A NEW MODEL FOR TESTING GREEN CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR

Abstract
Several models of green consumer behaviour have sought to explain the relationship between
green attitudes and the behaviours of individuals related to green consumption, based on
traditional theories. Nevertheless, it has been difficult to develop an optimum or even a
consensual model to predict green consumer behaviour. This paper seeks to examine the links
between a set of constructs, in order to propose a model for green consumer behaviour based
on a different set of antecedents of buying behaviour: prosocial attitude, the value placed on
green and green communication. A survey, taking the form of a self-administered
questionnaire, was developed to gather data; Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used
for the analysis. The results show that general prosocial attitudes have a direct influence on
green consumption values, and that green values positively influence green buying behaviour
and receptivity to green advertising. However, green advertising presents only a weak
influence on green buying behaviour. The relationship between these concepts is important to
consider when developing green marketing campaigns and communication to influence
further green behaviour.

Key words: Green behaviour, Prosocial, Green communication, Buying behaviour

1
1. Introduction

In the context of a need for sustainable development, research that seeks to understand the
factors that influence environmentally friendly behaviours has increased rapidly in the last ten
years, with particular attention focused on green purchasing behaviour. Although there have
been advances in teasing out the relationships between concern for sustainability and
environmentally friendly consumption, several questions remain unanswered, for example,
why is concern for the environment not always translated into effective purchasing
behaviours; why are intentions not converted into environmentally friendly actions/activities?
In a context where over-consumption has environmental impacts that threaten the planet, and
increasing the purchase of environmentally friendly products is seen as an important
component of reducing environmental impact (Liobikiene and Bernatoniene, 2017),
understanding the green consumer continues to be a growing area of research and an
important focus for marketing. Here, environmental impacts should be understood as “the
influence of human-dominated systems of production and consumption on the Earth system as
a result of restructured biophysical resources” (Liu et al. 2016, p.14).

Maniatis (2016) suggests that research shows a multiplicity of indicators that influence
consumers’ knowledge and awareness, green consciousness, and commitment towards green
products (i.e. products with a reduced impact on the environment). However, what is missing
is a lack of structural constructs that detail how these indicators come into play and interact
during the decision-making process (Maniatis, 2016). He et al. (2016) also reinforce that well-
grounded theoretical frameworks for consumers’ green or non-green consumption are difficult
to find. The authors suggest Consumer Choice Theory shows how economic influences
explain why consumers do or do not engage in green behaviours. Consumer choices depend
on the budget available and their preferences, with the under-lying principle that consumers
are completely rational. In turn, the Theory of Consumption Values (Sheth et al., 1991) has
three underlying principles: consumption behaviour is a function of multiple consumption
values; the influence of each consumption value in a given situation varies considerably; and
the values are independent of each other. This theory explains consumer choice as a function
of multiple consumption values along several dimensions (e.g., quality, appeal, emotions,
environmental impact, etc.) (Rahnama and Rajabpour, 2017).

2
Additionally, several models of green consumer behaviour have sought to explain the
attitudes and behaviours of individuals, building on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) developed the TRA
to explain behavioural intentions. The theory is very effective in explaining and developing
understanding of the psychological and cognitive processes involved in consumers’
contextual decision-making, as well as the extent to which consumers are willing to buy green
products or adopt green practices (Paul et al., 2016). In turn, TPB links an individual’s beliefs
and behaviours, adding to TRA by incorporating the concept of perceived behaviour control
(Ajzen, 1991), leading to a better result in the purchase intention model’s predictability for
green products (Paul et al., 2016). Nevertheless, despite advances, it has been difficult to
develop an optimum and/or a consensual model that would serve to predict green consumer
behaviour. Overall, the literature suggests that there is a gap between consumers’ pro-
environmental attitudes and sustainable consumption behaviours, with a suggestion that
further research is needed to develop understanding of the factors that influence behaviour
and the relationship between variables (Biswas, 2017; He at al., 2016).

In short, the theories used to explain green behaviour have largely focused on economic
influences (for example, Consumer Choice Theory), on consumption values influences, such
as quality, appeal, emotions, among other factors (for example, Theory of Consumption
Values), on psychological and cognitive influences (Theory of Reasoned Action), or on
beliefs influences (Theory of Planned Behaviour). In order to help fully explain green
behaviour, models that integrate more social concerns and attitudes, as well as external
influences, are needed

In response to the call for further research, this paper seeks to consider the influence of the
social by including prosocial attitudes (the lasting dispositional tendency for an individual to
think about the rights and well-being of others, to feel empathy and worry for others). It also
includes the value placed on green - the tendency to explore the value of environmental
protection through purchases and consumption behaviours), and green communication
(attention given to or feelings in relation to green advertising) on green behaviour. Although
prosocial attitudes relate to an individual’s disposition, they also reflect individuals’ attitudes
towards society and others. Therefore, pro-social attitudes might serve as an important factor
to incorporate in a model that seeks to explain green behaviour. Similarly, green

3
communication might be an important external influence and is a factor that has not featured
extensively in other models.

The paper is structures as follows: first, the literature review is presented outlining the
concepts used and the model developed in this study; second, methods and data collection
will be explained. Third, analysis of results and conclusions are provided.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Green Consumer Behaviour – an overview

According to Straughan and Roberts (1999), marketing research related to environmental
issues has advanced through different stages from the 1960s, when the ecology movement,
focused attention on pollution and energy conservation. Since then, concerns about
environmental issues have increased with each decade. Today, sustainability is a well-known
topic and has become a critical concern, not just for governments and the public in general but
also for marketers; addressing the green market (as a rapidly increasing market segment) is
now seen as a source of competitive advantage and added value. The perception that the
planet is reaching very high levels of pollution and degradation has contributed to the
emergence and growth of the environmental protection “movement” (Lee, 2009) and in
parallel, to the rapid growth of a new market segment –green consumers, who are likely to be
engaged in green behaviour (Paço and Raposo, 2010).

The adoption of green behaviour is a central aspect of achieving sustainability. Green

behaviour is generally associated with green consumption. It involves using goods that do not
cause pollution and damage to the natural environment and acting with a sense of social
consciousness and social responsibility. It also embraces being concerned about the
sustainability of resources for future generations; avoiding excessive consumption by
choosing recyclable products with high durability, high quality and ecological labels and;
reducing consumption of resources and energy (He et al., 2016; Huttunen and Autio, 2010;
Shi, 2002; Tripathi and Singh, 2016). However, despite substantial efforts, the ‘green
movement’ has not been as successful as one might expect; research reveals limited impact in
a number of areas. For instance, regarding ecolabels, except for a minority of product groups,
evidence shows that the market share of eco-labelled products is relatively low as a fraction of

4
the total market (Rex and Baumann, 2007). This is an opportunity cost, given that labelling is
effective in fostering positive attitudes in consumers (Cerri et al, 2018). In relation to energy,
a significant part of society is unaware of the benefits of energy efficiency and energy
preservation (although females are much more willing to engage in energy saving behaviour
as well as the young adult, as noted by Kuo et al., 2018). Similarly, in relation to recycling,
Herbes et al. (2018) consider that consumers focus mainly on end-of-life attributes of
packaging and are less concerned with renewable origins, evidencing that there is some
misunderstanding of renewable energy sources (e.g. green gas).

In seeking to understand green behaviour, the concept of environmental concern or ecological

concern has featured in a number of studies, for example Schlegelmilch et al. (1996), Lee
(2008) and Paço et al. (2013). In the main, these studies have focused on research into what
constitutes the construct “ecological concern”, the effects of predictor variables
(demographics, personality, knowledge, value orientation, etc.) and the relationship between
environmental concern and behavioural patterns (Paul et al., 2015). Unfortunately, the
research evidence suggests that even when consumers express real concerns for the
environment, such attitudes will not always influence their purchasing behaviour. In some
cases, there is evidence to suggest that individuals who are more concerned about
environmental issues will have a disposition to buy more green products (e.g. Chan, 1996).
Other studies (e.g. Laroche et al., 2002) report that many consumers will only act according to
their environmental concerns, if that action does not involve personal expense such as
changes and /or significant sacrifices in lifestyles. Further, some studies show a weak attitude-
behaviour relationship (e.g. Maloney and Ward, 1973; Hini et al., 1995), which is in sharp
contrast to other research (e.g. Loundsbury and Tournatsky, 1977) where a strong connexion
between the variables is demonstrated. It is important to note however that for the most part,
studies attempting to explain the gap between attitudes and buying behaviour have been
rooted in the field of consumer psychology (Rex and Baumann, 2006).

As consumers become aware of how their consumption influences the environment, there is
some evidence to suggest that they do try to change their attitudes and behaviours for the
benefit of future generations (Urien and Kilbourne, 2011). Although satisfying personal needs
seems to remain a crucial factor, environmental conservation and social consciousness are
more recently becoming a primary concern (Paul et al., 2016). In relation to social

5
consciousness, ‘prosocial attitude’ as a concept, merits consideration in relation to green
consumption.

2.2. Prosocial Behaviour

Prosocial behaviour is a cooperative act that describes actions which will protect or enhance
the well-being of others (Weinstein and Ryan, 2010), and includes interventions of great
utility, such as in the case of activities aiming for environmental preservation.

Zabkar and Hosta (2013) suggest that prosocial status serves as a moderating variable, where
actual environmentally friendly consumption is likely to increase as prosocial status
perceptions are increased. Welte and Anastasio (2010) add that the social context in which an
individual finds him or herself can limit, support, or even disrupt individual goal seeking
behaviour, by imposing certain rules and values, which then become attached to certain
decisions. The effect is to persuade individuals to behave in a certain way. In this way, social
context, and a belief about how other people perceive certain behaviour, can be an important
driver of environmentally conscious behaviour. Prosocial status perceptions of
environmentally friendly consumer behaviour contribute towards reducing the gap between
the predisposition to act in an environmentally friendly way and actually behaving in an
effective environmentally friendly way (Zabkar and Hosta’s, 2013). In essence, if the
individual is part of a social group and members of that group take environmental actions then
the individual is more likely to behave in a similar way.

Usually, people with a higher propensity to perform prosocial behaviours have a greater
tendency for a prosocial personality, which is characterised by the desire to perform
altruistically motivated behaviours (Steele et al., 2008). Steele et al. (2008) state that altruistic
and empathy traits of an individual are evident and developed in childhood and are
personality traits. Further, positive emotions trigger prosocial behaviours and lead to more
cooperative conduct (Snippe et al., 2018). Nevertheless, cooperation is not always without
conflict and requires a certain amount of self-control: it involves a balance between the desire
to cooperate and the comfort of being more selfish. If helping others comes with personal
cost, individuals will experience a tension between competing prosocial concerns and pro-self
desires. To act on their prosocial concerns, individuals must exert self-control to overcome
the influence of these pro-self desires. Thus, any process that reduces the capacity or
motivation of the individual for self-control can lead to reduced cooperation. In this way, non-

6
cooperation may not be related to a lack of concern for others, but to an inability to act upon
human nature (Osgood and Muraven, 2015).

According to Osgood and Muraven’s (2015) research, prosocial affect and cognition are
insufficient to cause prosocial behaviours and such affects and perceptions may not be
consistent with their corresponding behaviours. The authors suggest that efforts aimed at
increasing prosocial behaviours (e.g. green behaviours, volunteering, donation, etc.) should
focus not only on promoting prosocial attitudes but also on reducing the perceived cost and/or
inconvenience to the self.

2.3. Green consumption values

Haws et al. (2014, p. 337) introduced the concept of green consumption values defining it as
“the tendency to explore the value of environmental protection through one’s purchases and
consumption behaviours”. They explored and developed a method to understand differences
across consumers who do and who do not value preserving and conserving the environment,
as part of their consumption behaviour. The construct of green consumption values can be
understood as the tendency to express the value of environmental protection through one’s
purchases and consumption behaviours. Thus, consumers with stronger green consumption
values are generally more oriented towards protecting resources and buying in a responsible
way. Further, the authors validated the predictive ability of the construct on consumer
decisions regarding environmentally relevant purchases, by demonstrating more favourable
attribute evaluations, which are consistent with motivated reasoning processes in more
traditional consumer decisions not related to the pro-social context of environmental
decisions.

Regarding the issue of “conserving”, it should be noted that previous research suggests that
conserving behaviour may be achieved throughout purchase and non-purchase activities.
Pickett et al. (1995), for example, in order to study the implications of the conserving
consumer for public policy, developed a scale focused on conservation activity comprising a
broad range of items: dispositional activity, recycling of non-durable goods and their
packaging, preservation of resources and attitude towards packaging. The individuals less
involved in such activities seemed to be, less affected by pollution problems and less
concerned with social problems. In addition, Haws et al. (2014), in relation to the desire of

7
consumers with strong green consumption values to use society's environmental resources,
prudently suggest that green consumers also value conservation of their personal resources.

This concept of green consumption values can be an alternative to the “socially conscious
consumer” concept since its general notion is multidimensional. Thus, studies of socially
conscious consumption have often led to long and complex measures aimed to capture the full
scope of the constructs involved (e.g. Antil, 1984).

Green consumption values are highly related to the adequate use of collective environmental
resources and personal assets. That is, both the tendency to use financial resources prudently
(frugality, value and price consciousness, spending self-control) and the tendency to use
physical resources consciously (frugality, use innovativeness, product retention tendency) are
positively correlated with green consumption values (Haws et al., 2014). Accordingly, Sheth
et al. (2011) found that greener consumers not only have concern for environmental resources
but also for personal resources, indicating the need to focus on the personal and economic
well-being of individuals.

Frugality can be translated into the careful acquisition and consumption of goods, covering
the attentive use of both financial and physical resources (Lastovicka et al., 1999). Haws et al.
(2014) associate this frugality with green values because of the importance a frugal consumer
places on the careful use of financial resources in obtaining goods, and concern for physical
assets during consumption. The analysis of consumer spending self-control is also relevant
because we expected that greener consumers are conscious and controlled in their spending
decision-making (Haws et al., 2012). Price consciousness can also be considered a measure of
value consciousness because of the focus on careful use of financial resources (Lichtenstein et
al., 1993).

The conservative use of personal physical resources relates to the tendency to retain or
renounce possessions and be more innovative in the use and reuse of products. Haws et al.
(2014) defend that green consumers will be reluctant to give up their physical possessions
because they will seek to extract all value from goods before discarding them. Additionally,
green consumers will be more likely to be innovative users of existing physical resources,
looking for the creative reuse and find multiple uses for their products.

8
Understanding the impact of green consumption values on consumption behaviour is critical,
as an increasing number of companies focus on products and processes designed to minimise
environmental harm. This concept can be very useful to both researchers and marketers
interested in understanding how it affects consumers’ responses to environmentally based
marketing actions (Haws et al., 2014), including the response to green marketing
communications (Bailey et al., 2016a).

2.4. Green communication

Traditionally manufacturers have communicated the environmentally friendly characteristics
of their products to consumers through advertising. This has led to the growth of a significant
segment of well-informed green consumers who exert pressure on producers with criticism
about the type of communication delivered (Maniatis, 2016). However, this group is small in
relation to the number of consumers who need to be influenced to adopt greener consumption
and who represent a potential market. When consumers have a low interest in certain kinds of
goods or are reluctant to adopt a certain behaviour recommended, from a marketing point of
view, adopting specific and appropriate communication strategies when targeting these
groups of individuals is vital. An important question to be considered is whether some
consumers are more receptive to green communications than others; determining receptivity
to green communication is important for the message (Bailey at al. (2016b) and could be a
useful tool for companies that wish to target their communication efforts at individuals who
may be more predisposed to green marketing. However, Zabkar and Hosta (2013) emphasise
that although green marketing has been effective when the message is directed at consumers
who are already concerned about the environment, further insights are needed about how to
appeal to other consumers, including those who are more sceptical about environmental
claims (Mohr et al., 1998).

According to Bailey at al. (2016b), consumers will react differently to environmental

communication and appeals based on their levels of receptivity to green communication,
specifically in the form of green advertising. The latter implies greater efforts on the part of
the companies to “convince” the audience about the greenness of their arguments and the
products/services offered. The issue is particularly significant in a context where consumers
are now more cynical and sceptical of advertising in general, but to green and social
messages, in particular.

9
Shrum et al. (1995), in a much earlier study, noted that consumers interested in buying green
products were sceptical regarding general advertising, and that despite females being more
predisposed to buy responsibly, they believed that, sometimes, advertising offends their
intelligence. This may have changed over time, however, a later study by D'Souza and
Taghian (2005) found that even those consumers more environmentally concerned, do not
consider advertisements, and green advertising in general, to be very convincing as there have
been repeated false claims and exaggerations. Kilbourne (1995) suggested that overall, the
credibility of green advertising is relatively low because of the vague/ambiguous arguments
(without a clear meaning), omissions (essential information is omitted to assess its
truthfulness), falsities (something that is fabricated/invented) or a combination of those
identified above (Carlson et al., 1993). Furlow (2010) provides a very clear rationale for the
scepticism and lack of credibility suggesting that to understand many of the environmental
arguments communicated require a scientific background in environmental issues, given the
complexity of the theme and the language used. Most consumers are unable to comprehend
the messages delivered fully.

Nevertheless, some studies have indicated that green advertising and green marketing can
have an influence on consumers’ attitudes and intentions (Paço and Reis, 2012). For example,
Chan (2000), in a study evaluating the influence of environmental claims on the success of
environmental advertising, found that the image that individuals have of a certain claim
affected their attitudes regarding the advertisement and the attitudes towards the brand, as
well as their buying intentions. In turn, Bailey at al. (2016a), exploring the link between green
consumption values and consumer response to green advertising found a positive relationship
between the two constructs, that is, green consumption values influence consumer perceptions
of the credibility of an entity transmitting green information.

2.5. Buying Behaviour

Green buying behaviour is generally associated with purchasing in a responsible, ethical,
sustainable and environmentally friendly way. According to Paço et al. (2013), that behaviour
includes buying energy efficient products, avoiding over packaged goods, exhibiting a
preference for biodegradable and recycled articles, buying fair-trade and locally sourced
products, contributing not only to equity and wellbeing in the community, but also to the
reduction of pollution and the preservation of the planet. According to Kumar and Ghodeswar
(2015), such purchasing decisions also take the form of supporting green companies, adopting

10
sustainable consumption practices and being likely to spend more on green products. In fact,
the literature exposes several different ways to measure environmentally friendly purchasing
behaviour. Some researchers have focused more on the functional aspects of the products;
others have adopted a more holistic approach to buying behaviour.

Studies show a range of expected behaviours that are typically associated with the green
consumer (Laroche et al., 2001). It has been proposed that the more engaged consumers are
with the environment, the more likely they are to acquire and use green products (Schuhwerk
and Lefkokk-Hagius, 1995). Chan (1996) reported that individuals who were more concerned
about conserving the environment tended to purchase more green products. It should be noted
however, that despite the large numbers of consumers who voice concerns about
environmental problems, it is also evident that concerns are only translated into actions if
there are no hard “costs” involved, such as making a sacrifice in lifestyles (Laroche et al.,
2002).

The relationship between environmental concern and behaviour is undoubtedly not clear-cut:
studies from Moisander (2007) and Thøgersen (1999) suggest that consumers do not always
base their buying decisions on their attitudes towards the environment. Although some
customers are undoubtedly more cautious in their purchasing decisions, influenced by
environmental concerns to the extent that they check such things as product composition,
packaging, materials, etc. (Hasan et al., 2012). Those individuals, exemplifying a greener
lifestyle, are crucial to companies and to other consumers, since they are serving by example
(buying fair trade, recycling, saving energy, etc.) to contribute to the sustainability of the
planet. Apart from individual motivation, Cherian and Jacob (2012) identify other relevant
factors that influence consumers to buy environmentally friendly products including: the
availability and validity of the information, the type of green communication and
environmental claims used by industry and the assortment of green products presented by
producers.

Contrary to Chan’s (2001) study, in which individuals reported a high level of

environmentally friendly purchase intention that actually had no impact on purchasing
behaviour, other researchers (e.g. Akehurst et al., 2012; Schuhwerk and Lefkokk-Hagius,
1995) evidenced some linkage between intentions and buying of green products.

11
Green behaviour is undoubtedly complex, attested by research results, which provide
contradictory evidence. As referred, studies explore a range of different influences on
purchasing from internal factors (such as attitudes, concern, values) social factors and external
factors. In a recent literature review, Liobikiene and Bernatoniene (2017) highlight such
complexities, reinforcing that concern in one aspect or area does not necessarily mean
concern in others.

3. Proposal of a New Model of Green Consumer Behaviour

Green consumer behaviour modelling tends to be viewed by most researchers as a process

ordered into a cognitive hierarchy consisting of values, attitudes/norms, intentions and
behaviours (e.g. Homer and Kahle, 1988; Paul et al., 2016). Moreover, general value
orientations influence attitudes regarding specific contexts, and attitudes, in turn, influence
behaviours (Vaske and Donnelly 1999). Nevertheless, some research around the green
attitude-behaviour link failed to return highly predictive relationships (Hini et al., 1995).
These conflicting results could be attributed to the differences in constructs and
measurements, which justify the need for further research focusing on the values-attitudes-
behaviour hierarchy. Milfont et al. (2010) recommend the expansion of the prevailing models,
as well as the need to test and compare samples from several countries.

Thus, based on the above literature review, an alternative conceptual model is proposed in
Figure 1 to illustrate the hypothesised relationship among the constructs discussed previously.
This research intends to present a valid proposal of a green consumer behaviour model in
which the antecedents of green behaviour are General Prosocial Attitudes (lasting
dispositional tendency for an individual to think about the rights and well-being of others, to
feel empathy and worry for others), Green Consumption Values, and Receptivity to Green
Advertising. It is suggested that General Prosocial Attitudes will contribute to Green
Consumption Values (tendency to explore the value of environmental protection through
one’s purchases and consumption behaviours), which in turn will contribute to Receptivity to
Green Communication (attention given or feelings towards green advertising) and Buying
Behaviour; and also that to Receptivity to Green Communication will result on positive
Buying Behaviour.

12
 Figure 1 - Proposal of a new model of green consumer behaviour

REGRAD
(9)

General Buying
Prosocial GREEN
behavior
Attitudes (6) (10)
(6)

Given the model represented above, the following hypotheses were formulated
H1: General Prosocial Attitudes (GPA) positively affects individuals’ Green consumption
values (GREEN).
H2: Green consumption values (GREEN) positively affect individuals’ receptivity to
green communication (REGRAD)
H3: Green consumption values (GREEN) positively affect individuals’ Buying Behaviour
(BB).
H4: Receptivity to green communication (REGRAD) positively affects individuals’
Buying Behaviour (BB).

4. Method

4.1. Questionnaire Design and Variable Measurement

A survey approach was used to test the proposed model. The method of data collection was a
survey, taking the form of a self-administered questionnaire (see the list of variables in the
Appendix), consisting mainly of closed questions, covering three main sections: (i) opinion
questions (prosocial attitudes, green values and receptivity to green communications); (ii)
frequency questions (buying behaviour); and (iii) demographics (age, gender, level of
education, nationality).

The research used already tested scales. The novelty is that at this time they were used in an
integrated way in order to test a model and measure certain behaviours. The respondents were
asked to mark their opinion using a seven points scale varying from 7= totally agree to 1=

13
totally disagree; in the case of the Buying Behaviour construct, individuals were asked to
point their level of frequency using a seven points scale ranging from 7= always to 1= never.

The questionnaire was pretested by a group of 24 individuals in order to identify language and
understanding problems.

The six statements to measure General Prosocial Attitudes (GPA) were adapted from Osgood
and Muraven (2015) because of their capacity to measure altruistic behaviours usually
associated to environmental concern. Zabkar and Hosta (2013) have also used this scale
arguing that the difference between intention and green consumption could be addressed by
prosocial status perceptions.

The tendency to explore the value of environmental protection through individual buying and
consumption behaviours is explained by the Haws et al. (2014) GREEN scale. This instrument
predicts consumer preference for environmentally friendly products and indicates that
stronger green consumption values increase preference for environmentally friendly products
through more favourable evaluations of the non-environmental attributes of these products.
The six-item scale GREEN was also used recently by Bailey et al. (2016 a, b).

The receptivity to green advertising (REGRAD), understood as the extent to which consumers
pay attention and are favourably inclined and attentive to advertising that uses green messages
to promote products or the company itself, is measured by a nine items scale (Bailey at al.,
2016b).

To access Buying Behaviour, ten items of the ‘Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behaviour’
(ECCB) scale of Straughan and Roberts (1999) were used, covering topics such as the
package, energy-efficiency, polluting or recycled products. This scale has already been tested
and included in consumer behaviour models by Paço et al. (2013, 2014).

After collection, the data was statistically analysed and interpreted using the statistical
software PLS 3.0. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to analyse the data.

14
4.2. Research sample
Responses were sought from two countries: England and Portugal. The two countries were
selected for convenience (the authors’ countries of residence) but also to enable comparisons
to be made at a later point as part of an extended study to compare across different economic,
social and cultural settings in relation to environmental issues. Portugal, contrasts with
England in that is less developed. Portugal has been slower to engage with environmental
issues than would seem to be the case in England. England, in contrast was an early engager
with sustainable development issues and environmental management. European Commission
(2014), by means of the Special Eurobarometer 416 evidences the differences between the
two countries (reinforcing the very different realities of England and Portugal. The data shows
that while both English (94%) and Portuguese (97%) respondents believe that protecting the
environment is important, and agree that environmental issues have a direct effect on their
daily life (PT – 86% and UK – 78%) there are differences between the two countries in
relation to behaviours on a number of measures. Thus, for example, the Portuguese are less
likely to reduce waste and be concerned about over packaging (PT – 18% and UK – 40%).
Similarly, they are less likely to buy environmentally friendly products, be concerned about
car use and buying local goods. Very few consumers in Portugal would be willing to buy
environmentally friendly products if prices were higher. In this regard, Portugal came at the
end of the rankings whereas English citizens were ranked above the mean.

The questionnaire was first developed in English and then to gather data from Portugal was
translated using standard back-translation protocol. Small adjustments had to be made so that
the questions could be understood by respondents. The questionnaire was made available
electronically using Survey Monkey. Data was collected on the platform over a two-month
period during which anyone completing the questionnaire could pass on the survey link to
others. 471 questionnaires were collected (240 from PT and 231 from UK).

The sample in this study is composed by 471 individuals. The majority of the respondents are
females (67.52%). Are aged between 18 and 85 years old, quite equality distributed among
the age groups (the group with less persons is the one of 26-35 years old with 13.16%). The
majority of the respondents (69%) have high levels of education, being this percentage a bit
higher in the UK sample. Although by country the sample reveals slightly differences, in this
research, the sample was used as a global one. Table 1 shows the sample characteristics.

15
Table 1 – Sample composition
Age Portugal % UK % Total %
15-25 72 30.00% 31 13.42% 103 21.87%
26-35 35 14.58% 27 11.69% 62 13.16%
36-45 59 24.58% 49 21.21% 108 22.93%
46-55 38 15.83% 66 28.57% 104 22.08%
56-65 14 5.83% 33 14.29% 47 9.98%
66-75 6 2.50% 19 8.23% 25 5.31%
76-85 0 0.00% 4 1.73% 4 0.85%
Missing 16 6.67% 2 0.87% 18 3.82%
Total 240 100,00% 231 100,00% 471 100,00%
Gender Portugal % UK % Total %
Male 88 : 62 26.84% 150 31.85%
Female 150 62.50% 168 72.73% 318 67.52%
Missing 2 0.83% 1 0.43% 3 0.64%
Total 240 100.00% 231 100.00% 471 100.00%
School Level Portugal % UK % Total %
Graduate 141 58.75% 184 79.65% 325 69.00%
Secondary 76 31.67% 26 11.26% 102 21.66%
Elementary 20 8.33% 20 8.66% 40 8.49%
Missing 3 1.25% 1 0.43% 4 0.85%
Total 240 100.00% 231 100.00% 471 100.00%

5. Results: presentation and discussion

The model test was carried out in two different analytical phases according to the
recommendations set out by Chin (1998a; 1998b) and Hair, Ringle and Sarstedt (2011).
Firstly, the measurement model was analysed, in order to verify whether the indicators for
each construct were valid and robust for measuring the respective analytical constructs. This
involves calculating: a) the composite reliability of each indicator’s loadings; b) the average
variance extracted (AVE), and c) the discriminant validity of the reflective constructs.

Table 2 presents the results for composite reliability, Cronbach's Alpha and AVE, after
eliminating variables BB1 and BB2, for not conforming to the required minimum, as
recommend by Bagozzi and Yi (1998).

16
 Table 2 – Composite reliability, Cronbach's Alpha and AVE
CONSTRUCT Composite
Indicator Value t Statistics p Values Alpha AVE
Reliability
BB3 0.809 42.028 0.000
BB4 0.870 56.856 0.000
BB5 0.864 55.034 0.000
BB BB6 0.796 33.983 0.000 0.94 0.92 0.68
BB7 0.746 30.584 0.000
BB8 0.832 42.794 0.000
BB9 0.863 57.825 0.000
GPA1 0.774 13.319 0.000
GPA2 0.815 14.679 0.000
GPA3 0.880 32.842 0.000
GPA
0.931 106.236
0.93 0.91 0.73
GPA4 0.000
GPA5 0.857 26.721 0.000
GPA6 0.774 13.319 0.000
GRE1 0.807 40.319 0.000
GRE2 0.855 39.208 0.000
GRE3 0.883 50.157 0.000
GRE 0.94 0.92 0.72
GRE4 0.840 53.665 0.000
GRE5 0.866 66.063 0.000
GRE6 0.835 35.581 0.000
REG1 0.869 50.944 0.000
REG2 0.756 28.488 0.000
REG3 0.867 45.571 0.000
REG4 0.909 74.164 0.000
REG REG5 0.911 54.725 0.000 0.96 0.95 0.73
REG6 0.839 36.505 0.000
REG7 0.752 23.034 0.000
REG8 0.860 55.862 0.000
REG9 0.916 105.922 0.000

As may be observed from table 2, all the constructs loadings return results in excess of 0.7
and hence in keeping with the recommendations from Hair et al. (1998). This means that all
indicators are adequate to measure the construct they belong to and thus sufficient in its
representations of the inherent constructs. Table 2 also show the reliability for all construct is
good as the results for composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha return values above 0.7 as
recommend by Bagozzi and Yi (1998). The average extracted variance (AVE) also presents
values better than 0.5 as recommended by Bagozzi and Yi (1998) meaning that all constructs
capture more that 50% of the variance.

The next step is to examine the discriminant validity of the constructs (table 3).

17
Table 3 – Discriminant validity
CONSTRUCTS BB GPA GREEN REGRAD
BB 0.827
GPA 0.250 0.853
GREEN 0.739 0.324 0.848
REGRAD 0.564 0.404 0.675 0.855
Note: Square Root of AVE in diagonals

Table 3 sets out how discriminant validity is achieved. As observed, the square root of the
average variance extracted all constructs return results higher than the correlation between the
constructs as recommended by Fornell and Laker (1981), and thus showing that the observed
variables correlate more highly with the variables inside the parent construct than with the
variables outside the parent construct. Furthermore, no construct reports loadings greater than
those returned by the construct itself (Chin, 1998b).

After validating the measurement model, we proceeded with testing the structural model, its
explicative capacity (R2) and the statistical significance of the diverse structural coefficients
(Hair el al., 1998). The model presents an R2 of 55%, which is the variance explained by all
constructs on Buying Behaviour (BB). Table 4 shows the path coefficients and its statistical
significance.

Table 4 - Path coefficients and statistical significance

Relations between
Value t Statistics p Values
Constructs
GPA −> GREEN 0.324 6.950 0.000
GREEN −> REGRAD 0.675 24.303 0.000
GREEN −> BB 0.659 15.799 0.000
REGRAD −> BB 0.118 2.092 0.037

As can be observed on table 4, all paths are significant. GPA has an influence on GREEN of
0.32, which means that if GPA raises by one point, GREEN will raise by 0.32 points. The
greater influence is of GREEN on REGRAD (0.675) and GREEN has an influence of 0.659
on BB. The influence of REGRAD on BB turned out being statically significant, but above
the minimum value (0.2) considered relevant by Chin (1998a; 1998b).

Figure 2 shows the final model and its paths.

18
 Figure 2 – Final model

As observed in figure 2, general prosocial attitudes, which are related with doing good for the
benefits of others, is positively related to the existence of green values, therefore, it is possible
to say that people who care for others and societal wellbeing have higher green values. It is
thus possible to confirm the first hypothesis H1: General Prosocial Attitudes (GPA) positively
affects individuals’ Green consumption values (GREEN). These results confirm the results of
Zabkar and Hosta (2013), but are contrary to the ones of Osgood and Muraven (2015).

In turn, possessing higher green values (valuing the environment), predisposes consumers to
be more receptive to green advertising appeals, which allows for confirmation of H2: Green
consumption values (GREEN) positively affects individuals’ receptivity to green
communication (REGRAD). This result is highly supported by the path value of 0.675, and is
in line with the results of Bailey et al. (2016a). Additionally, green consumption values
(GREEN) also positively affect individuals’ buying behaviour (BB) (0.659) as stated in H3:
Green consumption values (GREEN) positively affect individuals’ Buying Behaviour (BB),
which is in line with Haws et al. (2014) results reporting that consumers with stronger green
consumption values are usually more oriented towards buying in a responsible way respecting
the natural environment.

19
Although the results show significance for the statistical tests of H4: Receptivity to green
communication (REGRAD) positively affects individuals’ Buying Behaviour (BB), the
influence of green communication on buying behaviour cannot be considered relevant.

6. Conclusion

This research sought to develop further understanding and to extend the debate within the
literature on the various factors that influence green buying behaviour. The results indicate the
importance of taking into consideration consumer green values and prosocial behaviour to
explain the predisposition to accept green marketing communications appeals and exhibit
green buying behaviour.

The research contributes to theory by providing further insights on the factors that influence
green buying behaviour and particularly the importance of prosocial attitudes. While prosocial
status has already been tested with contradictory results, general prosocial attitudes are seen to
have a direct influence on green consumption values. At the same time, the impact of green
values is seen to have a positive influence on receptivity to green communication and buying
behaviour.

The findings of this research will also be relevant to producers and professionals dealing with
green products, particularly marketers. With regard to the latter, some consumers will exhibit
the traits and attitudes considered in this research (prosocial values for example); marketing
campaigns should take into account all the factors influencing buying behaviour in order to
target the market and by designing communication likely to have the greatest appeal.

This study has some limitations, namely, that the sample is not completely random and the
survey was conducted on-line, therefore excluding some members of the population who do
not have internet access. Further, the use of two countries is something that reinforces the
results, but is also a limitation, as having used other countries with others habits and values
might have led to different results; some caution is thus advised with regard to generalization
from the results. Future research should consider testing this model and evaluating its
applicability in different countries. There is also the potential for some constructs to vary

20
 across cultures, which may suggest adaptations of the used scales based on cultural
differences.

Appendix

General Prosocial Attitudes

GPA1 It is important that others are happy
GPA2 It is important to help someone who needs it
GPA3 I want to help others
GPA4 The well-being of others is important
GPA5 The needs of others are important
GPA6 It is important that all people are happy
Green consumption values
GRE1 It is important to me that the products I use do not harm the environment
GRE2 I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when making many of my decisions
GRE3 My purchase habits are affected by my concern for our environment
GRE4 I am concerned about wasting the resources of our planet
GRE5 I would describe myself as environmentally responsible
GRE6 I am willing to be inconvenienced in order to take actions that are more environmentally friendly
Receptivity to green communication
REG1 I support brands that support the environment.
REG2 I tend to pay attention to advertising messages that talk about the environment.
REG3 The use of green messages in ads affects my attitude toward the ads.
REG4 I respond favorably to brands that use green messages in their advertising.
REG5 I am the kind of consumer who responds favorably when brands use green messages in their ads.
REG6 I think that green advertising is valuable.
REG7 Green advertising is a necessary form of advertising.
REG8 I am the kind of consumer who is willing to purchase products marketed as being green.
REG9 I tend to pay attention to green advertising messages.
Buying Behaviour
BB1 I try to buy energy efficient products and appliances
BB2 I avoid buying products that have excessive packaging
BB3 When there is a choice, I choose the product that causes the least pollution
BB4 I have switched products/brands for ecological reasons
BB5 I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper
BB6 I use environmentally friendly soaps and detergents
I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some products which are harmful to
BB7
the environment
BB8 Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers
BB9 I try to buy products that can be recycled
BB10 I buy high efficiency light bulbs to save energy

21
Acknowledgments
This work is financed by National Funds through the FCT Foundation for Science and
Technology - Project UID/GES/04630/2013.

References

Ajzen, I., 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. 50(2), 179–
211.

Akehurst, G., Afonso, C., Gonçalves. H., 2012. Re-examining green purchase behaviour and
the green consumer profile: new evidences. Manage. Decis. 50(5), 972-988.

Antil, J.H., 1984. Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public policy.
J. Macromarketing. 5(2), 18-39.

Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark.
Sci. 1, 74-94.

Bailey, A., Mishra, A., Tiamiyu M., 2016a. GREEN consumption values and Indian
consumers’ response to marketing communications. J. Consum. Mark. 3(7), 562-573.

Bailey, A., Mishra, A., Tiamiyu, M., 2016b. Green advertising receptivity: An initial scale
development process. J. Mark. Communications. 22(3), 327-345.

Biswas, A., 2017. A consumption value-gap analysis for sustainable consumption. Environ
Sci Pollut Res. 24, 7714–7725.

Carlson, L., Grove, S.J., Kangun, N., 1993. A content analysis of environmental advertising
claims: a matrix method approach. J. Advertising. 22(3), 27-39.

Cerri, J., Testa, F., Rizzi, F., 2018. The more I care, the less I will listen to you: How
information, environmental concern and ethical production influence consumers' attitudes and
the purchasing of sustainable products. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 343-353.

Chan, R., 2001. Determinants of Chinese consumers' green purchase behaviour. Psychol.
Market. 18(4): 389-413.

Chan, R.K., 2000. The effectiveness of environmental advertising: the role of claim type and
the source country green image. Int. J. Advertising. 19(3), 349-375.

Chan, T., 1996. Concerns for environmental issues and consumer purchase preferences: a
two-country study. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 9(1), 43-55.

Cherian J, Jacob J., 2012. Green marketing: a study of consumers’ attitude towards
environment friendly products. Asian Soc. Sci. 8(12), 117-126.

Chin, W. 1998a. Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modelling. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q.
22(1), 7-15.
Chin, W.W. 1998b. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, pp. 295-336, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
22
Cropanzano, R., Mitchell, M.S. 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J.
Manag. 31, 874-900.

D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., 2005. Green advertising effects on attitude and choice of
advertising themes. Asia Pacific J. Mark. Logist. 17(3), 51-66.

European Commission, 2014. Special Eurobarometer 416 Attitudes of European citizens

towards the environment.
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_416_en.pdf. Accessed at
14/07/17.

Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Beliefs, attitude, intention and behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Fornell, C., Laker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18(1), 39-50.

Furlow, E., N. 2010. Greenwashing in the new millennium. J. Appl. Bus. Econ. 10(6), 22-26.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., Black, W. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark.
Theory Pract. 19 (2), 139-52.

Hasan, S., Subhani, M., Osman, A., 2012. The crux of green marketing: an empirical effusive
study. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 27(3), 425-435.

Haws, K.L., Bearden, W.O., Nenkov, G.Y., 2012. Consumer spending self-control
effectiveness and outcome elaboration prompts. J. Acad. Market Sci. 40(5), 695–710.

Haws, K.L., Winterich, K.P., Naylor, R.W., 2014. Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted
glasses: green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. J.
Consumer Psychol. 24(3), 336-354.

He, A., Cai, T., Deng, T., Li, X., 2016. Factors affecting non-green consumer behaviour: an
exploratory study among Chinese consumers. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 40, 345-356.

Herbes, C. Beuthner, C., Ramme, I. 2018. Consumer attitudes towards biobased packaging –
A cross-cultural comparative study. J. Clean. Prod. 194, 203-218.

Hini, D., Gendall, P. and Kearns, Z., 1995. The link between environmental attitudes and
behaviour. Marketing Bull. 6, 22-31.

Homer, P.M., Kahle, L.R., 1988. A structural equation test of value-attitude-behaviour

hierarchy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54(4), 638-646.

Huttunen, K., Autio, M., 2010. Consumer enthuses in finish consumer life stories agrarianism,
economism and green consumerism. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 34, 146-152.

Kilbourne, W.E., 1995. Green advertising: salvation or oxymoron. J. Advertising. 24(2), 7-19.

23
Kumar, P., Ghodeswar, B., 2015. Factors affecting consumers’ green product purchase
decisions. Market. Intell. Plann. 33(3), 330-347.

Kuo, T.C., Tseng, M.L., Lin, C.H., Wang, R.W., Lee, C.H., 2018. Identifying sustainable
behavior of energy consumers as a driver of design solutions: The missing link in eco-design.
J. Clean. Prod. 192, 486-495,

Laroche, M., Tomiuk, M., Bergeron, J., Barbaro-Forleo, G., 2002. Cultural differences in
environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of Canadian consumers. Can. J. Adm. Sci.
19(3), 267-283.

Lastovicka, J.L., Bettencourt, L.A., Hughner, R.S., Kuntze, R.J., 1999. Lifestyle of the tight
and frugal: Theory and measurement. J. Consumer Res. 26(1), 85–98.

Lee, K., 2008. Opportunities for green marketing: young consumers. Market. Intell. Plann.
26(6), 573-586.

Lee, K., 2009. Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing
behaviour. J. Consumer Mark. 26(2), 87–96.

Lichtenstein, D.R., Ridgway, N.M., Netemeyer, R.G., 1993. Price perceptions and consumer
shopping behavior: A field study. J. Mark. Res. 234–245.

Liobikiene, G., Bernatoniene, J., 2017. Why determinants of green purchase cannot be treated
equally? The case of green cosmetics: literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 109-120.

Liu, W., Oosterveer, P., Spaargaren, G. 2016. Promoting sustainable consumption in China: a
conceptual framework and research review. J. Clean. Prod. 134, Part A, 13-21.

Loundsbury, J., Tournatsky, L., 1977. A scale for assessing attitudes toward environmental
quality. J. Soc. Psychol. 101, 299-305.

Maloney, M., Ward, M., 1973. Ecology: let’s hear from the people – an objective scale for the
measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am. Psychol. 28, 583-586.

Maniatis, P., 2016. Investigating factors influencing consumer decision-making while

choosing green products. J. Clean. Prod. 132, 215-228.

Milfont, T. L., Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., 2010. A cross-cultural test of the value-attitude-
behaviour hierarchy. J. Appl. Social Psych. 40(11), 2791-2813.

Mohr, L.A., Eroglu, D., Ellen, P.S., 1998. The development and testing of a measure of
skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers’ communications. J. Consum. Aff.
32(1), 30-55.

Moisander, J., 2007. Motivational complexity of green consumerism. Intern. J. Consum.

Studies. 31(4), 404-409.

Osgood, J.M., Muraven, M., 2015. Self-control depletion does not diminish attitudes about
being prosocial but does diminish prosocial behaviors. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 37, 68-80.

24
Paço, A., Alves, H., Shiel, C., Leal Filho, W., 2013. Development of a green consumer
behavior model. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 37, 414-429.

Paço, A., Alves, H., Shiel, C., Leal Filho, W., 2014. An analysis of the measurement of the
construct “buying behaviour” in green marketing. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 11(1), 55-69.

Paço, A., Raposo, M., 2010. Green consumer market segmentation: empirical findings from
Portugal. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 4, 429-436.

Paço, A., Reis, R., 2012. Factors affecting skepticism toward green advertising. J.
Advertising. 41(4), 147-155.

Paul, J., Modi, A., Patel, J., 2016. Predicting green product consumption using theory of
planned behavior and reasoned action. J. Retailing Cons. Serv. 29, 123-134.

Pickett, G.M., Kangun N., Grove S.J, 1955. An examination of the conservative consumer:
implications for public formation policy in promoting conservation behaviour, in: Polonsky
M.J., Mintu-Wimsatt A.T. (Eds.), Environmental Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory and
Research, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 77-99.

Rahnama, H., Rajabpour, S., 2017. Identifying effective factors on consumers’ choice
behavior toward green products: the case of Tehran, the capital of Iran. Environ Sci Pollut R.
24 (1), 911-925.

Rex, E., Baumann, H., 2007. Beyond ecolabels: what green marketing can learn from
conventional marketing. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 567-576.

Schlegelmilch, B., Bohlen, G., Diamantopoulos, A. 1996. The link between green purchasing
decisions and measures of environmental consciousness, Eur. J. Marketing. 30(5), 35-55.

Schuhwerk, M., Lefkokk-Hagius, R., 1995. Green or not-green? Does type of appeal matter
when advertising a green product? J. Advertising. 24, 45-55.

Sheth, J., Newman B., Gross, B., 1991. Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption
values. J. Bus. Res. 22(2), 159-170.

Sheth, J.N., Sethia, N.K., Srinivas, S., 2011. Mindful consumption: A customer centric
approach to sustainability. J. Acad. Market Sci. 39(1), 21–39.

Shi, L., 2002. An empirical study on green consumption attitudes and behavior of Chinese
consumers. J. Consump. Econ. 18, 39-42.

Shrum, L.J., McCarty, J.A., Lowrey, T.M., 1995. Buyer characteristics of green consumer and
their implications for advertising strategy. J. Advertising. 24(2), 71-82.

Snippe, E., Jeronimus B.F., Aan Het Rot, M., Bos, E.H., de Jonge, P., Wichers, M., 2017. The
reciprocity of prosocial behavior and positive affect in daily life. J Pers. 86(2):139-146.

Steele, W.R., Schreiber, G.B., Guiltinan, A., Nass, A., Glynn, S., Wright, D., Kessler, D.,
Schlumpf, K., Tu, Y., Smith, J.W., Garratty, G. 2008 The role of altruistic behavior,
empathetic concern, and social responsibility motivation in blood donation behavior.
Tranfusion, 48, 43-54.

25
Straughan, R., Roberts, J., 1999. Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green
consumer behaviour in the new millennium. J. Consum. Mark. 16(6), 558-575.

Thøgersen, J., 1999. The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice. J. Consum.
Policy. 22(4), 439–460.

Tripathi, A., Singh, M., 2016. Determinants of sustainable/green consumption: a review. Int.
J. Environ. Tech. Manag. 19(3/4), 316- 358.

Vaske, J.J., Donnelly, M.P., 1999. A Value-Attitude-Behavior model predicting wildland

preservation voting intentions. Soc. Nat. Resources Int. J. 12(6), 523-537.

Weinstein, N., Ryan, R.M., 2013. When helping helps: autonomous motivation for prosocial
behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. J Pers Soc Psychol.
98(2), 222–244.

Welte, T., Anastasio, P., 2010. To conserve or not to conserve: is status the question?
Environ. Behav. 42, 845.

Zabkar, V., Hosta, M., 2013. Willingness to act and environmentally conscious consumer
behaviour: can prosocial status perceptions help overcome the gap? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 37,
257–264.

26