed. KEY BI - Behavioural intent Bh - Behaviour

Preliminary conceptual framework I Several simultaneous, potentially conflicting goals, guiding their specific behaviour. (Fishbach & Dhar, 2005) BI Pr Bh + Sustainable goals conflict with other ethical goals: Prioritisation of sustainable goals can play a central role in the translation of intentions into concrete behaviour. (Carrington et al., 2014) KEY Pr - Prioritisation BI - Behavioural intent Bh - Behaviour

Preliminary conceptual framework II Construal Level Theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010): Effects of psychological distance on sustainable consumer behaviours. (Schill & Shaw, 2016) Psychological distance to the rewards/consequences of behaviour and towards behaviours have been previously identified as significant to the intentions-behaviour gap. (Johnstone & Tan, 2015) BI Pr Bh + KEY - PD - Psychological distance + PD CL CL - Construal level Pr - Prioritisation BI - Behavioural intent Bh - Behaviour

Preliminary conceptual framework III Consumer (pre)dispositions, def: Reliable latent tendencies that inform and guide consumer action, have a self-directed nature (they include an embedded motivational element) as well as a social nature (they are enabled and guided by the external environment) . (Galalae et al., 2020, p 161) CSD + + KEY BI Pr Bh + CSD - Consumer sustainability disposition - PD - Psychological distance to consequences of non-SC + PD CL CL - Construal level Pr - Prioritisation Value orientations: More general, making them less strong in predicting a specific kind of behaviours + not necessarily behaviour specific. BI - Behavioural intent Bh - Behaviour

Preliminary conceptual framework IV A lack of the right institutional context (regulative and normative) will contribute to the intentions- behaviour gap by hindering the translation of pro- environmental BI into Bh. FC CSD + KEY + + FC - Facilitating conditions BI Pr Bh + CSD - Consumer sustainability disposition - PD - Psychological distance to consequences of non-SC + PD CL CL - Construal level Pr - Prioritisation FC - DEF: the degree to which an individual believes that an organisational and technical infrastructure exists to support the adoption of sustainable consumption patterns and/or lifestyles. (Adapted from Venkatesh et al., 2003) BI - Behavioural intent Bh - Behaviour

Addressing the methodological limitations I Previous attempts to measure real behaviour (e.g. Frank and Brock, 2018): Real market data (market shares of target products/services) Field experiments Lab experiments, BUT! Typically hypothetical settings and with intangible consequences to the participants choices in the experiments. Therefore incentive compatibility requires that the respondents must care about the problem raised and that they believe that their responses will have some real impact. (Carson and Groves, 2007) i.e. not incentive compatible = NOT ACTUAL BEHAVIOUR.

Addressing the methodological limitations II Experimental economics Common pool extraction game (a type of public good game): Paid experiment participant s earnings depend on their decisions in the experiment (incentive compatibility) Lab experiments (minimised noise) Additional main contribution: common pool extraction paradigm in which the public (collective) good is the world s probability of survival in the future. Preliminary analysis has shown the emergence of the tragedy of the commons phenomenon (Nash equilibrium consumption exceeds collective optimal consumption), adapted to this novel context. In other words, the level of consumption from the common pool of the strategy maximising selfish gain is higherthan that of the strategy that seeks to maximise collective profits.

Challenges Survey: Location: The survey could be distributed in different cultural contexts and so will need to be translated to other languages. This will require a professional translator. Sample size: A large sample size would be desirable. This will be addressed by making the survey accessible online and as short and comprehensive as possible. Experiment: Monetary rewards: In order to gather real behavioural data, real monetary incentives must be in place. This will require setting some funds aside for this part of data collection. Location: Will require an Experimental Economics/Behavioural Sciences lab to collaborate with (or hire) in order to run experiment sessions. Subject recruiting: The lab should have ethical and recruitment procedures in place, so this should be straightforward to address provided that the appropriate lab is used.

Currently working on Preparation of Confirmation Review document for submission: Finalising conceptual framework. Methodology design. Finalising D4.3 Measuring circularity at a regional level in Europe.

References 1. Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behaviour , Organizational behavior and human decision processes 50(2), 179-211. 2. Auger, P. and Devinney, T.M. (2007) Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions , Journal of business ethics 76(4), 361-383. 3. Bernardes, J. P., Ferreira, F., Marques, A. D. and Nogueira, M. (2018), Do as I say, not as I do - a systematic literature review on the attitude-behaviour gap towards sustainable consumption of Generation Y , IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering459, 012089. 4. Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A. and Whitwell, G.J. (2010) Why ethical consumers don t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers , Journal of business ethics 97(1), 139-158. 5. Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A. and Whitwell, G.J. (2014) Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention behavior gap , Journal of Business Research 67(1), 2759-2767. 6. Fishbach, A. and Dhar, R. (2005) Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice Journal of Consumer Research 32(3), 370-377. 7. Fisk, G. (1998) Green marketing: multiplier for appropriate technology transfer? , Journal of Marketing Management 14(6), 657-676. 8. Frank, Philip and Brock, Christian (2018) Bridging the intention behavior gap among organic grocery customers: The crucial role of point-of-sale information. Psychology & Marketing, 35(8), 586-602. 9. Galalae, Cristina et al., (2020) Reassessing positive dispositions for the consumption of products and services with different cultural meanings: A motivational perspective. Journal of Business Research, 115, 160-73. 10. Carson, Richard T. and Groves, Theodore (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37(1), 181-210. 11. Johnstone, M.L. and Tan, L.P. (2015) Exploring the gap between consumers green rhetoric and purchasing behaviour , Journal of Business Ethics 132(2), 311-328. 12. Lenzen, M., Murray, J., Sack, F. and Wiedmann, T. (2007) Shared producer and consumer responsibility Theory and practice , Ecological Economics 61, 27 42. 13. Schill, M. and Shaw, D. (2016) Recycling today, sustainability tomorrow: Effects of psychological distance on behavioural practice , European Management Journal 34(4), 349-362 14. Taylor, S.M. (1979) Personal dispositions and human spatial behavior. Economic Geography, 55(3), 184-95. 15. Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance , Psychological review 117(2), p.440. 16. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view , MIS quarterly 27(3), 425-478. 17. Vergragt, P et al. (2014) Sustainable production, consumption, and livelihoods: global and regional research perspectives , Journal of Cleaner Production 63, 1-12.

Thank You! Questions and comments welcome.