We explored the relationship between materialism, awareness of environmental consequences and environmental philanthropic behaviour with a web survey (n=2,079) targeted at potential donors living in Finland. Environmental philanthropic behaviour comprise of donations of money and/or time to environmental charities. The awareness of environmental consequences was divided into egoistic, altruistic and biospheric concerns. Biospheric and egoistic concerns were positively, while materialism was negatively related to environmental philanthropic behaviour. Materialism was related to preference of charismatic species when choosing a target for donation. The results have implications for conservation marketing emphasising the importance of taking the different donor segments into account.
AdamsC., Seroa da MottaR., OrtizR.A., ReidJ., Ebersbach AznarC. and de Almeida SinisgalliP.A.. 2008. ‘The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: economic valuation of Morro do Diabo State Park, Atlantic Rainforest, São Paulo State (Brazil)’. Ecological Economics66 (2–3): 359–370. Crossref.
2.
AnderssonD. and NässénJ.. 2016. ‘Should environmentalists be concerned about materialism? An analysis of attitudes, behaviours and greenhouse gas emissions’. Journal of Environmental Psychology48: 1–11. Crossref.
3.
BanerjeeB. and McKeageK.. 1994. ‘How green is my value: exploring the relationship between environmentalism and materialism’. Advances in Consumer Research21: 147–152.
4.
BazilianE.2012. ‘Charity: the new status symbol?’ Adweek53 (36): 14.
5.
BekkersR.2010. ‘Who gives what and when? A scenario study of intentions to give time and money’. Social Science Research39 (3): 369–381. Crossref.
6.
BekkersR. and WiepkingP.. 2006. ‘To give or not to give, that is the question: how methodology is destiny in Dutch giving data’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly35 (3): 533–540. Crossref.
7.
BennettR.2003. ‘Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity’. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing8 (1): 12–29. Crossref.
8.
BhandariA.K. and HeshmatiA.. 2010. ‘Willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation’. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing27 (6): 612–623. Crossref.
9.
BockD.E., EastmanJ.K. and EastmanK.L.. 2016. ‘Encouraging consumer charitable behavior: the impact of charitable motivations, gratitude, and materialism’. Journal of Business Ethics150 (4): 1213–1228. Crossref.
10.
BossoC.J.2003. ‘Rethinking the concept of membership in nature advocacy organizations’. Policy Studies Journal31 (3): 397–411. Crossref.
11.
CaroT. and GirlingS.. 2010. ‘Flagship species’. In CaroT., (ed.) Conservation by Proxy: Indicator, Umbrella, Keystone, Flagship, and Other Surrogate Species, pp. 245–262. Washington DC: Island Press.
12.
ChungJ. and MonroeG.. 2003. ‘Exploring social desirability bias’. Journal of Business Ethics44: 291–302.
13.
ClevelandM., LarocheM. and PapadopoulosN.. 2011. ‘Ethnic identity's relationship to materialism and consumer ethnocentrism: contrasting consumers in developed and emerging economies’. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science21 (2): 55–71. Crossref.
14.
ClucasB., McHughK. and CaroT.. 2008. ‘Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines’. Biodiversity and Conservation17 (6): 1517–1528. Crossref.
15.
De DominicsS., SchultzW.P. and BonaiutoM.. 2017. ‘Protecting the environment for self-interested reasons: altruism is not the only pathway to sustainability’. Frontiers in Psychology8: 1–13. Crossref.
16.
de GrootJ.I.M. and StegL.. 2008. ‘Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations’. Environment and Behavior40 (3): 330–354. Crossref.
17.
De WitA. and BekkersR.. 2016. ‘Exploring gender differences in charitable giving: the Dutch case’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly45 (4): 741–761. Crossref.
18.
DilmaghaniM.2018. ‘Which is greener: secularity or religiosity? Environmental philanthropy along religiosity spectrum’. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies20 (2): 477–502. Crossref.
19.
DunlapR.E., Van LiereK.D., MertigA.G. and JonesR.E.. 2000. ‘Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: a revised NEP scale’. Journal of Social Issues56 (3): 425–442. Crossref.
20.
EinolfC.J.2011. ‘Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly40 (6): 1092–1112. Crossref.
21.
FerreiraS.M. and HofmeyrM.. 2014. ‘Managing charismatic carnivores in small areas: large felids in South Africa’. South African Journal of Wildlife Research44 (April): 32–42. Crossref.
22.
GaterslebenB., WhiteE., WokjeA., JacsonT. and UzzellD.. 2009. ‘Materialism and environmental concern: examining values and lifestyle choices among participants of the 21st century living project’. Working Paper 01–09. Guildford.
23.
GiffordR. and NilssonA.. 2014. ‘Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review’. International Journal of Psychology49 (3): 141–157. Crossref.
24.
GoldsmithR.E. and ClarkR.A.. 2012. ‘Materialism, status consumption, and consumer independence’. Journal of Social Psychology152 (1): 43–60. Crossref.
25.
GreenspanI., HandyF. and Katz-GerroT.. 2012. ‘Environmental philanthropy: Is it similar to other types of environmental behavior?’ Organization & Environment25 (2): 111–130. Crossref.
26.
GärlingT., FujiiS., GärlingA. and JakobssonC.. 2003. ‘Moderating effects of social value orientation on determinants of proenvironmental behaviour intention’. Journal of Environmental Psychology23 (1): 1–9. Crossref.
HanslaA., GambleA., JuliussonA. and GärlingT.. 2008. ‘The relationships between awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (1): 1–9. Crossref.
29.
HartT.R.2002. ‘ePhilanthropy: using the Internet to build support’. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing7 (4): 353–360. Crossref.
30.
HuddersL. and PandelaereM.. 2012. ‘The silver lining of materialism: The impact of luxury consumption on subjective well-being’. Journal of Happiness Studies13 (3): 411–437. Crossref.
31.
HurstM., DittmarH., BondR., and KasserT.. 2013. ‘The relationship between materialistic values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: a meta-analysis’. Journal of Environmental Psychology36: 257–269. Crossref.
Katz-GerroT., GreenspanI., HandyF., LeeH-Y. and FreyA.. 2015. ‘Environmental philanthropy and environmental behaviour in five countries: is there convergence among youth?’. Voluntas26 (4): 1485–1509. Crossref.
34.
Katz-GerroT., GreenspanI., HandyF. and LeeH-Y.. 2017. ‘The relationship between value types and environmental behavior in four countries: Universalism, benevolence, conformity and biospheric value revisited’. Environmental Values26 (2): 223–249. Crossref.
35.
KilbourneW.G. and PickettG.. 2008. ‘How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior’. Journal of Business Research61 (9): 885–893. Crossref.
LauferD., SilveraD.H., McBrideJ.B. and SchertzerS.M.B.. 2010. ‘Communicating charity successes across cultures: Highlighting individual or collective achievement?’ European Journal of Marketing44 (9/10): 1322–1333. Crossref.
38.
LeeY.K. and ChangC.T.. 2007. ‘Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation behavior’. Social Behavior and Personality35 (9): 1173–1180. Crossref.
39.
LeeY.K. and ChangC.T.. 2008. ‘Intrinsic or extrinsic? Determinants affecting donation behaviors’. International Journal of Educational Advancement8 (1): 13–24. Crossref.
40.
LoveridgeA.J., WangS.W., FrankL.G. and SeidenstickerJ.. 2010. ‘People and wild felids: conservation of cats and management of conflicts’. In MacdonaldD.W. and LoveridgeA.J. (eds), The Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids, pp. 161–195. New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
ManchandaR.2014. ‘Materialism and green purchase behaviour: Relationship analysis’. Journal of Arts, Science and Commerce5 (4): 172–181.
42.
ManfredoM.J., TeelT.L. and BrightA.D.. 2003. ‘Why are public values toward wildlife changing?’ Human Dimensions of Wildlife8 (4): 287–306. Crossref.
43.
MathurA.2013. ‘Materialism and charitable giving: can they co-exist?’. Journal of Consumer Behavior12 (3): 149–158. Crossref.
44.
MacdonaldE., BurnhamA.D., HinksA.E., DickmanA.J., MalhiY. and MacdonaldD.W.. 2015. ‘Conservation inequality and the charismatic cat: Felis felicis’. Global Ecology and Conservation3: 851–866. Crossref.
45.
McCrightA.M. and XiaoC.. 2014. ‘Gender and environmental concern: insights from recent work and for future research’. Society and Natural Resources27 (10): 1109–1113. Crossref.
46.
McDougleL.M., GreenspanI. and HandyF.. 2011. ‘Generation green: understanding the motivations and mechanisms influencing young adults' environmental volunteering’. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing16 (4): 325–341. Crossref.
47.
McDougleL., HandyF., Katz-GerroT., GreenspanI. and LeeH. Y.. 2015. ‘Factors predicting proclivity and intensity to volunteer for the environment in the US and South Korea’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management58 (5): 837–854. Crossref.
48.
McFarlaneB.L. and BoxallP.C.. 1996. ‘Participation in wildlife conservation by birdwatchers’. Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal1 (3): 1–14. Crossref.
49.
MeschD.J., BrownM.S., MooreZ.I. and HayatA.D.. 2011. ‘Gender differences in charitable giving’. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing16 (4): 342–355. Crossref.
50.
MeschD.J., RooneyP.M., SteinbergK.S. and DentonB.. 2006. ‘The effects of race, gender, and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly35 (4): 565–587. Crossref.
51.
NelsonM.R., BrunelF.F., SupphellenM., ManchandaR.V.. 2008. ‘Effects of culture, gender, and moral obligations on responses to charity advertising across masculine and feminine cultures’. Journal of Consumer Psychology16 (1): 45–56. Crossref.
52.
PessiA.B.2008. Suomalaiset auttajina ja luottamus avun lähteisiin. RAY:n juhlavuo-den kansalaiskyselyjen tulokset. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
53.
PiperG. and SchnepfS.V.. 2007. Gender Differences in Charitable Giving. IZA Discussion Papers No. 3242.
54.
RichinsM.L.2004. ‘The material values scale: measurement properties and development of a short form’. Journal of Consumer Research31 (1): 209–219. Crossref.
55.
RichinsM.L. and DawsonS.. 1992. ‘A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: scale development and validation’. Journal of Consumer Research19 (3): 303–316. Crossref.
56.
RichinsM.L. and RudminF.W.. 1994. ‘Materialism and economic psychology’. Journal of Economic Psychology15: 217–231. Crossref.
RottmanJ.2014. ‘Breaking down biocentrism: two distinct forms of moral concern for nature’. Frontiers in Psychology5 (905): 1–3. Crossref.
59.
RyanA.M. and SpashC.L.. 2012. ‘The awareness of consequences scale: an exploration, empirical analysis, and reinterpretation’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology42 (10): 2505–2540. Crossref.
60.
SaxtonG.D. and WangL.. 2014. ‘The social network effect: the determinants of giving through social media’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly43 (5): 850–868. Crossref.
61.
SchultzP.W.2001. ‘The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere’. Journal of Environmental Psychology21 (4): 327–339. Crossref.
62.
ShrumL.J.. 2014. ‘Materialism: the good, the bad, and the ugly’. Journal of Marketing Management30 (17–18): 1858–1881. Crossref.
63.
ShrumL.J.. 2013. ‘Reconceptualizing materialism as identity goal pursuits: functions, processes, and consequences’. Journal of Business Research66 (8): 1179–1185. Crossref.
64.
ShinN. and ChenQ.. 2016. ‘An exploratory study of nonprofit organizations' use of the internet for communications and fundraising’. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management16 (1): 32–44. Crossref.
65.
SternP.C., DietzT., AbelT., GuagnanoG.A. and KalofL.. 1999. ‘A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism’. Human Ecology Review6 (2): 81–97. Crossref.
66.
SternP.C. and DietzT.. 1994. ‘The value basis of environmental concern’. Journal of Social Issues50 (3): 65–84. Crossref.
67.
SternP.C., DietzT. and GuagnanoG.A.. 1995. ‘The New Ecological Paradigm in social-psychological context’. Environment and Behavior27 (6): 723–743. Crossref.
68.
SternP.C., DietzT. and KalofL.. 1993. ‘Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern’. Environment and Behavior25 (5): 322–348. Crossref.
69.
TilikidouI. and DelistavrouA.. 2001. ‘Utilization of selected demographics and psych-ographics in understanding recycling behavior. A focus on materialism’. Greener Management International2001 (34): 75–93. Crossref.
70.
TilikidouI. and DelistavrouA.. 2004. ‘The influence of the materialistic values on consumers' pro-environmental post-purchase behavior’. In Marketing Theory and Applications, Proceedings of the 2004 American Marketing Association Winter Educators' Conference (pp. 42–49).
71.
VainioA. and PaloniemiR.. 2014. ‘The complex role of attitudes toward science in pro-environmental consumption in the Nordic countries’. Ecological Economics108: 18–27. Crossref.
72.
VeríssimoD., VaughanG., RidoutM., WatermanC., MacMillanD. and SmithR.J.. 2017. ‘Increased conservation marketing effort has major fundraising benefits for even the least popular species’. Biological Conservation211 : 95–101. Crossref.
73.
WangT.. 2017. ‘A science-based approach to guide Amur leopard recovery in China’. Biological Conservation210: 47–55. Crossref.
