(Mr)class a02b group7_presentationppt
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•384 views
- The document analyzes consumers' consideration towards purchasing electrical appliances with energy labels in Hong Kong. - It aims to understand the relationship between green perceived value, green perceived risk, green trust and green purchase intention. - The study found that green perceived value positively influences green trust and purchase intention, while green perceived risk negatively influences green trust and purchase intention. Green trust also positively influences purchase intention.
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to (Mr)class a02b group7_presentationppt
Similar to (Mr)class a02b group7_presentationppt (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
(Mr)class a02b group7_presentationppt
- 1. 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)
- 2. Agenda 1. Introduction 2.1 Research Objective 2. 2 Management Decision Problem & Marketing Research Problem 2. 3 Research Question 2. 4 Hypothesis 2. Research Design 3. 1 Data Collected Method 3. 2 Questionnaire Design 3. Data Findings and Analysis 4. Conclusions 5. 1 Managerial Implication & Recommendations 5. References 6. Appendices
- 3. Introduction 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
- 4. 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.
- 5. 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 Problem 1. 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?
- 6. 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?)
- 7. 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
- 8. Research Design • Conclusive research design • Cross-sectional design • Advantages: – Easier for testing – Representative sampling • Primary Data – Survey • Secondary Data – Journals from Internet
- 9. 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
- 11. Construct Table
- 12. Construct Table
- 13. Construct Table
- 14. Construct Table
- 15. Data Analysis & Findings Gender Age
- 16. Data Analysis & Findings Education level Income levels
- 17. Data Analysis & Findings 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 Descriptive Statistic N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Value 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
- 18. Data Analysis & Findings Descriptive Statistic 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 Valid N (listwise) 216 Descriptive Statistic
- 19. Data Analysis & Findings Descriptive Statistic Green 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 Descriptive Statistic 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 Valid N (listwise) 216
- 20. Data Analysis & Findings Descriptive Statistic 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 Valid N (listwise) 215 Descriptive Statistic
- 21. Data Analysis & Findings 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** .000 209 -.163** .009 212 .531** .000 209 Green Trust Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N .722** .000 209 1 216 -.147* .016 210 .576** .000 207 Green Perceived Risk Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N -.163** .009 212 -.147* .016 210 1 216 -.144* .019 210 Green Perceived Value Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N .531** .000 209 .576** .000 207 -.144* .019 210 1 213 Correlation **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). r = 0.576 Fair relationship Positive relationship p-value=0.01 < 0.01 Accepted the hypothesis
- 22. Data Analysis & Findings H2. Green perceived risk is negatively 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** .000 209 -.163** .009 212 .531** .000 209 Green Trust Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N .722** .000 209 1 216 -.147* .016 210 .576** .000 207 Green Perceived Risk Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N -.163** .009 212 -.147* .016 210 1 216 -.144* .019 210 Green Perceived Value Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N .531** .000 209 .576** .000 207 -.144* .019 210 1 213 Correlation **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). r = -0.147 Weak relationship Negative relationship p-value=0.016 < 0.05 Accepted the hypothesis
- 23. Data Analysis & Findings H3. Green trust is positively associated with green purchase intentions. Correlation Green Purchase Intention Green Trust Green Perceived Risk Green Perceived Value Green Purchase Intention Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N 1 215 .722** .000 209 -.163** .009 212 .531** .000 209 Green Trust Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N .722** .000 209 1 216 -.147* .016 210 .576** .000 207 Green Perceived Risk Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N -.163** .009 212 -.147* .016 210 1 216 -.144* .019 210 Green Perceived Value Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N .531** .000 209 .576** .000 207 -.144* .019 210 1 213 Correlation **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). r = 0.722 Strong relationship Positive relationship p-value=0.000 < 0.01 Accepted the hypothesis
- 24. Data Analysis & Findings H4. Green perceived value is positively associated with green purchase intentions. Correlation Green Purchase Intention Green Trust Green Perceived Risk Green Perceived Value Green Purchase Intention Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N 1 215 .722** .000 209 -.163** .009 212 .531** .000 209 Green Trust Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N .722** .000 209 1 216 -.147* .016 210 .576** .000 207 Green Perceived Risk Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N -.163** .009 212 -.147* .016 210 1 216 -.144* .019 210 Green Perceived Value Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N .531** .000 209 .576** .000 207 -.144* .019 210 1 213 Correlation **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). r = 0.531 Fair relationship Positive relationship p-value=0.01 < 0.01 Accepted the hypothesis
- 25. Data Analysis & Findings H5. Green perceived risk is negatively associated with green purchase intentions. Correlation Green Purchase Intention Green Trust Green Perceived Risk Green Perceived Value Green Purchase Intention Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N 1 215 .722** .000 209 -.163** .009 212 .531** .000 209 Green Trust Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N .722** .000 209 1 216 -.147* .016 210 .576** .000 207 Green Perceived Risk Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N -.163** .009 212 -.147* .016 210 1 216 -.144* .019 210 Green Perceived Value Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N .531** .000 209 .576** .000 207 -.144* .019 210 1 213 Correlation **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). r = -0.163 Weak relationship Negative relationship p-value=0.009< 0.01 Accepted the hypothesis
- 26. Data Analysis & Findings 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
- 27. Data Analysis & Findings 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 Regression Residual Total 38.921 76.450 115.372 2 201 203 19.461 .380 51.165 .000a ANOVAb a. Predictors: (Constant), New Green_Perceived_value, New Green_Perceived_risk b. Dependent Variable: New Green_Trust
- 28. Data Analysis & Findings 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
- 29. Data Analysis & Findings 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
- 30. Data Analysis & Findings 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_risk b. Dependent Variable: New Green_Purchase_intentino Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression Residual Total 95.903 70.860 166.764 3 196 199 31.968 .362 88.423 .000a
- 31. Data Analysis & Findings Regression • 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
- 32. Data Analysis & Findings Crosstab H0: Sex and electrical appliances with "energy label" purchase are not related H6: 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-Square Continuity Correction b Likelihood Ratio Fisher’s Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 2.559a 1.946 2.546 2.549 250 1 1 1 1 .110 .163 .111 .110 .151 .082
- 33. 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
- 34. Recommendations Perceived Value Q3: The electrical appliances with energy label have consistent quality Q5: The electrical appliances with energy label offer value for money Green Purchase Intention Q18: 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
- 35. References 1. 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>
- 36. References 8. 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/10.1108/14684520810923953 9. 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
- 37. References 17. 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
- 38. Q&A
Editor's Notes
- Nowadays, many companies are seeking sustainability and green marketing to create a competitive advantage in the global marketplace. According to a survey of 2,014 U.S. adults was conducted April, 2010 by SCA and Harris Interactive, overall, two-thirds (67%) of U.S. adults who consider themselves buyers of green products have retained their level of green purchases. Additionally, 25% have increased their green buying in light of the recent changes in the economy.
- Like many Asian cities, Hong Kong suffers high levels of air pollution, high levels of exposure to severe traffic noise, high levels of garbage disposal etc. Therefore the Hong Kong Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (EMSD) runs an Energy Efficiency Labeling Scheme (EELS) for appliances and equipment for example, refrigerators, washing machines and dehumidifiers. The EELS aims to help consumers select more energy-efficient products, increase public awareness of the importance of using energy-efficient products, achieve actual energy savings etc.
- The aim of this research is to analysis the relationship between green perceived value, green perceived risk, green trust and green purchase intention. These constructs are the important factors that affect their purchase decision of electrical appliances with energy label. The management decision problem are “How to enhance the penetration of using the electrical appliances with energy label?” We set the question “How these factors affect the purchase intention differently or jointly?” as our Specific Research objective And the question “How do customers decide on purchasing green product?”, “What benefit is expected when customers are purchasing green product?”and “How green products fulfill the expectation of customers?”as our Marketing Research Problem.
- Further on, we set 4 research question based on our objective, we set “How perceived value affect trust and purchase intention?”, “How perceived risk affect trust and purchase intention?”,” Is trust important for increasing purchase intention?”and “How purchase intention being affected?”as our research question for Green Perceived Value, Green Perceived Risk, Green Trust and Green Purchase Intention .
- Since the four constructs are related, we’ve set 6 Hypothesis for it. For first hypothesis, past research posits that there is a positive relationship between perceived value and customer trust, since high level of perceived value can increase post-purchase confidence of the product The second hypothesis, buyers are unwilling to purchase a product because of their distrust of the seller due to the information asymmetry. If consumers perceive high risk towards a product, they would be reluctant to trust the product There is a relationship between risk perceptions and effect on trust. The third, buyers would have had a trust experience with the seller, they would possess a higher level of purchase intentions. Thus, consumer trust is an antecedent of customer purchase intentions The fourth, perceived value is related to the perception of a product’s value, so it can build up a positive word-of-mouth effect and raise purchase intentions. Poor perceived value can result in loss of consumer purchase intentions. If consumers perceive that the value of a product is higher, they are more likely to purchase the product. The fifth, Perceived risk has negative influence on the purchase decision of customers. The reduction of perceived risk leads to the increase of purchase probability and to the rise of customer purchase intentions, so perceived risk is negatively associated with purchase intention. And the sixth hypothesis, the purchase behavior of electrical appliances with "energy label" may be different depend on their sex.
- Conclusive research design and Cross-sectional design are used for our research design since they are easy for testing and they are representative sampling The research is collected from both primary and secondary data. We conducted the questionnaire survey as the primary data, and Journals from Internet as our secondary data.
- On sampling design, we adopt a nonprobability sampling include convenience sampling and snowball sampling, which we asks participants to share with others. There are total 250 participants which we choose the sample to send and forward again to gain enough respondents. The questionnaire items were designed in English. Totally 250 questionnaires were received through Facebook and face-to-face randomly response in convenience and snowball sampling of non-probability sampling technique. The sample size would be 223 exclude 27 with no relevant experience.
- There is a screening question of asking the experience of green product purchased. The nominal, ordinal and interval scaling are used in this questionnaire for asking respondents in different questions about the four constructs. To study the objective of this study, the frequency, descriptive statistics, ANOVA test, Chi-Square analysis, correlation analysis and regression have been applied. At last follow by the personal information to design our questionnaire.
- These are the construct of our questionnaire, which you can see that from Q3 to Q7, which include…
- Question about Green Perceived Risk are asked on 8-11, which include…
- Question about Green trust are asked on 12-16, they include…
- Question about Green purchase intention are asked on 17-20, they include…
- From the result collected from our questionnaire, 55.2% of the interviewees are female and 44.8% are male. The largest age group are 18-23, they hold 54.8% of the hold group, follow by age range from 24-29(19.6%)
- The highest group of education level will be University or above, which cover 52% of the whole group, follow by 25.2% of the group Associate degree/Higher degree. The highest income level will be more than $25,000 dollars , which cover 52.8% of the whole group.
- In the area of green perceived value, since the highest mean score are 5.2 and 5.07, this indicate that interviewees have the strongest agreement with the statement “electrical appliances with energy label have an acceptable standard of quality” and “electrical appliances with energy label are economical”.
- For the Perceived risk, the lowest mean score are the question asking about risk on penalty and loss and risk on negatively affect environment. This shows that fewer people believe that they will suffer penalty and loss and harm on the environment by using the electrical appliance with energy label.
- On green trust, people do not have preference towards one of the statement of trust. It shows an average result towards reliable, dependable, trustworthy, meet customer’s expectation and keep promises & commitment.
- For Purchase intention, the highest and the second highest mean are the desire to purchase and consistency in purchasing the appliances with energy label. It shows that people are willing to purchase appliances with energy label and continue purchasing them. However, they have a relatively lower intention in spending more on appliances with energy labels.
- H1. Green perceived value is positively associated with green trust. The value of r is 0.576, is shown that the relationship between the two variables are fair. And the computed p-value is 0.000 which is smaller than p=0.01, indicating that the hypothesized relationship is significant. Thus, the comment of respondents about the green perceived value is positive related to the degree of the confidence of the green product of them.
- H2. Green perceived risk is negatively associated with green trust. The value of r is -0.147, is close to zero that the relationship between the two variables are very weak. And the computed p-value is 0.016 which is smaller than p=0.05, indicating that the hypothesized relationship is significant. Thus, the comment of respondents about the green perceived risk is lowly negative related to the trust of respondents in green products.
- H3. Green trust is positively associated with green purchase intentions. The value of r is 0.722, is near to 1 that the relationship between the two variables are strong. And the computer p-value is 0.000 which is smaller than p=0.01, indicating that the hypothesized relationship is significant. Thus, the comment of respondents about the green trust is highly positive related to the degree of the trust of respondents in green products.
- H4. Green perceived value is positively associated with green purchase intentions. The value of r is 0.531, is around a half that the relationship between the two variables are fair. And the computer p-value is 0.000 which is smaller than p=0.01, indicating that the hypothesized relationship is highly significant. Thus, the comment of respondents about the green perceived value is positively related to the degree of the purchase intention of the green product of them.
- H5. Green perceived risk is negatively associated with green purchase intentions. The value of r is -0.163, is close to zero that the relationship between the two variables are very weak. And the computer p-value is 0.009 which is smaller than p=0.01, indicating that the hypothesized relationship is significant. Thus, the comment of respondents about the green perceived risk is lowly negative related to the degree of the purchase intention of the green product of them.
- The model summary table shows the relation between green perceived value, green perceived risk and green trust. “R” is at 0.581. The R Square of 0.337 indicates that green perceived value and green perceived risk can only predict 33.7% green trust. In conclusion, green perceived value and green perceived risk is not a good predictor for green trust.
- Form the ANOVA table, the model-F can accurately explain variation in green trust, since the significant value of 0.000 informs us that the probability is very low that the variation explained by the model is due to chance. Green perceived value and green perceived risk explains a significant portion of the variation in green trust since the computed p value is 0.000, which is smaller than p=0.001. In conclusion, change in green perceived value and green perceived risk resulted in changes in green trust.
- From the coefficients table, green perceived risk can lead to a decrease in green trust as evidenced by the negative coefficients (B=-0.052). Since p>0.05, This shows that there are no significant relation between risk and trust, hence the hypothesis will be rejected. Moreover, green perceived value can lead to an increase in green trust as evidenced by the positive coefficients (B=0.587, p<0.01). For an increase in green perceived value, green trust is increased by 58.7%. Thus, we accept the hypothesis.
- The model summary table showed that R is high at 0.758. The correlation coefficient between green perceived value, green perceived risk, green trust and green purchase intention is high at 0.758. R square of 0.575 indicates that 57.5% of the variances in the green purchase intention can be explained by green perceived value, green perceived risk and green trust. In conclusion, green perceived value, green perceived risk and green trust is a fair predictor for green purchase intention.
- From the ANOVA table, the model-F can accurately explain variation in green trust, since the significant value of 0.000 informs us that the probability is very low that the variation explained by the model is due to chance. Green perceived value, green perceived risk and green trust explains a significant portion of the variation in the green purchase intention since the computed p value is 0.000, which is smaller than p=0.001. In conclusion, changes in green perceived value, green perceived risk and green trust resulted in significant changes in green purchase intention.
- Green perceived risk can lead to a decrease in green purchase intention as evidenced by the negative regression coefficient (B=-0.057). Since p>0.05, we rejected the hypothesis. Moreover, green perceived value can lead to an increase in green purchase intention since the regression coefficient is positive (B=0.253, p<0.01). For an increase in green perceived value, the green purchase intention is increased by 25.3%. Thus, we accept the hypothesis. Also, green trust can lead to an increase in green purchase intention since the regression coefficient is positive (B=0.738, p<0.01). For an increase in green trust, the green purchase intention is increased by 73.8%. Thus, we accept the hypothesis.
- In conclusion, after conducting descriptive analysis, we found that the green perceived value and green perceived risk have only affect 33.7% of green trust. To be more adequate, more variables should be considered to predict green trust. We also found that consumers have an average perception on green trust, which indicated that consumers have an average inception on trusting the labeled electrical appliance. In the part of purchase intention, the highest score mean are the desire and consistency on buying the labeled electrical appliance, which is a good sign that consumer feel comfort overall to continue buying the product. For the factors affecting customer’s purchase behavior of electrical appliances with "energy label", we accepted the positive relations between green perceived value and trust (H1), green trust and purchase intention (H3), green perceived value and purchase intention (H4). However, the result showed that there is no direct relationship between perceived risk and purchase intention as people would like to buy electrical appliances even they have high risk or with no energy label. Moreover, we can figure out that there are no relationship between the gender and the purchase intention from the above analysis.
- After the analysis, the lowest mean score in perceived value are the statement asking about the consistent quality(Q3) and value for money(Q5). Moreover, in Q18 asking about whether interviewees willing to spend more for the electrical appliances with energy label has the lowest mean score which is 4.95. We recommend that the government should tell the people about the amount of money they can save by using electrical appliances with energy label compare to those without the label to enhance the perceived value of the electronic appliance with energy label. Moreover, government should also emphasis the benefit people can enjoy by using these appliances beside saving money, such as environmental protection through advertising and other social media channels.