1. INTRODUCTION:

In the last few years, many environmental issues including household activities which also threaten human lives and environment have been identified. Household activities affect environment through energy and water consumption, waste generation, transport patterns and food choices (Sener, 2008). One of the main causes of these problems is over consumption. Consumption habits of human beings affect the environment both directly and indirectly (Tan, 2009), hence any progress towards sustainability will ideally require that every individual should change his/her consumption habits (Phipps, 2012) Consumption decision making is a complex and multiple stage process. The term sustainable consumption originated at Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and then it became an important policy element in national sustainable development (Jones, 2009). This was the first time in international environmental discourse that over-consumption in the developed world was implicated as a direct cause of unsustainability.

The proposed solutions included promotion of eco-efficiency and use of market instruments for shifting consumption patterns. Hence, sustainable consumption is implicitly defined as ‘the consumption of more efficiently produced goods. As pointed by Seyfang (2009), a ‘green’ and ‘ethical’ consumer is the driving force of market transformation, incorporating both social and environmental concerns while making purchasing decisions’.

Sustainable Consumption is also defined as consumption that simultaneously optimizes the environmental, social and economic consequences of acquisition, use and disposition in order to meet the needs of both current and future generations (Phipps, 2012). A family is considered as one of the most important decision making and consumption units. Hence the way a family makes decision as a consumption unit has attracted the interest of researchers and marketers (Martensen, 2008). Generally there are two streams of family decision making studies: dyadic studies which investigate effects of wife and husband on family decision making and triadic studies which additionally explore children’s influence on family decision making. Much of the research carried out on children’s influence in family decision making has been done in countries like USA, UK, Canada, and Iran (Ramzy, 2012; Shoham, 2005). Indian studies are few (Kumar, 2013; Kaur, 2006) and it is important to explore such dynamics for Indian set up too.

The current study attempts to investigate the environmentally sustainable consumption decision (ESCD) of children (age 6 to 10 years). The focus to this age group lies in the fact that consumption patterns in young consumer have changed and continue to change rapidly due to the breakdown of geographic boundaries and higher disposable incomes (Hume, 2010). Additionally, this group represents a new generation of consumers with a strong potential to affect the type of goods and service offered in a future market and who have the potential to become future leaders responsible for environmental sustainability. This is supported by Asmuni’s (2012) statement that the development of stance, obligation and ability to sustain and look after the environment starts at an early age. Within Asia, India is a major market with strong economy and presence of many international companies which makes it worth to explore such issues influencing parents’ purchases in Indian context. Children influence consumption of products both directly and indirectly (Sunita Kumar, 2013).This paper attempts to understand the role of children’s influence on environmentally sustainable consumption decisions for selected product categories.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW:

In (Chapter 36 of Agenda 21) Rio de Janeiro ‘Earth Summit’ (UNCED, 1992) Commission for Sustainable Development, UNESCO recognized that this field is “in its infancy” while sustainability refers to “meeting the needs of current generations without limiting the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Hanss, 2012). It broadly points to linking social equity, economic growth and environmental protection. Extending the links to ground in turn leads to the concept of sustainable consumption which is a mode of consumption congruent with sustainability such that consumption with time and monetary expenditure while satisfying basic needs. Sustainable consumption is acknowledged as an important pillar of environmental sustainability (Hanss, 2013). Agenda 21 which was adopted by most of the world’s governments at the Rio de Janeiro ‘Earth Summit’ (UNCED, 1992) also introduced the notion of ‘sustainable consumption’. UNEP defines it as “the use of services and related products that respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle so as not to jeoparadize the needs of future generation” (Jones, 2009). It implies 'consuming more efficiently, consuming more responsibly or quite simply consuming less'. The great importance of studying sustainable consumption in the household setup lies in the fact that modern house hold enjoys more availability of consumer goods (Sener, 2008). Consumption sustainably is closely aligned to quality of life and consumer well being issues (Hume, 2010). Research should address the full consumption cycle because consumer’s post choice behaviors including product usage, product life extension and disposal, all have a significant impact on the sustainability of consumption (Prothero, 2011). However two major perspectives have been largely missed by earlier researchers are those of addressing full consumption cycle and understanding the part played by children in sustainable consumption decision process. Household often forms one unit of decision-making with regard to household purchases in which members have a different role. Marketing requires one to study how members affect decision making process (Seyed Fathollah, 2013) and same is true for exploring consumption decision in sustainability context.

2.1. Kids Influence on Consumption Decision

In the past, researchers and marketers had largely disregarded the part related to children in their target market because of many reasons. But, in recent years children have been considered as one of the most important groups, because they have great capabilities in influencing purchase decision of their families and they also hold significantly more buying power (Guner, 2008). Children usually have greater impact on decisions about travel, snacks, children’s wear, eating food outside, toys etc. (Kaur, 2006) which could have impact on sustainability. Selected studies that have been carried out by researchers to understand influence of children on consumption decision both for normal consumption and sustainable consumption have been briefly discussed below.

Chavda (2005) studied the differences in views between adolescents (i.e 11-16 years of age) and parents when asked about the perceived influence adolescents had when purchasing a range of product categories (household products, toiletries, entertainment, adolescent’s clothes, parents’ clothes, large purchases, food products and technology). The study sought to understand (a) perceived ratings of male and female differences among adolescents and (b) differences between adolescent and parent’s perception of adolescents’ influence. Chavda found that there is very little difference between adolescents’ perception of their influence and parents’ perception of adolescent influence with regard to large purchases, parent’s clothes and household products. One way ANOVA test showed that there is no significant difference male adolescents’ and female adolescents’ perceived ratings except for large purchases and food categories hence, showing that males and females differ in their perceived influence levels when purchasing products within these categories.

Shoham (2005) studied Israeli and US families’ and their children’s decision making for different products and decision making stages. Two studies were conducted in Israel and US, findings were compared with US. Study 1 replicated Swinyard and Sim’s study (1987) for 25 products across 4 buying stages. Parents of children aged 5 – 18 years were respondents of the study. Findings of first study revealed that extent of Israeli children’s participation/influence during all four buying stages were lower than that of US children. Children tend to be more involved and influential for products where they are primary users (e.g. toys, clothing, and education) or products are entertainment related. Study 2 replicated Foxman et al. (1989a, b) with 11 products and 7 general influence factors (e.g., suggesting price, shopping with parents etc) assessing child’s influence by each parent and by the child. Significant influence was seen for children’s products like children’s magazines, children’s dress clothes, and children’s records/CDs and lowest influence was seen for family car and living room furniture, representing products that were family products. The patterns of both relative and general influence were consistent for both countries. The highest influence in both countries was seen for purchase stages of ‘suggesting products’ and for ‘paying attention to new products’, where as children in both countries had lowest influence in regard to suggesting price and learning the best buy.

In a study of American families Flurry (2007) has revealed that the change from traditional family to new family setups in terms of having older parents, delayed marriages, postponed child bearing and single families has made children encounter purchase decision making at an earlier age, making family structure and product type important for understanding children’s influence on purchase decisions. He also examined the degree to which characteristics related to a child, parents and the family unit moderate children’s influence. Univariate ANOVAs used to determine statistical significance of relationship of moderator variables like characteristics related to child, parents and family unit with children’s influence. Findings showed that for child’s personal consumption, child’s earned income, birth order, parent’s locus of control and household size affect the child’s influence; while family consumption moderators like first born children, older children, family income level and education level play important role.

Martensen (2008) studied similar issues based on Danish parents perception of their children (5-13 years old) influence on the family decision for 14 product categories including durables ( e.g., cars, vacations) and non durables (e.g., toothpaste, soft drinks). Study showed that children exercise quite a strong influence on family decision regarding product category, brand and model for products. Children tend to suggest buying the product category, brand and model much more often and be much more influential with regard to product typically aimed at children and products of self use (e.g juice, soft-drinks, cereals) less influence was observed for product categories aimed at the family (e.g. vitamin pills, shampoo and tooth paste), and for expensive and durable consumer goods where financial risk is high (e.g. TV, cars, computer equipment). Regression results showed children age is positively and significantly related to parent’s perception of their children’s influence as older children have more influence on family decision making process for products like ketchup, bread, soft drinks, mobile phones, TVs and computer equipment. Gender was not found to be significant.

Yet another study to understand empirically the impact of kids (7-18 years) on parents’ purchase decision-making process was done by Guneri (2008) for five main product classes and of five sub- decisions showed that children’s influence on (a) need recognition, (b) where, (c) when and (d)which product to buy were limited to products of direct use to children and parents’ are more influential on decisions regarding products directed at family use, such as milk, home appliances and dinning outside. Respondents of the study were children and their parents. T-test and Chi-square test revealed that children influence is limited to products of direct use to children i.e., child’s shoe and children’s cellular phone. Chi Square results showed that like parental status, number of children in family, child’s gender and income level of the family and parent’s education were not significant while child’s age was found to dominate the extent of children’s influence.

Isin (2010) has investigated using exploratory approach influence of preschool children (aged 5 to 6 years) on purchase decisions among well- to- do families. Respondents are the mothers of children coming from well-to-do family. It was found that influence was not significant for the high risk products like audio system, refrigerator, furniture, car etc but not significant for low risk products like bread, meat, fruit and vegetable, Demographic factors like employment of mothers, gender, and number of children in the family were also tested for their moderating role and findings showed that only work status had significant role.

An empirical investigation by Ramzy (2012) for similar issue regarding children ages 4-18 years showed Egyptian parents were more engaged with their children when taking decision regarding durable like TV, furniture non durable like soft drink, breakfast cereals and child related product like toy than American parents. The perception of influence of children was for products that related directly to the child and older children had greater influence.

Fathollah et al. (2013), in their descriptive-cognition study observed children in family purchasing process by acquiring responses from parents of children age 3 to 11 years. T- test results showed that giving promotional gifts in market (toys and dolls) was the most effective factor in children’s selection, other significant factors being entertainment and facilities, friendly and good behavior of personnel, use of cartoon characters in ads and mother’s employment. Chi-Square test revealed that demographic variables like income, education, household size, and mother’s job, age of householder and age of child significantly moderated influences. Gender of child had no effect on.

Kaur et. al. (2006) reviewed explored how purchase decision across product category and stages of decision making process were affected by a child’s influence in purchase decision. It was noted that the purchasing act is governed by how children are socialized to act as consumers by family, peer and media acting as socializing agents family related factors parental style, family’s Sex Role Orientation (SRO), and patterns of communication were concluded to play key role. Authors suggested that in Indian society family composition and structure, values, norms, and behavior affect the role that children play in purchase decision making in families.

Kumar (2013) in her Indian descriptive study looked at influence of 8 -12 year old children on purchase via children’s and parent’s perception across categories of products (high risk/low risk/child related). For products like refrigerator, newspaper, Tv, home theatre which are used by the entire family, parents have major influence on decision to buy while for products like bicycle, ice creams, juice, CDs, video games, both children and parents believe that children have more influenced in purchasing. Demographic factors like family income, family type and number of children were co related to children’s influence.

An empirical study by Shergill et. al. (2013) investigates cultural assimilation influence on family purchase decision making of Chinese immigrant families in New Zealand and Chinese families living in China for middle- class families with children (ages 13- 19 years). Items relating to five family use products like (PC, groceries, furniture, toothpaste, car) and six children use products (Child’s record/CD, PC, toothpaste, dress, bicycle, and magazine) were identified. The parental perception of children’s influence has significant difference in the two types of families for all products except child’s record/CDs. Overall Results showed that cultural assimilation has significant influence on parental perceptions of teen’s influence with families in New Zealand experiencing more influence of children on purchase decisions. The relationship between children’s age and 11 products are positive. For the Chinese families, three products have negative coefficients (groceries, child tooth paste, and family tooth paste) which mean the children influence will decrease as they become older.

Above description of literature review clearly reveals that children wield a lot of influence in family consumption decisions for products aimed at children. Literature review reveled that children wields a lot of influence on consumption decisions for children products as mentioned in Table 1. Demographic factors that have been found significant in few of these studies are discussed in later section suggesting that they must be appropriately considered for related studies undertaken by future studies.

The present study focuses on the environmental impact of buying, use of products, disposal regarding them as a consumption process for determined product categories in the chosen population of urban area.

2.3 Sustainable Consumption within Urban Areas

Sustainable development and sustainability are more concerned with urban areas because of rising population, increasing disposable income, change in consumption pattern and modern lifestyles that use too many resources. Therefore, sustainable consumption continues to be a serious global concern. The share of urban population in India increased from 17.97 percent in 1961 to 31.16 percent in 2011(Tripathi, 2013). Urban area import vast quantities of food, water, and energy and export emissions and waste (Alberti, 1996). These have a large negative impact on the environment. Sidin et al. (2008) study attempted to investigate the effects of age, gender and city of dwelling on children’s consumption attitude and behavior intention. Respondents were 9 to 14 years old. Children’s consumption attitude was compared using two-sample t-test for gender and one-way analysis of variance for age and city of dwelling. Both variables had significant influence on children’s consumption attitude and behavior intentions. The current study attempts to find children’s influence on different stages of environmentally sustainable consumption decisions [ESCD] for specific product categories in urban region.

2.4 Sustainable Consumption and Young Consumer

From the sections 2.1 and 2.2, it can be stated that children of the world have a strong position with respect to consumption decision. Children seem empowered to express their opinions and influence decisions that affect them. In Agenda 21, the UN agreement for global sustainable development from Rio 1992, children have been recognized as important participants in shaping a sustainable future as they will not only inherit the responsibility of looking after the earth, but they also comprise nearly half the population in many developing countries (Engdahl, 2010). As values, attitudes, behaviors and skills are acquired easily during early childhood, this is where understanding of sustainable activities must start as rightly put by Bates children’s skills. On the other hand, understanding sustainable activities help to develop children’s view of the world, the connection between their activities and others in the community fostering their curiosity for holistic development. Skills related to sustainable way of life which can be learnt by children and implemented in their daily lives can make them truly geared for future. In this backdrop the current research attempts to explore the amount of primary school children’s influence on different stages of environmentally sustainable consumption decisions [ESCD] of specified product categories.

2.5 Demographics

Researchers found that children exert more influence on purchase for higher income contexts (Kumar,2013; Flurry,2007).The influence of children towards purchase increases with age (Guneri,2008; Martensen, 2008; Flurry,2007; Gurvinder, 2013)

A gender difference was not observed for purchase and sustainable consumption of product categories (Guneri, 2008; Martensen, 2008; Flurry, 2007; Isin, 2010; Asmuni, 2012; TAN, 2009). Various authors also predicted that number of children in a family (Kumar, 2013; Isin, 2010; Guneri, 2008) does not show any relation with influence of children on purchase decision making. Parent’s education was also found not to show any significant role in influencing parents purchase decision along with sustainable consumption behavior (Guneri, 2008; Asmuni, 2012). Authors also studied if there is any relation between influences of children on purchase decision making and family demographics i.e. household size, family type, and parental status (Guneri, 2008; Flurry, 2007; Kumar, 2013) and found no significant relation.

Employment status of women (Isin, 2010) is a determining factor for identifying influence of children on consumption decision making. In sum, some of the determining factors mentioned above have shown significant impact on children’s perceived influence on family consumption decision making. Our research also uses the basis of these factors to test their impact on children’s perceived influence.

The studies that have been undertaken till now are mostly concerned with the influence of children on the family consumption decision. But children’s influence on the consumption decision of product categories that are environmentally sustainable is an area that has not been explored much and it leaves an ample scope to undertake such a study and thus find out the related aspects.

3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

Keeping the above mentioned gaps in literature in view, an exploratory study was designed with following objective:

a) To identify a list of products categories where children have influence on environmentally sustainable consumption decisions.

b) To identify the extent of children’s influence on different stages of environmentally sustainable consumption decisions of specified product categories.

4. RESEARCH METHOD:

An exploratory study was used to address both the above stated objectives. A list of 29 products (Table 1) based on result of the literature review where kids plays a major role in taking consumption decision was identified. This list of 29 products was circulated between 12 Indian experts consisting of parent’s researchers in marketing areas and shopkeepers who were asked to identify products that were not applicable to Indian conditions. They were also asked to add new products / product categories where they felt Indian children exercised their influence on consumption decision. Thus some more products were added to the existing list which extended it further to 32 products.

Table 3: Products added to existing list where children’s influence major decision
Used by child		Used by family
Toys	School supplies	Food
Puzzles	Pictured books, Gift cards, Book cover	Snacks
Ballons	Pencils, Pen	Non carbonated drinks
Battries	Colored pencils, Colored papers	Drinks (Glucose, tang)
Construction toys	Eraser, Sharpeners, Ruler	Jam
Creative toys	Stickers	Ketchup
	Water bottle, Pencil box, Lunch box	Candy , Chocolate, Ice cream, Chewing gum
	Bag, Clipboard	Chips and dried fruits

The list of 32 specific products was subsequently examined throughly by researcher and few experts to look at the possibility of clubbing them under fewer product categories. This was done to make the study more manageable so that more in depth understanding of environmentally sustainable consumption behavior is possible. Many previous research studies (Chavda, 2005; Shoham, 2005; Guneri et.al, 2008; Isin, 2011) have also attempted to work at categorical level. The final list of 10 product categories is given in table 4.

Table 4: List of 10 products categories where children influence consumption decisions
S.No	Categories	Example
1	Snacks and spreads	Bread, Biscuits, Jams, Ketchups, Popcorns
2	Toys and Games	Dolls, Stuffed animals, Cars, Construction toys, Vide9o Games, Electronic ,Creative and Accessories
3	Confectionary	Chips, Candies, Chocolates, Ice creams, Pastries
4	Drinks	Fruit Juices, Non carbonated, Glucose, Tang
5	Child Apparel	Clothes, Shoes, Socks
6	Stationary	Pencil Box, Lunch Box, Bag, Pictured Books , Pen, Pencil, Eraser, Clipboard, Book cover
7	Services	Family dinner, Spare time activity, Movie
8	Fresh foods	Fruits and Vegetables, Dairy products
9	Kids Furniture	Study Table, Chair
10	Parents Apparel	Clothes, Shoes

4.1 Sampling

The samples were collected using quota sampling, a non probability sampling method as it attempts to be representative of the population by including the same proportion of elements possessing a certain characteristics found in a population. The selection of samples for this research was based on appropriateness of the research objectives while using this method. As outlined in introduction of section 4 the population for study was urban families with children. To represent the cross section of the urban consumer’s population, 40 family units from different economic backgrounds were selected for the study from Bhiwadi, the census representative town of Alwar district. Bhiwadi is an industrial hub including industries like steel, furnace, electronics, engineering, textiles, pharmaceuticals, printing cable, rolling mills, food processing, herbal care units etc. Hence the sample was a mixture of different backgrounds. The breakdown of the samples is in Table 5.

Table 5: Breakdown of sample by demographic factors.
	Children		Parents
Characteristics	N	%	N	%
Gender
Female	17	42.5	40	50
Male	23	57.5	40	50
Annual Income
Up to Rs 2,00,000			6	15
Rs 2,00,001 to Rs 2,50,000			8	20
Rs 2,50,001 to Rs 5,00,000			13	32.5
Rs 5,00,001 to Rs 10,00,000			8	20
Above Rs 10,00,000			5	12.5
Employment Status
Working			49	61.25
Not working			31	38.75
Education level(parents)
Senior Secondary (Class 12^th )			16	20
Post-Matric Diploma or certificate			9	11.25
Bachelor degree			29	36.25
Post Graduate degree			26	32.5
Phd			0	0
Education Level (children’s )
Class I	7	17.5
Class II	9	22.5
Class III	8	20
Class IV	8	20
Class V	8	20

A total of 40 family units comprising father, mother and child were interviewed. Children were interviewed from two schools located in different regions of Bhiwadi. The selected schools are different from each other according to classification of national education system in the country. In depth interviews of kids were conducted by keeping all the codes and guidelines in mind. Parents were interviewed at their home.

4.2 Research measures

Exploratory research methodologies have traditionally used four broad types of approaches /measures: Literature survey, Focus group interview, Experience Survey and Analysis of selected cases. Since standard questionnaires were available from literature for addressing the two categories of variables, namely (1) demographic factors related to children’s influence on purchase decision, (2) Variables for child’s influence in purchase decisions they were used with slight modifications to ultimately suit the experience survey approach of exploratory research. The ultimate aim of survey is to obtain insight into relationship between variables and attempts to tap knowledge and experience of those familiar with the general subject being investigated. Respondents were given freedom for discussion to develop tentative explanation rather than demonstrating viability of a given explanation. Modifications were required in the context of demographic factors to suit income slabs prevalent in India and educational qualification levels of parents to suit the typical ladder followed in India. Second set of modification was done in the part which had items to capture child’s influence in purchase decision to incorporate purchase decision stages in the context of environmentally sustainable consumption decision. To measure influence at various stages, environmentally sustainable consumption behavior rather than simple consumption behavior as used in original scale was taken from Guneri, (2008). All modifications were pretested in 12 sample units (each unit consisting of parents–mother and father, and their child) and were based on pretest result of questionnaire.

Structured questionnaires were used in data collection. Earlier research states that there exist differences in perception of parents and children about influence of children in environmental sustainable consumption (purchase, use, and dispose off) decision of children. Therefore researchers have suggested that both responses be included for a holistic overview. In the first section of questionnaire, background information includes seven demographic factors namely age, gender, employment status, annual house hold income, qualification, size of household and number of kids in family were used for parents and four demographic factors namely age, gender, income in form of pocket money, and class were asked in child’s questionnaire (Guneri, 2008; Martensen, 2008). A set of items used in (Martensen, 2008) was used for current study in second section to assess perceived influence of children consumption decision of selected product. The worked out set of ESCB given in section 2.2 was taken to examine the modification for including ESCB stages. Accordingly, questionnaire for parents including 33 items required responses to a five point Likert type scale ranging from (1) “always me”, (2) “mostly me”, (3) “equally with my child/children”, (4) “mostly my child/ children”, (5) “always my child/children” to be noted. A similar set of 33 items requiring responses to five point Likert scale ranging from (1) “always my parents”, (2) “mostly my parents”, (3) “equally with my parents”, (4) “mostly me”, (5) “always me” was used in the questionnaire for children,.

4.3 Data collection and Statistical Tools used

Three post graduate persons conducted the interview in 2 schools located in different regions of Bhiwadi, the census representative town of Alwar district. 40 sets of mother-father-child were interviewed using the modified questionnaire. The data was entered later into excel sheet for analysis in which appropriate and consistent coding scheme was followed to avoid any errors. Frequency for demographic factors was measured to represent equal distribution of an individual in quota sampling. The items measuring the child’s influence in both (parent and child) questionnaire was scored as 5 when decision was 100% taken by child and 1 when decision was 100% by their parents. Table 5 represents means of each statement measuring the children’s influence on consumption decision making process for 10 products and than average is calculated across the mean value of all the three respondents for each separate decision of consumption process. Similarly in Table 6 means of each statement measuring the children’s influence for each consumption decision making process for 10 products and average is calculated across the mean value of all the consumption decision stages by three respondents.

5. RESULTS AND FINDINGS:

5.1 Demographic characteristics of child’s and parent’s samples

Equal number of respondents were taken from the private and public schools of Bhiwadi, The ages of participating children ranged from 6 to 10 years old with 57.5 percent being boys and 42.5 percent girls. The mean age of participating children was 8.025 years. To ensure equal representation of urban population, equal numbers of respondents were selected from 1^st to 5^th class with 17.5 percent being class one students, 22.5 percent from class two and 20 percent each from third to fifth classes of two major types of schools i.e public and private schools. The average number of siblings reported by the respondents was 2 per family.

The incomes of participating parents ranged from less than Rs 2,00,000 to more than Rs 10,00,000 with 15%, 20%, 32.5%, 20%, 12.5% respectively in each interval as represented by income tax slab of year 2013-14 and shown in table 4. In terms of employment status, 61.25 percent of the parents (father and mother) were employed, and 38.75 percent were unemployed (Table 4).

5.2 Children’s influence on different stages of ESCD

Children’s influence on ESCD was measured through children’s and parents’ responses to questions relating to purchase; use and dispose off (reduce, reuse, and recycle). Descriptive statistics has been used to calculate mean of perceived influence of children for each product category across 3 decision making stages of chosen product categories. Perceived influence of parent’s and children’s own “assessment” of their influence scores are shown in Tables 6 and 7.

In the purchase decision of 10 product categories, toys and confectionary were found more influential. Similarly, for use decision among similar product categories, toys, confectionary and stationary were found to be influential. In the last sub decision that is dispose off which meant reduce, reuse and recycle decision influence is for toys only.

It was also found that for purchase decision, children indicated high perceived influence for confectionary and stationary than what their parents perceived. While for consumption decision with respect to toys parent’s perceived children to be more influential than children own perception. Respondents perceive children influence least for the purchase of fresh foods and parent’s apparel.

Table 6: Children’s influence on different stages of environmentally sustainable consumption decisions of specified product categories as perceived by children and parents:
S.no	Categories	Purchase				Use				Dispose off
S.no	Categories	C	F	M	Average	C	F	M	Average	C	F	M	Average
1	Snacks	2.82	2.9	2.62	2.78	2.85	2.7	2.87	2.80	2.25	2.3	2.27	2.27
2	Toys	2.87	3.3	3	3.05	3.77	3.62	3.2	3.53	3.07	3.02	3.2	3.09
3	Confectionary	3.65	3.52	3.42	3.53	3.55	3.3	3.3	3.38	3.12	3	2.72	2.94
4	Drinks	2.6	2.82	2.65	2.69	2.7	2.8	2.52	2.67	2.55	2.75	2.27	2.52
5	Child apparel	1.95	2.57	2.4	2.30	3.25	2.97	2.67	2.96	2.35	2.57	1.75	2.22
6	Stationary	3.1	2.82	2.77	2.89	3.47	3.2	2.9	3.19	3.17	2.77	2.67	2.87
7	Services	2.15	2.15	2.45	2.25	1.87	2	2.02	1.96	2	1.87	1.95	1.94
8	Fresh foods	1.65	2.02	2	1.89	1.9	2.45	1.87	2.07	1.6	2.2	2.1	1.96
9	Kids Furniture	2	2.27	2.42	2.23	2.77	2.72	2.42	2.63	1.92	2.12	2.22	2.08
10	Parents apparel	1.82	1.9	1.9	1.87	1.8	2.02	1.67	1.83	1.52	1.9	1.57	1.66
*Where C= Children, F= Father and M= Mother

Table 7: Means of children’s influence across the decision-making stages of various product category by children and parents
S.no	Categories	Children				Father
S.no		Purchase	Use	Dispose off	Avg.	Purchase	Use	Dispose off	Avg.
1	Snacks	2.82	2.85	2.25	2.6	2.9	2.7	2.3	2.6
2	Toys	2.87	3.77	3.07	3.2	3.3	3.62	3.02	3.3
3	Confectionary	3.65	3.55	3.12	3.4	3.52	3.3	3	3.3
4	Drinks	2.6	2.7	2.55	2.6	2.82	2.8	2.75	2.8
5	Child apparel	1.95	3.25	2.35	2.5	2.57	2.97	2.57	2.7
6	Stationary	3.1	3.47	3.17	3.3	2.82	3.2	2.77	2.9
7	Services	2.15	1.87	2	2.0	2.15	2	1.87	2.0
8	Fresh foods	1.65	1.9	1.6	1.7	2.02	2.45	2.2	2.2
9	Kids furniture	2	2.77	1.92	2.2	2.27	2.72	2.12	2.4
10	Parents apparel	1.82	1.8	1.52	1.7	1.9	2.02	1.9	1.9

Table 7: Cont….


S.no	Categories	Mother
S.no		Purchase	Use	Dispose off	Avg.
1	Snacks	2.62	2.87	2.27	2.6
2	Toys	3	3.2	3.2	3.1
3	Confectionary	3.42	3.3	2.72	3.2
4	Drinks	2.65	2.52	2.27	2.5
5	Child apparel	2.4	2.67	1.75	2.3
6	Stationary	2.77	2.9	2.67	2.8
7	Services	2.45	2.05	1.95	2.1
8	Fresh foods	2	1.87	2.1	2.0
9	Kids furniture	2.42	2.42	2.22	2.4
10	Parents apparel	1.9	1.67	1.57	1.7

Respondent fathers indicated high child influence on consumption decision of toys and confectionary and least influence around all the sub decision stages for parent’s apparel. They however indicated children’s high influence for the use of stationary products.

Mothers as respondents perceive child influence to be very less. They perceive that children have influence in all the three stages for consumption decision for toys only. However according to them a child, influence only purchase and use decision for confectionary items. They also indicate children’s less influence for parent’s apparel. According to mothers it is perceived that parents have more influence for consumption decision in most of the product categories.

6. DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this research was to explore children’s and parent’s perceptions of children influence on environmentally sustainable consumption decision for selected product categories. On the basis of findings, it can be concluded that children’s influence was highest for those products that are related to child directly i.e., toys, confectionary, stationary. Less influence was seen for products related to family such as services, fresh food, and parent’s apparel. This supports the findings of previous studies (Shoham, 2005; Ramzy et al., 2012; Guneri, 2008).

Children’s influence on environmentally sustainable consumption decision is also analyzed with respect to sub decision. Research has pointed that children have greater role in making decision about purchase and use whereas minimal on dispose off decision (Asmuni et al., 2011). The finding of this study also shows that a child has minimum influence on dispose off decision and maximum perceived influence on purchase and use decision of toys, confectionary and stationary (Ramzy et al., 2012; Shoham et al., 2005; Martensen et al., 2008). It is perceived that for other products influence is minimum possibly because they involve high risk in purchasing; Whereas purchase of toys, confectionary and stationary involves low purchasing risk and hence influence purchase and use decision by children. These results are also supported by previous studies (Isin, 2010; Kumar, 2013; Chavda, 2005).

7. CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, it can be said that influence of child on environmental sustainable consumption decisions was substantial in few categories where a child had influence on purchase, use and dispose off. Looked at from ESCD decision angle it can also be said that both children and parents believe children to have perceived influence across all the three sub decision regarding consumption on product categories such as toys and confectionary. When seen from respondents individual perspective children themselves believe that they have substantial influence across the entire three sub decision stages for toys, confectionary and stationary. Similar results were perceived from parents. They also felt that children have influence in consumption of toys and confectionary items. Therefore it can be concluded that children’s influence varies for sustainable consumption by product categories.

8. IMPLICATIONS:

The results of the study on sustainable consumption decision of product appear to support that children have influence over the consumption and stages (such as purchase, use and dispose off) of sustainable consumption.

The results of this study shall increase marketers understanding on sustainable consumption decision by children of 6 to 10 years of age. Marketers will be able to predict, plan and execute the right marketing strategy to maximize market coverage for children’s product. The findings also suggest that variables such as purchase, use and dispose off can be used by marketers for segmentation of market. In summary, the results of the study have revealed the influence of children on purchase, use and dispose off decision for few product categories among young urban consumers that can be used by marketers to develop marketing strategy focusing on these consumers which can be generalized to other Indian markets. This understanding helps marketer, education policy makers and parents to focus on sustainable consumption behavior of young children as well as getting future market for sustainable products and getting children to influence their family members to sustainably consume the intended products.

9. LIMITATIONS:

The limitation relates to the difficulty in measuring children’s perceived influence within sustainable consumption decision making process for children of age 5 to 10 years. This could be due to the fact that it is quite difficult for children to understand questionnaire used in this study, hence interviewer had to explain questions to children using experience survey mode. Hence to overcome this problem, a combination of data collection methods may be used to study children’s sustainable consumption pattern. Because of limited geographical area and exploratory study findings cannot be generalized.

10. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:

This study has suggested several directions that might be taken in future research. It is recommended that for future research, children’s decision influence in terms of consumption attitude and behavior intention such as price, brand, repeat purchase, future purchase in the framework of environmentally sustainable consumption decision making process be examined. This could help in generalization of study. This study may be replicated in other geographical areas of India.

Another extension of this study would be to focus on identifying the impact of demographic variable on perceived influence of children on environmental sustainable consumption decision.

11. REFERENCES:

[1] Aghdaie,S.F.A., Renani, E.S.M.(2013), “Investigating the role of children in family purchasing process,” Journal of Applied Sciences Research.9(1),124–131.

[2] Alberti,M.(1996), “Measuring Urban Sustainability,” Environment impact assessment review. 16, 381-424.

[3] Asmuni,S., Khaili,J.M., Zain, Z.M.(2012), “ Sustainable consumption practices of students in an urban setting: A case in Selangor,” Social and behavioral sciences. 36, 716-722.

[4] Bates, S., Treganza, N. “ Education for Sustainability in the Early years: A case study from hallett Cove preschool.” Australian Sustainable school initiative South Australia. Available at: http://www.decd.sa.gov.au/efs/files/pages/HallettCovePreschoolCaseSt.pdf

[5] Census of India 2011; “Provisional population totals urban agglomeration and cities”, Government of India. Available at: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011provresults/paper2/ data_files/India2/1.%20Data%2)Highlight.pdf

[6] Chavda, H., Haley, M., Dunn,C. (2005), “Adolescents ’ influence on family decision- making,”Young Consumer. 2, 68-78.

[7] Emanuel, R., Adams, J.N. (2010), “College students’ perceptions of campus sustainability,” International journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 12, 79-92.

[8] Engdahl, I., Rabusicova, M.(2010), “Children’s Voices about the State of the Earth and Sustainable Development,” available at: http://www.omep.org.gu.se/digitalAssets /1314/1314390_esd-congress-report-child-interviews.pdf.

[9] Flurry, L.A. (2006), “Children ’ s influence in family decision-making: examining the impact of the changing american family,”Journal of Business Research. 60, 322-330.

[10] Guneri, B., Yurt,O., Kaplan, M.D. (2008), “ The influence of children on family purchase decision in Turkey ”, Asian Journal of Marketing. 2(1), 20-32.

[11] Hanss, D., Bohm, G. (2012), “Sustainability seen from the perspective of consumers”, International Journal of Consumer Studies. 36, 678-687.

[12] Hanss, D., Bohm, G. (2013), “Promoting purchase of sustainable groceries: an intervention study”, Journal of environmental psychology. 33, 53-67.

[13] Hume, M. (2010), “Compassion without action: Examining the young consumers consumption and attitude to sustainable consumption”, Journal of World Business. 45, 385-394.

[14] Isin, F.B., Alkibay, S. (2010). “Influence of children on purchasing decisions of well-to-do families”,Young Consumers. 12(1), 39-52.

[15] Jones,P., Comfort, D., Hillier,D.(2009), “Marleting Sustainable Consumption within stores: A case study of the UK’s leading Food Retailers”, Sustainability.1,815-826.

[16] Kaur,P., Singh, R.(2006), “Children in family purchase decision making in india and the west: a review,”Academy of Marketing Science Review.8,1-30.

[17] Kumar,S.(2013), “Children influence in the process of family purchase decision for high , low and child – centric products,” Journal of Arts,Science and Commerce.3(3), 34–44.

[18] Martensen, A., Gronholdt, L. (2008), “Children’s influence on family decision making”, Innovative Marketing. 4(4), 14-22.

[19] Phipps, M., Ozanne, L.K., Luchs, M.G., Subrahmanyan, S., Kapitan, S. (2012), “Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework,” Journal of Business Research. 1-8.

[20] Prothero, A., Dobscha,S., Freund, J., Kilboune, W.E., Luchs, M.G., Ozanne, L.K.(2011), “Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities for Consumer research and public policy”, Journal Of Public Policy and Marketing. 30 (1), 31-38.

[21] Ramzy, O., Ogden,D.T., Ogden, J.R., Zakaria,M.Y.(2012), “Perceptions of children ’ s influence on purchase decisions empirical investigation for the U . S . and Egyptian families,” World Journal of management. 4(1), 30–50.

[22] Sener, A., Hazer, O. (2008), “Values and Sustainable Consumption Behavior of Women: A Turkish Sample”, Sustainable Development. 16, 291-300.

[23] Shergill, G.S., Sekhon, H., Zhao, M. (2013), Parents ’ perception of teen ’ s influence on family purchase decisions a study of cultural assimilation,” Asia Pacific Journal Of marketing and Logistics. 25(1),162- 177.

[24] Shoham, A.(2005), “ He said, she said… they said: parents’ and children ’ s assessment of children’s influence on family consumption decisions”, Journal of consumer marketing. 22(3),152-160.

[25] Sidin, S.Md., Rahman, K. A., Rashid, Z.A.(2008), “Effects of social variables on children’s consumption attitude and behavior intentions,” Journal of consumer marketing.25(1),7-15.

[26] Tan, B.C., Lau, T.C. (2009), “Examining sustainable Consumption Patterns of Young Consumers: Is There a Cause for Concern”, The Journal of International Social Research. 2(9), 465-472.

[27] Tanner, C., Kaiser, F.G., Kast, S.W.(2004),“Contextual conditions of Ecological Consumerism: A Food purchasing survey,” Environment and Behavior. 36, 94-111.

[28] Tripathi, S. (2013), “An overview of India’s urbanization, urban economic growth and urban equity”, available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/45537/

[29] Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., Oates, C.J.(2010), “Sustainable Consumption: Green consumer behavior when purchasing products”, Sustainable Development. 18, 20-31.

Received on 29.08.2014 Modified on 10.09.2014

Asian J. Management 5(4): Oct.- Dec., 2014 page 420-430

Table 1: List of 29 products from literature review where children’s influence major decision
Used by child			Used by family
Toys	Cloths	School supplies	Food	Other	Services
Video games	Kids Cloths	CDs/DVDs	Fruit and Vegetable	Perfume/cologne	Family Dinner
Bicycle	Shoes		Dairy Products	Furniture for child’s room	Spare time activity
Friendship bands	Socks		Bottled water	Parents cloths	Movie
Dolls			Bread
Electronic Games			Fruit juices
Stuffed Animals			Breakfast cereal for the family
			Snacks
			Non carbonated drinks
			Candy
			Chewing gum
			Ice cream
			Chips and dried fruits
			Chocolate

Table 2: Studies defining sustainable consumption decision stages in various context
Author (year)	Objective	Population	Decision stages	Products
Asmuni et al. (2012)	Analyzing conservation behavior of students in relation to specific socio demographic characteristics.	University students	Purchase, using, recycling, dealing with waste products.	Energy conservation, purchase of energy saving appliances, refillable soaps or detergents etc.
Tan et al. (2009)	Investigating the consumption behavior young consumers	Undergraduate students	Selection, Minimization, Maximization, Segregation	Goods and services
Young et al. (2010)	Investigates the purchasing process for green consumers in relation to consumer technology products.		Micro-purchase decision	Cars, whit goods, brown goods, small household appliances computers.
Tanner et al. (2004)	Uncover personal and contextual factors that influence green food purchase	18 - 90 years	Purchase decision	Green food products
Hanss (2013)	Investigating the effects of an informational intervention strategy on purchasing intentions, actual purchase of sustainable groceries	18-70 years	Purchase decision	Sustainable groceries (e.g. orange juice, tea, strawberry jam, olives
Sener et.al. (2008)	Determine the impact of values on women’s sustainable consumption behavior	15-55 years	Purchase, use, recycle