Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the gathered data in tabular form analyzed and interpreted so as to

provide clear understanding on the problems as stated in Chapter 1.

1. Profile of the Respondents

Age

Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents according to

their age. The Majority of the respondents belong to the age group of 18-26 years old with 86 or

43%, while the least belong to the age group of above 63 years old with 1 or 0.50% respectively.

Table 2
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents
According to their Age
Age Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
18-26 86 43.00
27-35 59 29.50
36-44 39 19.50
45-53 15 7.50
Above 63 1 0.50
Total 200 100.00

The results signify that this age bracket represents the majority of the workforce. It was

reported in the Philippine Statistics Authority that the largest number of employed persons were

in age group 25 to 34 years old, which accounted for 27.6% of the total employed (PSA, 2020).

Employment Status

Table 3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents according to

their employment status. The majority of the respondents were private employees with 156 or
78% compared with the government employees with 4 or 22% respectively of the total

respondents.

Table 3
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents
According to their Employment Status
Employment Status Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
Government Employee 44 22.00
Private Employee 156 78.00
Total 200 100.00

The results manifest that majority of the respondents were employed in private

establishments than in the government, which can be associated with their age bracket being new

to employability.

Occupation

Table 4 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents according to

their occupation. The majority of the respondents were affiliated as cashier with 20 or 10% of the

total respondents, while the least have occupation of a lawyer, pharmacy aide, validator, admin

staff, barista, proj monitoring engr, freelancer, operation manager, social service assistance,

pharmacist, physical fitness specialist, lab aide, treasurer, florist, police officer, assistant cook,

janitress, housekeeping, financial analysts, auditor, bookkeeper, and a dentist with 1 or 0.50%

respectively from the total respondents .

Table 4
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents
According to their Occupation
Occupation Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
Kitchen Crew 1 0.50
Teaching 14 7.00
Lawyer 1 0.50
Pharmacy Aide 1 0.50
Sales Lady 15 7.50
Customer Service
3 1.50
Representative
Validator 1 0.50
Admin Aide 5 2.50
Admin Staff 1 0.50
Photographer 8 4.00
Barista 1 0.50
Proj Monitoring Eng 1 0.50
Business Owner 9 4.50
Freelancer 1 0.50
Operations Manager 1 0.50
Human Resource 2 1.00
Cashier 20 10.00
Seller 16 8.00
Clerk 9 4.50
Social Service Asst. 1 0.50
Shop Assistant 3 1.50
Hair Dresser 9 4.50
Pharmacist 1 0.50
Manager 11 5.50
Physical Fitness Specialist 1 0.50
Lab Aid 1 0.50
Treasurer 1 0.50
Nurse 3 1.50
Bank Teller 3 1.50
Florist 1 0.50
Marketing 13 6.50
IT 8 4.00
Police Officer 1 0.50
Assistant Cook 1 0.50
Designer 2 1.00
Secretary 6 3.00
Caregiver 4 2.00
Coach 4 2.00
Trainer 2 1.00
Receptionist 2 1.00
Janitress 1 0.50
Waitress 6 3.00
Housekeeping 1 0.50
 Financial Analysts 1 0.50
Auditor 1 0.50
Bookkeeper 1 0.50
Dentist 1 0.50
Total 200 100.00

The results showed that majority of the respondents were occupying a job position of

cashiers, which can be associated in previously reported affiliated private agency. Moreover,

most establishments are into female employees when it comes to cashiering.

Salary/Monthly Income

Table 5 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents according to

their salary/monthly income. The majority of the respondents have a salary/monthly income

ranging from less than P20,000 with 135 or 67.50%, while the least have salary/monthly income

of above P60,000 with 1 or 0.50% from the total respondents.

Table 5
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents
According to their Salary/Monthly Income
Salary/Monthly Income Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
Less than P20,000 135 67.50
P20,000-P30,000 46 23.00
P30,000-P40,000 15 7.50
P40,000-P50,000 3 1.50
Above P
1 0.50
60,000
Total 200 100.00

The results revealed that majority of the respondents earning a monthly salary of less than

P20,000 which are considered as low-income class but not poor between the poverty line and

twice the poverty line (PSA, 2020).

Years in Service
 Table 6 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents according to

their years in service. The majority of the respondents were in service for 3-5 years with 144 or

72% while the least were in service for 12-14 years with 3 or 1.50% of the total respondents

respectively.

Table 6
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents
According to their Years in Service
Years in Service Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
3-5 years 144 72.00
6-8 years 45 22.50
9-11 years 4 2.00
12-14 years 3 1.50
15 years and above 4 2.00
Total 200 100.00

The results show that the respondents were affiliated in their occupation for 3-5 years,

which can be considered as new to employability and can be associated with the previously

reported age bracket.

Civil Status

Table 7 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents according to

their civil status. The majority of the respondents were single with 116 or 58%, while the least

were divorced with 6 or 3% from the total respondents.

Table 7
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents
According to their Civil Status
Civil Status Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
Single 116 58.00
Married 78 39.00
Divorced 6 3.00
Total 200 100.00
 The results manifest that majority of the respondents were single, which indicates that

single individual are majority in the labor workforce. Also, most private companies preferred

single applicant compared to married one due to fringe benefits entitled to married employee.

Number in Family

Table 8 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents according to

their number in family. The majority of the respondents have number in the family ranging from

3-5 members with 110 or 55%, while the least have number in the family of more than 9

members with 33 or 16.50% respectively from the total respondents.

Table 8
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents
According to their Number in Family
Number in Family Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
3-5 110 55.00
6-8 57 28.50
9+ 33 16.50
Total 200 100.00

The results show that majority of the respondents belong to a family with 3-5 members, a

typical family size in the Philippines for poor to middle social class, given the income received

monthly.

2. Respondents on the Factors that Influence Green Products Purchasing Decision

2.1 Environmental Support

Table 9 shows the responses of the respondents on the factors that influence green

products purchasing decision in terms of environmental support.

The respondents strongly agree on the environmental supports factors that influences the

purchasing decision of buying green products with and overall weighted mean of 3.46. They

likewise strongly agree that green products are better option for me for the future sustainability
with the highest weighted mean of 3.61, ranked 1 st. Similarly, strongly agree that they used green

eco-bag when buying groceries to lessen plastic consumption, and they change to green

consumption for environmental reasons with the lowest weighted means of 3.42, ranked last

respectively.

Table 9
Respondents on the Factors that Influence Green Products Purchasing Decision
in terms of Environmental Support
Weighted Descriptive Rank
Statements
Mean Interpretation
1. Green products are better option for me for the 3.61 Strongly Agree 1
future sustainability.
2. I buy more green products for the benefit of 3.43 Strongly Agree 2.5
environment preservation
3. I used green eco-bag when buying groceries to 3.42 Strongly Agree 4.5
lessen plastic consumption.
4. I prefer purchasing products that I can recycle. 3.43 Strongly Agree 2.5
5. I change to green consumption for 3.42 Strongly Agree 4.5
environmental reasons
Overall Weighted Mean 3.46 Strongly Agree

The findings show that the respondents strongly agree on the environmental support

factors in purchasing green products decisions. This can be connected with the work of Moser

(2015) that consumers give importance of environmental products to save the environment, the

consumers then transform their concern through buying actions and purchasing the eco-friendly

products. Similarly, it was noted that customers have the capability to prevent or decrease

environmental damage by purchasing green products (Joshi & Rahman, 2015).

2.2 Environmental Responsibility and Protection

Table 10 shows the responses of the respondents on the factors that influence green

products purchasing decision in terms of environmental responsibility and protection.

The respondents strongly agree on the environmental responsibility and protection factors

that influences the purchasing decision of buying green products with and overall weighted mean
of 3.48. They strongly agree as well that to protect the environment they avoid using plastic bags

and other potentially hazardous materials when buying with the highest weighted mean of 3.53,

ranked 1st. Similarly, strongly agree that they avoid buying non-green products that have harmful

effect in environment with the lowest weighted mean of 3.40, ranked 5th.

Table 10
Respondents on the Factors that Influence Green Products Purchasing Decision
in terms of Environmental Responsibility and Protection
Weighted Descriptive Rank
Statements
Mean Interpretation
1. Environmental issues are consumer 3.51 Strongly Agree 2.5
responsibility.
2. To protect the environment, I avoid using 3.53 Strongly Agree 1
plastic bags and other potentially hazardous
materials when buying.
3. I avoid buying non-green products that have 3.40 Strongly Agree 5
harmful effect in environment.
4. I prefer to buy products that is environmentally 3.44 Strongly Agree 4
responsible.
5. It is important to me that the product I use do 3.51 Strongly Agree 2.5
not harm the environment.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.48 Strongly Agree

The results indicate that the respondents strongly agree on the environmental

responsibility and protection factors in purchasing green products decision which can be

connected in the work of Joshi and Rahman (2015) that customers have the capability to prevent

or decrease environmental damage by purchasing green products. Moreover, when government

rules throughout the world are quite tight and the entire world is talking about global warming,

climate change, and environmental protection business will have no choice but to implement

green marketing, or it may be too late to exist in a greener future (Desai, 2015).

2.3 Green Product Awareness

Table 11 shows the perception of the respondents on the factors that influence green

products purchasing decision in terms of green product awareness.

 The respondents strongly agree on the green product awareness that influences the

purchasing decision of buying green products with and overall weighted mean 3.36, ranked 1 st.

They also strongly agree in the information of eco-friendly packaging with the highest weighted

mean of 3.50. However, they agree that they have attended to conference/seminars about green

products with the lowest weighted mean of 3.14, ranked 5th.

Table 11
Respondents on the Factors that Influence Green Products Purchasing Decision
in terms of Green Product Awareness
Weighted Descriptive Rank
Statements
Mean Interpretation
1. I have a thorough knowledge about green 3.33 Strongly Agree 4
products I bought.
2. I bought products if I know it’s eco-friendly 3.41 Strongly Agree 2.5

3. I have attended to conference/seminars about 3.14 Agree 5

green products.
4. I believe in the information of eco-friendly 3.50 Strongly Agree 1
packaging.
5. I always check the label before buying if it is 3.41 Strongly Agree 2.5
ecofriendly.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.36 Strongly Agree

The findings show that the respondents strongly agree on the green product awareness in

purchasing green products decision, this is because the consumer knowledge influences all

aspects of consumer purchasing behavior, making it an important phenomenon for marketers to

probe and understand (Ellis, 2015). Similarly, claims stated that one set of factors are intrinsic to

the consumers such as realization of their environmental responsibilities, quest for gaining

knowledge, self-interest and willingness to act for resource conservation and reduced impact on

the environment such as social image of consumers and product characteristics (Kumar, 2015).

Knowledge can be related as well to awareness and effect consumer purchasing choices or

movements (Siddique & Hossain, 2018).

2.4 Green Advertisement

Table 12 shows the responses of the respondents on the factors that influence green

products purchasing decision in terms of green advertisement.

The respondents strongly agree on the green advertisement that influences the purchasing

decision of buying green products with and overall weighted mean 3.51. Similarly, they strongly

agree that attractive environmental advertisement will encourage them to buy green products

with the highest weighted mean of 3.56, ranked 1st. They also strongly agree on planning to

switch to products and services that were advertised as being green with the lowest weighted

mean of 3.46, ranked 5th.

Table 12
Respondents on the Factors that Influence Green Products Purchasing Decision
in terms of Green Advertisement
Weighted Descriptive Rank
Statements
Mean Interpretation
1. Attractive environmental advertisement will 3.56 Strongly Agree 1
encourage me to buy green products
2. I enjoy watching advertisement focusing on 3.53 Strongly Agree 2.5
environmental values
3. I tend to be more loyal to products from 3.48 Strongly Agree 4
companies that practice green advertising
4. Green advertising is a good source of 3.53 Strongly Agree 2.5
information about product/services
5. I plan to switch to products and services that 3.46 Strongly agree 5
were advertised as being green
Overall Weighted Mean 3.51 Strongly Agree

The findings show that the respondents strongly agree on the green advertisement factors

in purchasing green products decision, which indicates that green advertising address the

relationship between a product or service and the natural environment, advocate an

environmentally responsible lifestyle, and highlight a corporate environmental image or

responsibility (Schmuck, 2017). According to Erdogmus and Cicek (2016), green advertising is
one of the methods marketers use to position their products as green products in the minds of

consumers. Green advertising also affects individual attitudes towards advertising, and their

intention to be friendly to the environment (Kim, Malek, & Roberts, 2019). Furthermore, only by

understanding green products and consumers’ expectations can good green marketing strategies

be established as a part of the green campaign of consumers for environmental protection

(Dangelico, 2017).

2.5 Green Packaging

Table 13 shows the responses of the respondents on the factors that influence green

products purchasing decision in terms of green packaging.

The respondents strongly agree on the green packaging that influences the purchasing

decision of buying green products with and overall weighted mean 3.45. They likewise strongly

agree on preferring to buy products that use eco-friendly packaging with the highest weighted

mean of 3.54, ranked 1st. Similarly, strongly agree that after using original product they re-use

green packaging many time, as well as, that one cardboard-layer packaging protects product

from contaminating well as multi-layer packaging does with the lowest means respectively of

3.40, ranked last.

Table 13
Respondents on the Factors that Influence Green Products Purchasing Decision
in terms of Green Packaging
Weighted Descriptive Rank
Statements
Mean Interpretation
1. Packaging helps me distinguish a green 3.49 Strongly Agree 2
product
2. I prefer to buy products that use eco-friendly 3.54 Strongly Agree 1
packaging
3. I find eco-friendly packaging more appealing 3.45 Strongly Agree 3
than non-eco-friendly packaging
4. After using original product, I re-use green 3.40 Strongly Agree 4.5
packaging many time
 5. One cardboard-layer packaging protects product 3.40 Strongly agree 4.5
from contaminating well as multi-layer
packaging does
Overall Weighted Mean 3.45 Strongly Agree

The respondents strongly agree on the green packaging in purchasing green products

decision, as packaging does not only serve to protect the main product, but is also expected to be

environmentally friendly to reduced environmental problems due to the packaging waste

(Tuwanku & Armanu, 2018). Moreover, green packaging includes three main identities, they are

minimizing the use of hard-to-decompose packaging, using a packaging with low energy

consumption, and using the environmentally friendly packaging (Molina-Besch, 2016).

Similarly, green packaging issue is often used to demonstrate the company’s commitment to

environmental sustainability and increase the brand popularity (Byrne, 2017).

2.6 Quality

Table 14 shows the responses of the respondents on the factors that influence green

products purchasing decision in terms of quality.

The respondents strongly agree on the quality that influences the purchasing decision of

buying green products with and overall weighted mean 3.53. They correspondingly strongly

agree believing the quality of green products affect their decision to purchase, as well as, the

quality of the products determines whether the customers will develop strong and loyal

relationships with manufacturers with the highest weighted means of 3.55, ranked 1 st

respectively. They likewise strongly that they prefer product that easy to recycle, disassemble

and decompose with the lowest weighted mean of 3.51, ranked 5th.

Table 14
Respondents on the Factors that Influence Green Products Purchasing Decision
in terms of Quality
 Weighted Descriptive Rank
Statements
Mean Interpretation
1. I believe the quality of green products affect 3.55 Strongly Agree 1.5
my decision to purchase.
2. I prefer green products that helps environmental 3.52 Strongly Agree 3.5
sustainability.
3. I prefer to buy product that meet or exceed the 3.52 Strongly Agree 3.5
requirements of environmental regulations.
4. The quality of the products determines whether 3.55 Strongly Agree 1.5
the customers will develop strong and loyal
relationships with manufacturers
5. I prefer product that easy to recycle, disassemble 3.51 Strongly agree 5
and decompose.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.53 Strongly Agree

The respondents strongly agree as well on the quality in purchasing green products

decision, which indicates that green marketing must focus also on improved environmental

quality as well as consumer satisfaction (Eneizan & Alhamad, 2019). A study of Siddique and

Hossain (2018) that people believe in better quality of green product and considered it as worthy

for environmental betterment.

2.7 Price

Table 15 shows the responses of the respondents on the factors that influence green

products purchasing decision in terms of price.

The respondents strongly agree on the price that influences the purchasing decision of

buying green products with and overall weighted mean 3.34. Similarly, they strongly agree that

as long as the product is certified, the price does not play an important role with the highest

weighted mean of 3.37, ranked 1st. However, they agree that they are willing to pay a higher

price for the eco-friendly products with the lowest weighted mean of 3.23, ranked 5th.

Table 15
Respondents on the Factors that Influence Green Products Purchasing Decision
in terms of Price
 Weighted Descriptive Rank
Statements
Mean Interpretation
1. I am willing to pay a higher price for the eco- 3.23 Agree 5
friendly products.
2. I am willing to invest more on green products. 3.36 Strongly Agree 3

3. Buying green products at higher price is worth it 3.34 Strongly Agree 4

4. I buy products made from recycled materials to 3.41 Strongly Agree 2

save resources and energy.
5. As long as the product is certified, the price does 3.37 Strongly agree 1
not play an important role.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.34 Strongly Agree

The respondents strongly agree also on the price in purchasing green product decision,

which supported the work of Zhang and Dong (2020) stated that products should not only meet

the practical and price needs of consumers but should also provide the environmental benefits

expected by consumers. Even though the price of green products in the market is relatively

higher than that of traditional products, but they still occupy a place in the market mainly

because people attach much more importance to environmental issues, and they are willing to

pay a green product premium for the purpose of environmental protection (Zhang & Dong,

2020). Another claim show that the price information and brand image significantly affects green

buying decision (Siddique & Hossain, 2018).

Table 16 shows the summary results of the different factors that influences green

products purchasing decision of the respondents.

Table 16
Summary Table on the Factors that Influence Green Products Purchasing Decision
of the Respondents
Weighted Descriptive Rank
Factors
Mean Interpretation
1. Environmental Support 3.46 Strongly Agree 4

2. Environmental Responsibility and 3.48 Strongly Agree 3

Protection
 3. Green Product Awareness 3.36 Strongly Agree 6

4. Green Advertisement 3.51 Strongly Agree 2

5. Green Packaging 3.45 Strongly Agree 5

6. Quality 3.53 Strongly Agree 1

7. Price 3.34 Strongly Agree 7

The results show that the respondents strongly agree in all identified factors which

indicates that Philippines much like other countries has seen a rise in the number of people

concerned who want to protect the environment (Nodalo, 2020). Another survey conducted by

The Nerve, four common types of individuals interested in caring for the environment emerged.

Furthermore, Thomas, Fisher, Whitmarsh, Milfont, and Poortinga (2018) claimed that

willingness to engage in sustainable actions may be limited by the psychological distance of

climate change.

3. Test of Significant Difference on the Factors that Influence Green Purchasing Decision
when Grouped According to the Profile Variables

3.1 Environmental Support and Profile Variables

Table 17 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on the

environmental support factors that influence the respondent’s green purchasing decision when

grouped according to the profile variables.

The computed value of 0.188 for age, 0.492 for employment status, 0.762 for occupation,

0.848 for salary/monthly income, 0.279 for year in service, 0.942 for civil status, and 0.229 for

number in family was greater than > the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null
hypothesis was accepted, hence there is no significant difference on the environmental support

factors when grouped according to the profile variables.

Table 17
Test of Significant Difference on the Factors that Influence Green Purchasing Decision in
terms of Environmental Support when Grouped According to Profile Variables
Sources of Variations SS df MS F Sig. Decision

Between Groups 1.286 4 0.322 1.554

Accept Ho
Age Within Groups 40.361 195 0.207 0.188
Not Significant
Total 41.647 199
Between Groups 0.100 1 0.100 0.474
Employment 0.492 Accept Ho
Within Groups 41.548 198 0.210
Status Not Significant
Total 41.647 199
Between Groups 8.340 46 0.181 0.833
0.762 Accept Ho
Occupation Within Groups 33.307 153 0.218 Not Significant
Total 41.647 199
Between Groups 0.292 4 0.073 0.344
Salary/Monthly 0.848 Accept Ho
Within Groups 41.355 195 0.212
Income Not Significant
Total 41.647 199
Between Groups 1.066 4 0.267 1.281
0.279 Accept Ho
Year in Service Within Groups 40.581 195 0.208 Not Significant
Total 41.647 199
Between Groups 0.025 2 0.013 0.060
0.942 Accept Ho
Civil Status Within Groups 41.622 197 0.211 Not Significant
Total 41.647 199
Between Groups 0.619 2 0.310 1.487
Number in 0.229 Accept Ho
Within Groups 41.028 197 0.208
Family Not Significant
Total 41.647 199

The results show no significant difference in terms of environmental support factors

based on the respondents’ profile variables which indicates that environmental support factors do

not varies. The current findings contradict with the claims that time pressure, distraction,

irrelevant information, and environmental support can influence older adults’ decision making to

an even greater extent than younger consumers (Environmental Suppport, 2021). While some of
these factors have detrimental effects, others may serve to enhance decision performance

(Carpenter & Yoon, 2015).

Environmental Responsibility and Protection and Profile Variables

Table 18 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on the

environmental responsibility and protection factors that influence the respondent’s green

purchasing decision when grouped according to the profile variables.

The computed value of 0.073 for age, 0.691 for employment status, 0.296 for occupation,

0.466 for salary/monthly income, 0.115 for year in service, 0.710 for civil status, and 0.604 for

number in family was greater than > the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null

hypothesis was accepted, hence there is no significant difference on the environmental

responsibility and protection factors when grouped according to the profile variables.

Table 18
Test of Significant Difference on the Factors that Influence Green Purchasing Decision in
terms of Environmental Responsibility and Protection when Grouped According to Profile
Variables
Sources of Variations SS df MS F Sig. Decision

Between Groups 1.735 4 0.434 2.181

Accept Ho
Age Within Groups 38.790 195 0.199 0.073
Not Significant
Total 40.525 199
Between Groups 0.032 1 0.032 0.159
Employment 0.691 Accept Ho
Within Groups 40.492 198 0.205
Status Not Significant
Total 40.525 199
Between Groups 10.230 46 0.222 1.123
0.296 Accept Ho
Occupation Within Groups 30.295 153 0.198 Not Significant
Total 40.525 199
Between Groups 0.733 4 0.183 0.898
Salary/Monthly 0.466 Accept Ho
Within Groups 39.792 195 0.204
Income Not Significant
Total 40.525 199
Between Groups 1.505 4 0.376 1.880
0.115 Accept Ho
Year in Service Within Groups 39.020 195 0.200 Not Significant
Total 40.525 199
 Between Groups 0.141 2 0.070 0.343
0.710 Accept Ho
Civil Status Within Groups 40.384 197 0.205 Not Significant
Total 40.525 199
Between Groups 0.207 2 0.104 0.506
Number in 0.604 Accept Ho
Within Groups 40.318 197 0.205
Family Not Significant
Total 40.525 199

The results show no significant difference as well in terms of environmental

responsibility and protection, which indicates that this factor does not vary based on the

respondents’ profile variables. The current findings contradict with the statement of Halmatov

and Ata (2017) that being aware of environmental problems, believing in the necessity of

struggle with them and also making efforts in this direction is a situation that every individual

should have. According to Jaki and Rojek (2019), the issue on environmental responsibility takes

on a considerably pragmatic dimension, especially in relation to companies’ perspective

regarding a series of norms and official documents that require and promote virtuous behavior

aimed at preserving the environment.

Green Product Awareness and Profile Variables

Table 19 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on the green

product awareness factors that influence the respondent’s green purchasing decision when

grouped according to the profile variables.

The computed value of 0.042 for age, 0.049 for year in service, and 0.004 for number in

family was less than < the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis was

rejected, hence there is significant difference on the green product awareness factors when

grouped according to age, year in service, and number in family profile variables.

On the other hand, the computed value of 0.763 for employment status, 0.520 for

occupation, 0.590 for salary/monthly income, and 0.804 for civil status was greater than > the
0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted, hence there is no

significant difference on the green product awareness factors when grouped according to

employment status, occupation, salary/monthly income, and civil status profile variables.

Table 19
Test of Significant Difference on the Factors that Influence Green Purchasing Decision in
terms of Green Product Awareness when Grouped According to Profile Variables
Sources of Variations SS df MS F Sig. Decision

Between Groups 3.009 4 0.752 2.533

Reject Ho
Age Within Groups 57.906 195 0.297 0.042
Significant
Total 60.915 199
Between Groups 0.028 1 0.028 0.091
Employment 0.763 Accept Ho
Within Groups 60.887 198 0.308
Status Not Significant
Total 60.915 199
Between Groups 13.842 46 0.301 0.978
0.520 Accept Ho
Occupation Within Groups 47.073 153 0.308 Not Significant
Total 60.915 199
Between Groups 0.220 4 0.055 0.176
Salary/Monthly 0.950 Accept Ho
Within Groups 60.695 195 0.311
Income Not Significant
Total 60.915 199
Between Groups 2.886 4 0.722 2.425
0.049 Reject Ho
Year in Service Within Groups 58.029 195 0.298 Significant
Total 60.915 199
Between Groups 0.135 2 0.067 0.218
0.804 Accept Ho
Civil Status Within Groups 60.780 197 0.309 Not Significant
Total 60.915 199
Between Groups 3.351 2 1.676 5.735
Number in 0.004 Reject Ho
Within Groups 57.564 197 0.292
Family Significant
Total 60.915 199

The significant differences on the green product awareness factors varies on the

respondents’ age, year in service, and number in family. This indicates that consumer knowledge

influences all aspects of consumer purchasing behavior, making it an important phenomenon for

marketers to probe and understand (Ellis, 2015), and that eco-packaging helps to build positive
image and judgement of consumers. Moreover, it was noted that awareness about green products

all have significant impacts on green purchase behavior (Zhang & Dong, 2020).

Green Advertisement

Table 20 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on the green

advertisement factors that influence the respondent’s green purchasing decision when grouped

according to the profile variables.

The computed value of 0.000 for age and 0.004 for year in service was less than < the

0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, hence there is

significant difference on the green advertisement factors when grouped according to age and

year in service profile variables.

On the other hand, the computed value of 0.408 for employment status, 0.339 for

occupation, 0.702 for salary/monthly income, 0.993 for civil status, and 0.065 for number in

family was greater than > the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis

was accepted, hence there is no significant difference on the green advertisement factors when

grouped according to employment status, occupation, salary/monthly income, civil status, and

number in family profile variables.

Table 20
Test of Significant Difference on the Factors that Influence Green Purchasing Decision in
terms of Green Advertisement when Grouped According to Profile Variables
Sources of Variations SS df MS F Sig. Decision

Between Groups 4.588 4 1.147 5.500

Reject Ho
Age Within Groups 40.668 195 0.209 0.000
Significant
Total 45.256 199
Between Groups 0.156 1 0.156 0.686
Employment 0.408 Accept Ho
Within Groups 45.100 198 0.228
Status Not Significant
Total 45.256 199
Occupation Between Groups 11.187 46 0.243 1.092 0.339 Accept Ho
Within Groups Not Significant
34.069 153 0.223
 Total 45.256 199
Between Groups 0.502 4 0.125 0.546
Salary/Monthly 0.702 Accept Ho
Within Groups 44.754 195 0.230
Income Not Significant
Total 45.256 199
Between Groups 3.454 4 0.863 4.028
0.004 Reject Ho
Year in Service Within Groups 41.802 195 0.214 Significant
Total 45.256 199
Between Groups 0.003 2 0.002 0.007
0.993 Accept Ho
Civil Status Within Groups 45.253 197 0.230 Not Significant
Total 45.256 199
Between Groups 1.237 2 0.619 2.769
Number in 0.065 Accept Ho
Within Groups 44.019 197 0.223
Family Not Significant
Total 45.256 199

The significant differences on the green advertisement factors varies on the respondents’

age and year in service, which indicates that green advertisement impacted the respondents being

young or old, the same thing with the length of service the respondents in the company which

raises its awareness on eco-friendly products. Schmuck (2017) stated that green advertising

address the relationship between a product or service and the natural environment, advocate an

environmentally responsible lifestyle, and highlight a corporate environmental image or

responsibility. Consequently, green advertising is one of the methods marketers use to position

their products as green products in the minds of consumers (Erdogmus & Cicek, 2016).

Furthermore, green advertising affects individual attitudes towards advertising, and their

intention to be friendly to the environment (Kim, Malek, & Roberts, 2019).

Green Packaging and Profile Variables

Table 21 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on the green

packaging factors that influence the respondent’s green purchasing decision when grouped

according to the profile variables.

 The computed value of 0.041 for age, 0.032 for year in service, and 0.006 for number in

family was less than < the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis was

rejected, hence there is significant difference on the green packaging factors when grouped

according to age year in service, and number in family profile variables.

On the other hand, the computed value of 0.473 for employment status, 0.188 for

occupation, 0.485 for salary/monthly income, and 0.761 for civil status was greater than > the

0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted, hence there is no

significant difference on the green packaging factors when grouped according to employment

status, occupation, salary/monthly income, and civil status profile variables.

Table 21
Test of Significant Difference on the Factors that Influence Green Purchasing Decision in
terms of Green Packaging when Grouped According to Profile Variables
Sources of Variations SS df MS F Sig. Decision

Between Groups 2.125 4 0.531 2.542

Reject Ho
Age Within Groups 40.755 195 0.209 0.041
Significant
Total 42.880 199
Between Groups 0.111 1 0.111 0.516
Employment 0.473 Accept Ho
Within Groups 42.768 198 0.216
Status Not Significant
Total 42.880 199
Between Groups 11.500 46 0.250 1.219
0.188 Accept Ho
Occupation Within Groups 31.380 153 0.205 Not Significant
Total 42.880 199
Between Groups 0.749 4 0.187 0.866
Salary/Monthly 0.485 Accept Ho
Within Groups 42.131 195 0.216
Income Not Significant
Total 42.880 199
Between Groups 2.254 4 0.564 2.705
0.032 Reject Ho
Year in Service Within Groups 40.625 195 0.208 Significant
Total 42.880 199
Between Groups 0.119 2 0.059 0.274
0.761 Accept Ho
Civil Status Within Groups 42.761 197 0.217 Not Significant
Total 42.880 199
Number in Between Groups 2.143 2 1.071 5.181 0.006 Reject Ho
Family Within Groups Significant
40.737 197 0.207
 Total 42.880 199

The significant differences on the green packaging factors varies on the respondents’ age,

year in service, and number in family, which indicates that packaging impacted the respondents,

this is because, green packaging has been an attractive issue both for consumers and retailers in

the past decade and is also in line with increasing consumer awareness in environmental

sustainability, at the same time, it does not only serve to protect the main product, but is also

expected to be environmentally friendly to reduced environmental problems due to the packaging

waste (Tuwanku & Armanu, 2018). Similarly, green packaging includes three main identities,

they are minimizing the use of hard-to-decompose packaging, using a packaging with low energy

consumption, and using the environmentally friendly packaging (Molina-Besch, 2016). And eco-

friendly products often used to demonstrate the company’s commitment to environmental

sustainability and increase the brand popularity (Byrne, 2017).

Quality and Profile Variables

Table 22 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on quality

factors that influence the respondent’s green purchasing decision when grouped according to the

profile variables.

The computed value of 0.091 for age, 0.952 for employment status, 0.066 for occupation,

0.401 for salary/monthly income, 0.063 for year in service, 0.551 for civil status, and 0.064 for

number in family was greater than > the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null

hypothesis was accepted, hence there is no significant difference on quality factors when

grouped according to the profile variables.

Table 22
Test of Significant Difference on the Factors that Influence Green Purchasing Decision in
terms of Quality when Grouped According to Profile Variables
 Sources of Variations SS df MS F Sig. Decision

Between Groups 1.774 4 0.444 2.033

Accept Ho
Age Within Groups 42.549 195 0.218 0.091
Not Significant
Total 44.323 199
Between Groups 0.001 1 0.001 0.004
Employment 0.952 Accept Ho
Within Groups 44.322 198 0.224
Status Not Significant
Total 44.323 199
Between Groups 13.156 46 0.286 1.404
0.066 Accept Ho
Occupation Within Groups 31.167 153 0.204 Not Significant
Total 44.323 199
Between Groups 0.904 4 0.226 1.015
Salary/Monthly 0.401 Accept Ho
Within Groups 43.419 195 0.223
Income Not Significant
Total 44.323 199
Between Groups 1.973 4 0.493 2.271
0.063 Accept Ho
Year in Service Within Groups 42.350 195 0.217 Not Significant
Total 44.323 199
Between Groups 0.267 2 0.134 0.598
0.551 Accept Ho
Civil Status Within Groups 44.056 197 0.224 Not Significant
Total 44.323 199
Between Groups 1.221 2 0.610 2.789
Number in 0.064 Accept Ho
Within Groups 43.103 197 0.219
Family Not Significant
Total 44.323 199

The results show no significant difference in terms quality factors based on the

respondents’ profile variables, which indicates that this factor does not vary with the

respondents. However, according to Eneizan and Alhamad (2019), green marketing must focus

on improved environmental quality as well as consumer satisfaction. It contradicts the work of

Siddique and Hossain (2018) as well, stating that youngsters believe in better quality of green

product and considered it as worthy for environmental betterment.

Price and Profile Variables

 Table 22 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on the price

factors that influence the respondent’s green purchasing decision when grouped according to the

profile variables.

The computed value of 0.010 for age, 0.047 for employment status, and 0.002 for number

in family was less than < the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis was

rejected, hence there is significant difference on the price factors when grouped according to age

employment status, and number in family profile variables.

On the other hand, the computed value of 0.508 for occupation, 0.092 for salary/monthly

income, 0.400 for year in service, and 0.201 for civil status was greater than > the 0.05 Alpha

Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted, hence there is no significant

difference on the price factors when grouped according to employment status, occupation,

salary/monthly income, and civil status profile variables

Table 22
Test of Significant Difference on the Factors that Influence Green Purchasing Decision in
terms of Price when Grouped According to Profile Variables
Sources of Variations SS df MS F Sig. Decision

Between Groups 4.616 4 1.154 3.398

Reject Ho
Age Within Groups 66.215 195 0.340 0.010
Significant
Total 70.831 199
Between Groups 1.399 1 1.399 3.988
Employment 0.047 Reject Ho
Within Groups 69.433 198 0.351
Status Significant
Total 70.831 199
Between Groups 16.182 46 0.352 .985
0.508 Accept Ho
Occupation Within Groups 54.649 153 0.357 Not Significant
Total 70.831 199
Between Groups 2.833 4 0.708 2.031
Salary/Monthly 0.092 Accept Ho
Within Groups 67.998 195 0.349
Income Not Significant
Total 70.831 199
Between Groups 1.447 4 0.362 1.017
0.400 Accept Ho
Year in Service Within Groups 69.384 195 0.356 Not Significant
Total 70.831 199
 Between Groups 1.144 2 0.572 1.617
0.201 Accept Ho
Civil Status Within Groups 69.687 197 0.354 Not Significant
Total 70.831 199
Between Groups 4.315 2 2.157 6.390
Number in 0.002 Reject Ho
Within Groups 66.516 197 0.338
Family Significant
Total 70.831 199

The significant difference in terms of price factor varies based on the respondents’ age,

employment status, and number in family, which indicates that products should not only meet the

practical and price needs of consumers but should also provide the environmental benefits

expected by consumers, the price of green products in the market is relatively higher than that of

traditional products, but they still occupy a place in the market mainly because people attach

much more importance to environmental issues, and they are willing to pay a green product

premium for the purpose of environmental protection (Zhang & Dong, 2020). Similarly, the price

information and brand image significantly affects green buying decision (Siddique & Hossain,

2018).
 Chapter 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of the investigations conducted, the conclusions

arrived at and the recommendations formulated based from the findings.

This study aimed to determine The Factors that Influence Green Products Purchasing

Decision of Female Employees in Iba, Zambales for year 2020-2021.

The respondents were composed of 200 female employees in Iba, Zambales, through

quota sampling. The survey questionnaire method was used in data gathering, composed of 2

parts: (1) the profile of the respondents, and (2) factors the influence the green purchasing

decision of the respondents.

1. Profile of the Respondents

Age. The Majority of the respondents belong to the age group of 18-26 years old with 86 or 43%,

while the least belong to the age group of above 63 years old with 1 or 0.50% respectively.

Employment Status. The majority of the respondents were private employees with 156 or 78%

compared with the government employees with 4 or 22% respectively of the total respondents.

Occupation. The majority of the respondents were affiliated as cashier with 20 or 10% of the

total respondents, while the least have occupation of a lawyer, pharmacy aide, validator, admin

staff, barista, proj monitoring engr, freelancer, operation manager, social service assistance,

pharmacist, physical fitness specialist, lab aide, treasurer, florist, police officer, assistant cook,

janitress, housekeeping, financial analysts, auditor, bookkeeper, and a dentist with 1 or 0.50%

respectively from the total respondents .

Salary/Monthly Income. The majority of the respondents have a salary/monthly income ranging

from less than P20,000 with 135 or 67.50%, while the least have salary/monthly income of above

P60,000 with 1 or 0.50% from the total respondents.

Years in Service. The majority of the respondents were in service for 3-5 years with 144 or 72%

while the least were in service for 12-14 years with 3 or 1.50% of the total respondents

respectively.

Civil Status. The majority of the respondents were single with 116 or 58%, while the least were

divorced with 6 or 3% from the total respondents.

Number in Family. The majority of the respondents have number in the family ranging from 3-

5 members with 110 or 55%, while the least have number in the family of more than 9 members

with 33 or 16.50% respectively from the total respondents.

2. Respondents on the Factors that Influence Green Products Purchasing Decision

2.1 Environmental Support

The respondents strongly agree on the environmental supports factors that influences the

purchasing decision of buying green products with and overall weighted mean of 3.46. They

likewise strongly agree that green products are better option for me for the future sustainability

with the highest weighted mean of 3.61, ranked 1 st. Similarly, strongly agree that they used green

eco-bag when buying groceries to lessen plastic consumption, and they change to green

consumption for environmental reasons with the lowest weighted means of 3.42, ranked last

respectively.

2.2 Environmental Responsibility and Protection

The respondents strongly agree on the environmental responsibility and protection factors that

influences the purchasing decision of buying green products with and overall weighted mean of
3.48. They strongly agree as well that to protect the environment they avoid using plastic bags

and other potentially hazardous materials when buying with the highest weighted mean of 3.53,

ranked 1st. Similarly, strongly agree that they avoid buying non-green products that have harmful

effect in environment with the lowest weighted mean of 3.40, ranked 5th.

2.3 Green Product Awareness

The respondents strongly agree on the green product awareness that influences the purchasing

decision of buying green products with and overall weighted mean 3.36, ranked 1 st. They also

strongly agree in the information of eco-friendly packaging with the highest weighted mean of

3.50. However, they agree that they have attended to conference/seminars about green products

with the lowest weighted mean of 3.14, ranked 5th.

2.4 Green Advertisement

The respondents strongly agree on the green advertisement that influences the purchasing

decision of buying green products with and overall weighted mean 3.51. Similarly, they strongly

agree that attractive environmental advertisement will encourage them to buy green products

with the highest weighted mean of 3.56, ranked 1st. They also strongly agree on planning to

switch to products and services that were advertised as being green with the lowest weighted

mean of 3.46, ranked 5th.

2.5 Green Packaging

The respondents strongly agree on the green packaging that influences the purchasing decision of

buying green products with and overall weighted mean 3.45. They likewise strongly agree on

preferring to buy products that use eco-friendly packaging with the highest weighted mean of

3.54, ranked 1st. Similarly, strongly agree that after using original product they re-use green

packaging many time, as well as, that one cardboard-layer packaging protects product from
contaminating well as multi-layer packaging does with the lowest means respectively of 3.40,

ranked last.

2.6 Quality

The respondents strongly agree on the quality that influences the purchasing decision of buying

green products with and overall weighted mean 3.53. They correspondingly strongly agree

believing the quality of green products affect their decision to purchase, as well as, the quality of

the products determines whether the customers will develop strong and loyal relationships with

manufacturers with the highest weighted means of 3.55, ranked 1 st respectively. They likewise

strongly that they prefer product that easy to recycle, disassemble and decompose with the

lowest weighted mean of 3.51, ranked 5th.

2.7 Price

The respondents strongly agree on the price that influences the purchasing decision of buying

green products with and overall weighted mean 3.34. Similarly, they strongly agree that as long

as the product is certified, the price does not play an important role with the highest weighted

mean of 3.37, ranked 1st. However, they agree that they are willing to pay a higher price for the

eco-friendly products with the lowest weighted mean of 3.23, ranked 5th.

3. Test of Significant Difference on the Factors that Influence Green Purchasing Decision
when Grouped According to the Profile Variables

3.1 Environmental Support and Profile Variables

The computed value of 0.188 for age, 0.492 for employment status, 0.762 for occupation, 0.848

for salary/monthly income, 0.279 for year in service, 0.942 for civil status, and 0.229 for number

in family was greater than > the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis

was accepted, hence there is no significant difference on the environmental support factors when

grouped according to the profile variables.

Environmental Responsibility and Protection and Profile Variables

The computed value of 0.073 for age, 0.691 for employment status, 0.296 for occupation, 0.466

for salary/monthly income, 0.115 for year in service, 0.710 for civil status, and 0.604 for number

in family was greater than > the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis

was accepted, hence there is no significant difference on the environmental responsibility and

protection factors when grouped according to the profile variables.

Green Product Awareness and Profile Variables

The computed value of 0.042 for age, 0.049 for year in service, and 0.004 for number in family

was less than < the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected,

hence there is significant difference on the green product awareness factors when grouped

according to age, year in service, and number in family profile variables. On the other hand, the

computed value of 0.763 for employment status, 0.520 for occupation, 0.590 for salary/monthly

income, and 0.804 for civil status was greater than > the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance,

therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted, hence there is no significant difference on the green

product awareness factors when grouped according to employment status, occupation,

salary/monthly income, and civil status profile variables.

Green Advertisement

The computed value of 0.000 for age and 0.004 for year in service was less than < the 0.05 Alpha

Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, hence there is significant

difference on the green advertisement factors when grouped according to age and year in service

profile variables. On the other hand, the computed value of 0.408 for employment status, 0.339

for occupation, 0.702 for salary/monthly income, 0.993 for civil status, and 0.065 for number in

family was greater than > the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis
was accepted, hence there is no significant difference on the green advertisement factors when

grouped according to employment status, occupation, salary/monthly income, civil status, and

number in family profile variables.

Green Packaging and Profile Variables

The computed value of 0.041 for age, 0.032 for year in service, and 0.006 for number in family

was less than < the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected,

hence there is significant difference on the green packaging factors when grouped according to

age year in service, and number in family profile variables. On the other hand, the computed

value of 0.473 for employment status, 0.188 for occupation, 0.485 for salary/monthly income,

and 0.761 for civil status was greater than > the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the

null hypothesis was accepted, hence there is no significant difference on the green packaging

factors when grouped according to employment status, occupation, salary/monthly income, and

civil status profile variables.

Quality and Profile Variables

The computed value of 0.091 for age, 0.952 for employment status, 0.066 for occupation, 0.401

for salary/monthly income, 0.063 for year in service, 0.551 for civil status, and 0.064 for number

in family was greater than > the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis

was accepted, hence there is no significant difference on quality factors when grouped according

to the profile variables.

Price and Profile Variables

The computed value of 0.010 for age, 0.047 for employment status, and 0.002 for number in

family was less than < the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null hypothesis was

rejected, hence there is significant difference on the price factors when grouped according to age
employment status, and number in family profile variables. On the other hand, the computed

value of 0.508 for occupation, 0.092 for salary/monthly income, 0.400 for year in service, and

0.201 for civil status was greater than > the 0.05 Alpha Level of significance, therefore, the null

hypothesis was accepted, hence there is no significant difference on the price factors when

grouped according to employment status, occupation, salary/monthly income, and civil status

profile variables

Conclusions

The researchers concluded based on the summary of findings that:

1. Majority of the respondents belong to the age group from 18-26 years old, are private

employee, most of them are occupying apposition of a cashier with a salary/monthly

income of less than P20,000, in service for 3-5 years, singles, and with 3-5 number in the

family.

2. The respondents strongly agree on the following factors that influences their green

purchasing buying decision such as environmental support, environmental responsibility

and protection, green product awareness, green advertisement, green packaging, quality,

and price.

3. There is a significant difference on the green product awareness according to the

respondent’s age, year in service, and number in family. They also have a significant

difference on the green advertisement according to the respondent’s age and year in

service. Likewise have significant difference on green packaging according to the

respondent’s age, year in service, and number in family. Moreover, there is a significant
 difference on the price according to the respondent’s age, employment status, and number

in family.

Recommendations

Based on the summary of findings and conclusions, the researchers have considered the

following recommendations:

1. The manufacturing and merchandising business may continually develop and produce

commodities that are eco-friendly in the future to address customer’s satisfaction as

always.

2. The manufacturing and merchandising business may consider their target customers’ age

bracket, range of monthly income, the years of being employed, and the family status in

developing, producing, and innovating products/services in the future, for customers’

satisfaction and business sustainability.

3. Furthermore, follow-up studies should be conducted to validate the current findings.