Internal and External Determinants of Consumer Engagement in Sustainable Consumption
Internal and External Determinants of Consumer Engagement in Sustainable Consumption
Internal and External Determinants of Consumer Engagement in Sustainable Consumption
Article
Internal and External Determinants of Consumer
Engagement in Sustainable Consumption
Žaneta Piligrimienė 1,*, Andželika Žukauskaitė 1, Hubert Korzilius 2, Jūratė Banytė 1
and Aistė Dovalienė 1
1 School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology, 44239 Kaunas, Lithuania;
[email protected] (A.Ž); [email protected] (J.B); [email protected] (A.D.)
2 Institute of Management Research, Radboud University, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Received: 16 January 2020; Accepted: 10 February 2020; Published: 12 February 2020
Abstract: Rapid population growth together with improving living standards is causing bigger and
more rapid consumption of resources in industrial, household and personal consumption areas.
Unsustainable consumption patterns are negatively affecting our surroundings. In order to
promote sustainable consumption it is important to engage consumers in active and mutual
dialogue. This study introduces the construct of consumer engagement into the context of
sustainable consumption and aims at revealing the factors influencing consumer engagement in
sustainable consumption. Two groups of factors, internal and external, each comprising three
determinants (environmental attitude, perceived responsibility and perceived behavioral
efficiency; and conditions for sustainable consumption, social environment and promotion of
sustainable consumption) were identified as having direct positive impact on consumer
engagement in sustainable consumption, which in turn had a positive impact on green product
buying. The results revealed an important mediating role of the consumer engagement construct,
suggesting that application of the engagement construct in the context of sustainable consumption
would allow a deepening understanding of actual consumer behavior related with different
contexts of sustainable consumption.
Keywords: consumer engagement; sustainable consumption; determinants; green product buying
behavior
1. Introduction
Modern society can be broadly described as having two faces: 1) One reflects
consumerism—buying more, consuming more, and throwing away more; 2) another reflects the
concern about the use of resources and the impact it has on the environment. This second “face” of
the society is showing itself more and more, speaking out loud about the negative effects that
unsustainable consumption patterns have on our surroundings. For a long time, sustainability issues
were perceived as mainly a responsibility of producers, leaving the consumer out of the way. This is
no longer the case, as research reports that individual consumption behavior is a key driver of
current unsustainable development [1]. Consumer household purchases are responsible for about
70–80% of Europe’s environmental impacts [2]. However, increasing environmental concern still
does not lead to a sufficient part of actual consumer behavior in the context of sustainable
consumption (SC).
Geiger et al. [1], while defining sustainable consumption, emphasize individual actions of
consumers in the areas of acquisition, usage and disposal of goods, products and services, taking
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349; doi:10.3390/su12041349 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 2 of 19
into account the effect on ecological and socioeconomic conditions for today’s and future
generations. According to Liu et al. [3], previous research on sustainable consumption can be
defined as either psychology‐based or social‐context‐based studies aiming to affect consumer
behavior. The psychology‐based studies tried to explore factors that influence consumer attitude;
meanwhile, social‐context based studies tried to explain how consumer behavior can be affected by
structural social factors. From 2006, research on sustainable consumption started to stand out in
different disciplines and became interrelated with other, more diverse research themes [3].
According to Pepper et al. [4], the bigger part of research in sustainable consumption is based on a
psychological perspective and is oriented at exploring the factors determining ecologically conscious
consumer behavior. Indeed, there is an abundant number of studies trying to reveal factors and
motives of sustainable consumption behavior [5–14]. The listing of determinants often includes
factors considered to be internal to individuals (e.g., values, personal norms, beliefs, attitudes) and
external forces—contextual, structural or social factors (e.g., social norms, infrastructural constraints,
different incentives). Sustainable consumption became a key topic in marketing research
emphasizing the use of various marketing strategies and tools for changing consumer behavior to
more environmentally conscious behavior. Since it became clear that one‐way communication about
negative consequences of unsustainable consumption was not effective at reaching substantial
changes in behavior, many studies have concentrated on tools and methods for engaging consumers
in active and mutual dialogue about sustainability issues [15–17].
The construct of consumer engagement has gained much interest with marketing research as
well as in other academic disciplines, including economy, psychology, sociology, etc. Engagement in
publications of social sciences is based on various conceptual approaches, so various sub‐forms of
the phenomenon might be found. Marketing researchers have concentrated on consumer
engagement [7,18–22]. Hollebeek [22] has introduced a dynamic engagement model where
consumer engagement is a particular level of consumer motivation related to a particular object or a
state depending on a particular situation, which may be described as activity of cognition, emotion
or behavior in interaction with the engagement object.
While scientific studies analyzing sustainable consumption sometimes refer to consumer
engagement as a tool for promoting sustainable behavior [16,17,23–25] there is very little empirical
research that would include the consumer engagement construct in the field of sustainable
consumption. There is a lack of research that reveals the conceptual meaning of consumer
engagement in sustainable consumption and its empirical relations with other constructs. Therefore,
our focus on the exploration of the consumer engagement phenomenon in the context of sustainable
consumption widens the boundaries in consumer engagement and sustainable consumption
research and contributes to the development of consumer behavior theory.
Based on cause and effect logic, the introduction of consumer engagement construct changes
the research direction and raises the need to explore the factors determining consumer engagement
in sustainable consumption. Approaches to the factors causing consumer engagement in scientific
literature are very diverse due to the variety of engagement objects and contexts. The topic of
consumer engagement in sustainable consumption is considered unexplored both in the aspects of
the structure of the construct as well as the determinants influencing the engagement. In our study,
engagement in sustainable consumption is related to the motivational state of the consumer [22], and
from a marketing perspective, the identification of actual consumer behavior as a consequence of
consumer engagement is especially important.
Application of cause and effect based logic in the research of consumer engagement in
sustainable consumption is justified by the Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) paradigm, which
emerged from the theory of environmental psychology [26]. According to Koklič [27], “the SOR
paradigm has served as a strong guideline for studies on consumer decision‐making for decades”
[27] (pp. 10). Studies that apply SOR logic usually take some external factors (e.g., shopping
environment) as stimulus (cause); organism is usually defined as the emotional state of an
individual that can cause different consumer reactions (effects); response often implies different
kinds of approach or avoidance behaviors [27–30]. In the traditional SOR model, the “stimulus” part
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 3 of 19
consisted of environmental stimuli. However, there is some empirical proof that stimuli could be
internal as well as external to the individual, which would influence consumers’ internal state
(“organism”) [31–33]. We argue that engagement in sustainable consumption as an internal state of a
consumer could be evoked through both external and internal influences (stimuli). Based on that,
external determinants in our study involve social environment and conditions for and promotion of
sustainable consumption, while internal determinants represent such stimuli as perceived
responsibility, perceived behavioral efficiency and environmental attitude. The relevance of the SOR
model in our paper is based on several arguments. 1) Firstly, factors that influence consumer
engagement could be treated as stimuli, leading to a particular state in individuals; 2) secondly,
consumer engagement can represent the organism, being the mediator between the cause and the
effect. While in many studies the organism was defined as an emotional state, there is some scientific
discussion about the interrelation of cognitive and emotional elements while describing the
organism [34]. This is in line with a dominant multidimensional approach to consumer engagement,
where engagement is understood as integrating cognitive and emotional aspects along with
consumer engagement behaviors [18,19]; 3) understanding of the third element of the SOR
model—response (effect)—in our research is important for getting insights about the possible
drivers of sustainable consumption behavior. As was already mentioned, according to Geiger et al.
[1], sustainable consumption involves consumer activities related with acquisition, usage and
disposal of goods and services. Therefore, all three stages or any one of them could represent the
effect of consumer engagement. In our paper, due to the focus on the first two domains, we limited
the analysis of the response (effect) to green product buying, which reflects actual consumer
behavior in an acquisition stage.
The main aim of this study is to examine the external and internal factors that influence
consumer engagement in sustainable consumption. At the same time, we aim to identify the role of
consumer engagement as a mediator between the stimuli (external and internal) and the response
(actual sustainable consumption behavior). The present study intends to enrich the existing body of
research in the sustainable consumption area by introducing the construct of consumer engagement
as a tool for promoting sustainable consumption behavior. Since this domain is under‐researched,
the results of our study will contribute to both sustainability and consumer behavior fields at
academic and practice levels.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Sustainable Consumption
Definitions of sustainable consumption vary in the discourse of academic research and practice,
most probably due to the interdisciplinary nature of the phenomenon and the fact that social science
researchers tend to analyze sustainable consumption from different perspectives. Geiger et al. [1]
state that because of the lack of consensus about the definition of sustainable consumption, research
on sustainable consumption is limited.
Sustainable consumption is a complex and ambivalent concept composed of two visibly
opposite terms—consumption and sustainability. Existing definitions nevertheless show that the
main aim of sustainable consumption is to reach the harmony between the satisfaction of consumer
needs and preservation of the environment [3,35–38]. It is a search for balance between the consumer
freedom of choice and responsibility for others and the Earth. Analysis of recent literature reveals a
number of different terms describing sustainable consumption. In order to convey the idea of
sustainable consumption the authors use such concepts as green consumption [39], ethical
consumption [40], political [41], mindful [42], pro‐environmental [43], environmentally friendly
consumption [44], etc. Often those concepts focus on a single aspect of sustainable consumption
(e.g., the ecological) and emphasize particular consumer intentions, which, of course, are important,
but do not reveal a systematic approach to sustainable consumption that is based on the integration
of economic, social and environmental aspects [36]. In particular, this limitation is evident in early
works. Jackson and Michaelis [45] suggest that the concept of sustainable consumption deals with
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 4 of 19
ecological and social issues, like environment protection, life quality and intra‐generational and
inter‐generational equity. Existing empirical research often involves one of those areas within a
particular industry sector. For example, marketing and consumer behavior research in the context of
sustainable consumption usually deals with ecological/environmental issues, analyzing consumer
attitudes, values, beliefs, norms and behavior towards buying “green” products, disposal of waste
and other related activities. Definitions of sustainable consumption in more recent works include the
aspiration to consume in a way that leads to higher quality in environmental, social and economic
life areas. Based on this approach, Balderjahn et al. [36] distinguish three areas of sustainable
consumption: Environmental, social and economic. Those areas are evident in the work of Geiger et
al. [1] as well, since authors identify two sustainable consumption dimensions—ecological and
socio‐economic. It is obvious that the first corresponds to environmental and the second integrates
social and economic dimensions as identified by Balderjahn et al. [36].
The discussion above shows the evolution of the concept of sustainable consumption, from
focus on single aspects of sustainable consumption to emphasis on a systemic approach. Liu et al. [3]
in their work provide thorough and well‐structured analysis of research in the sustainable
consumption area, distinguishing two stages in research evolution: 1) Research in 1995–2005, and 2)
2006–2014 (or recent) studies. The authors found that the dominant keywords in research until 2006
were “sustainability” and “sustainable development”, and sustainable consumption was usually
analyzed as a composite element of sustainable development. Nevertheless, the first stage showed
the growing interest among researchers for the issues of consumption behavior and environmental,
economic and consumer–resource interaction. Since 2006, the list of research topics shows
sustainable consumption as the stand‐alone research field; it includes the topics of consumer
behavior and environmental impact. Because of the growing importance of the role of consumer
behavior, recent scientific research often equates the concepts of sustainable consumption and
behavior. The authors of the present paper argue that this equation can be logically explained if
taking a process‐based (not dimension‐based) approach to sustainable consumption, where
sustainable consumption involves the activities of consumers, and those activities in turn constitute
the background of the consumer behavior concept.
Discussing consumer activities that could be attributed to sustainable consumption, we refer to
the works of Phipps et al. [37], Gupta and Agraval [46], and Geiger et al. [1], where, from the
consumers’ perspective, sustainable consumption is defined as a three‐stage process. In fact, Gupta
and Agraval [46] analyzed “environmentally responsible” consumption, describing it as a process
that involves purchase, use and disposal of goods and services. The same approach is evident in the
work of Kim et al. [46], while analyzing “green” consumption.
According to Phipps et al. [37], sustainable consumption is a compromise between
environmental, social and economic aims, acquiring, using and utilizing products, seeking global
welfare for the present and future generations. Sustainable consumption, representing the demand
side of the consumption/production coin, should allow for potential changes in consumer behavior.
Geiger et al. [1], while analyzing the issues of sustainable consumption measurement, use the term
“sustainable consumption behavior”, and emphasize the need of an integrative framework from an
interdisciplinary perspective. They proposed a cube model of sustainable consumption behavior
(SCB‐cube), focusing on ecological and socio‐economic sustainability dimensions, different
consumption phases (acquisition, use and disposal), different consumption areas (food, housing,
mobility, clothing, etc.) and the impact of behavior.
The authors of this paper support the process‐based idea of sustainable consumption. This
approach is reflected in the analysis of the sustainable consumption as an object of consumer
engagement and the determinants of engagement. However, when talking about the effect of
consumer engagement in sustainable consumption (response—in the SOR model), we limited our
scope to consumer behavior related to green product buying (acquisition phase). It is only one of
many possible results of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption, which nevertheless
illustrates the phenomenon. Green products in our study were defined as products, the design
and/or attributes of which, and/or the production, involve non‐toxic, biologically decomposable,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 5 of 19
renewable resources, and which decrease damage to the environment during the whole life‐cycle
[35]. The choice of “green product buying” as the first stage in the consumption process was based
on works of Peattie [39], Kim et al. [46] and Lin and Huang [47]. Green product buying is an
important form of sustainable consumption behavior and is defined as consumers’ buying activities
that are influenced by their environmental concerns and includes products that were made with
respect to the environment.
2.2. Consumer engagement
The need to start the active dialogue with consumers about environmental issues and to
promote sustainable consumption behavior is evident in recent scientific discourse. One of the areas
that has gained much attention in academic literature is the application of the engagement construct
[6,18,48]. Brodie et al. [18] note that engagement is a form of social, interactive behavior, described as
a transition state formed through the development of relevant engagement processes over a certain
period of time [19]. A definition of the concept of consumer engagement usually speaks about the
level of consumers’ physical, cognitive and emotional relationship with an organization, product,
brand, etc. The interpretation of the concept usually depends on the object of engagement (company,
product, brand, advertisement, virtual community, value creation, etc.). In other words, engagement
reflects an interactive consumer relationship with a specific object that is context specific.
A broad understanding of the concept of consumer engagement results in ambiguity and
confusion. Since the concept of engagement is actively employed in various fields of science and
research, acceptance of one umbrella definition of the concept is a challenge. Javornik and Mandelli
[49] proposed the following approaches to consumer engagement: Behavior‐based, psychological
(cognitive and emotional), multidimensional and social. The multidimensional approach is
considered to be a dominant research direction on consumer engagement in recent years. It usually
emphasizes the integration of cognitive and emotional aspects along with consumer engagement
behavior.
Since consumer engagement is usually analyzed from the multidimensional perspective, it calls
for a need to substantiate consumer engagement dimensions. The research on dimensions of the
consumer engagement construct shows that expression of engagement dimensions identified by
various authors may vary in different contexts. Marketing scholars [18,22,48] have suggested that
the number of dimensions to measure consumer engagement was determined by the approach to
the construct—one‐dimensional or multidimensional [19]. In a one‐dimensional approach a
particular dimension is identified as the most important, and usually is differently defined by
different authors; meanwhile, in a multidimensional model there is no consensus so far. In any case,
the dominant multidimensional approach often involves three main dimensions: Cognitive,
emotional and behavioral engagement. The authors of the present study maintain the same
approach while conceptualizing the construct of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption.
The importance of research in the consumer engagement field allows suggesting applying the
consumer engagement construct in the sustainable consumption research area as well. While studies
analyzing sustainable consumption sometimes refer to consumer engagement as a tool for
promoting sustainable behavior [16,17,23–25], there is a lack of research that would reveal the
conceptual meaning of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption and its empirical relations
with other constructs. The existing gaps highlight the importance of research in the construct itself
and the factors determining the engagement. Understanding consumer engagement in sustainable
consumption and factors that influence the engagement might lead to a better understanding of
sustainable consumption processes and contribute to the development of consumer behavior theory
and practice in the context of sustainable consumption.
2.3. Determinants of Consumer Engagement in Sustainable Consumption
Exploration of motives, attitudes and values is integral with any analysis of consumer behavior.
With the growth of the significance of consumer engagement, it becomes important to understand
why some consumers tend to engage more than others. However, approaches to the factors
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 6 of 19
determining consumer engagement found in the literature are very diverse, largely due to the
variety of engagement objects and contexts.
The novelty of the very phenomenon of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption
complicates the identification of factors influencing it. There is a number of studies analyzing
determinants of sustainable consumption behavior itself [8,13] as well as factors, influencing
consumer engagement [6,50]. As factors determining the engagement are closely related with an
object of engagement, and the object in our case is sustainable consumption, systematic comparative
analysis of existing literature allowed the identification of six factors that might influence consumer
engagement in sustainable consumption, reflecting both internal and external factors.
Internal factors include consumer attitude to environmental issues, perceived responsibility for
his/her own actions and perceived behavioral efficiency. Investigation of sustainable consumption
behavior often embraces environmental attitude that reflects consumer attitude to environmental
issues, need to change behavioral habits and other environmental concerns [10,14]. It is assumed that
without environmental concern consumers will be less willing to engage in sustainable
consumption. Perceived responsibility is another important factor and leads to unselfish behavior
[12]. A positive environmental attitude does not necessarily mean the person feels responsible for
the damage society does to the environment. Meanwhile, perceived responsibility has a stronger
relation with sustainable behavior [51]. Perceived behavioral efficiency reflects the understanding of
how personal behavior can affect the situation in the world [6]. Consumers will be more willing to
engage into sustainable consumption if they believe their actions could have a significant impact.
From a marketing perspective, it is important to identify external factors because it is easier to
manipulate them in order to change consumer behavior. Among those factors we can distinguish
conditions for sustainable consumption, social environment and promotion of sustainable
consumption. Conditions for sustainable consumption involve conditions for acquiring, using and
disposing of products or services with regard to green product accessibility, infrastructure of public
transport, recycling, etc. [8,13]. Insufficient conditions could prevent consumers from sustainable
behavior despite their own attitude to environmental concerns. The social environment also has a
big impact on behavior. Opinion and behavior of surrounding people often become a stimulus or an
obstacle to changes [6]. The topic of consumer engagement is closely related with the incentives of
companies and organizations that allow reaching a higher engagement level. The promotion of
sustainable consumption is the third external factor we identified in this study and involves
information about environmental issues, promotion of green products [13,52], promotion of
recycling [8,13] and other external initiatives.
2.4. Research framework and hypotheses
Based on the theoretical background and following the ideas of the SOR paradigm we
developed the research framework, indicating the expected relations among different constructs (see
Figure 1).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 7 of 19
Internal factors
Consumer Engagement in
Sustainable Consumption
Green product buying
External factors
Figure 1. Research framework.
The model reads as follows: Internal and external factors influence consumer engagement in
sustainable consumption, which in turn has a positive impact on consumer behavior (green product
buying).
The SOR model is used extensively in scientific research to explain consumer buying behavior
in various contexts. In the traditional SOR model the “stimulus” part is treated as consisting of
environmental stimuli. Those stimuli were usually investigated while including external
environmental factors influencing consumer behavior. However, referring to Jacoby [53] (pp. 56–57),
it is acknowledged that there are numerous internal (such as physiological, neurological and
biochemical systems of individuals) and external (such as actions of corporations and governmental
policies) factors that have an impact on consumer behavior. In this paper seeking to investigate the
phenomenon of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption, the extended versions of the
SOR model, proposed by Chan et al. [33] and Peng and Kim [32] were taken as a basis for the
development of the research framework. While explaining online shopping behavior Peng and Kim
[32] distinguished two stimulus groups: 1) Those with internal influence (hedonic and utilitarian
shopping values), and 2) those with external influence (i.e., traditional environmental stimuli).
Meanwhile, Chan et al. [33] after a thorough analysis of the state of online impulse‐buying research
provided an even wider range of internal (various consumer characteristics) and external stimuli
(website, marketing, and situational stimulus). In our research framework “external factors”
represent external stimuli, while “internal factors” represent internal stimuli.
Existing literature on factors influencing sustainable consumption behavior of individuals
and/or determinants of consumer engagement is full of evidences that both internal and external
factors are important predictors for consumer engagement and/or sustainable consumption
behavior. While we could not find similar studies that would analyze the determinants of consumer
engagement in the context of sustainable consumption, we tentatively derive the following
hypotheses:
H1: Internal factors (environmental attitude, perceived responsibility and perceived behavioral efficiency)
will have a positive impact on consumer engagement in sustainable consumption.
H2: External factors (conditions for SC, social environment and promotion of SC) will have a positive
impact on consumer engagement in sustainable consumption.
“Organism” in SOR model means internal evaluations of consumers [33], i.e., internal processes
or states [27]. In our research framework, a three‐dimensional construct of consumer engagement in
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 8 of 19
sustainable consumption describes the motivational state of consumers [22] and represents the
“organism”.
Research on consumer engagement reports evidence that engagement leads to enhanced
consumer loyalty, satisfaction, empowerment, connection, emotional bonding, trust, commitment,
etc. [18,22]. Therefore, we presume that it can lead to a greater level of sustainable consumption as
well:
H3: Consumer engagement in sustainable consumption will have a positive impact on green product
buying.
“Response” in the SOR model equates with the result—the final decision of the consumer. As
SOR was widely applied in consumer behavior studies, the “response” also varied depending on the
different tasks of various scholars. “Green product buying” serves as the “response” in our
conceptual model.
Some findings imply that consumer engagement can work as a mediator [6,19,54,55]. Van Door
et al. [6] suggested that antecedents based on customer, company or context could benefit
consumers, businesses or processes through customer engagement behavior. Considering this, we
propose that consumer engagement is an important mediator of the relationship between internal
and external factors and sustainable consumption behavior. Consequently, we expect the mediated
relationship to be stronger and propose the following hypotheses:
H4: Consumer engagement in sustainable consumption positively mediates the impact of internal factors
on green product buying.
H5: Consumer engagement in sustainable consumption positively mediates the impact of external factors
on green product buying.
3. Research Design
3.1. Sample
A quantitative online survey was used for data collection. Purposive sampling along with
snowball sampling was applied since we tried to reach online communities that express concerns
about environmental, social and economic issues. The link to the survey was advertised via social
networks, online forums and word of mouth, trying to reach the respondents who care about the
idea of sustainability. The argument for sampling criterion was the need to find consumers that were
likely more willing to engage in sustainable consumption. Nonprobability sampling has its
limitations due to the subjective nature in choosing a sample, but since the purpose of this research
was not to make some generalizable conclusions about the population, but to test theoretically
assumed relations, the nonprobability sampling can be justified [56,57]. All data were collected
anonymously. In total, 405 usable questionnaires were completed.
Seventy‐seven percent of respondents were female. The age ranged from 18 to 68 years with a
mean age of 29 years. The majority of respondents (almost 50%) were young, between 18 and 24
years old. 61% of respondents had a higher education. Half of the respondents were single (46%),
70% did not have children and the income per month of 61% did not exceed 600 euros (the net
income in Lithuania was 600 euros at the time of empirical data collection). These
socio‐demographic characteristics show that younger, educated people, mostly women, were keener
to participate in this research and this has to be taken into account when interpreting the results.
3.2. Measures and Their Quality Parameters
Two groups each comprising three factors were distinguished in our research as possible
determinants of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption (CESC). The internal group of
factors involved environmental attitude, perceived responsibility and perceived behavioral
efficiency. Conditions for SC, social environment and promotion of SC represented external factors.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 9 of 19
Each factor was measured with four items on the seven‐point Likert scale (1—“completely
disagree”; 7—“completely agree”).
Results of an exploratory factor analysis (principal component analysis with Varimax rotation)
confirmed the unidimensional structure and internal consistency of each scale. Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients showed a high or satisfactory level of reliability (see Table 1).
Table 1. Measurement quality parameters of scales for determinants of consumer engagement in
sustainable consumption (CESC).
Cronbach’s
Factor (number of items) Authors Factor loadings
alpha
Environmental attitude (4) Adapted from [10,58] 0.88 0.82–0.92
Perceived responsibility (4) Adapted from [12,51] 0.83 0.74–0.85
Perceived behavioral efficiency (4) Adapted from [59,60] 0.87 0.82–0.92
Conditions for SC1 (4) Adapted from [8,13] 0.62 0.56–0.79
Social environment (4) Adapted from [47] 0.69 0.61–0.80
Promotion of SC (4) Adapted from [8,13,47] 0.72 0.65–0.82
1 SC = sustainable consumption.
The construct of engagement was considered to be three‐dimensional, comprising cognitive,
emotional and behavioral aspects [18,48]. Cognitive engagement reflected consumers’ interest in
sustainable and/or socially responsible production and products, environmental issues and problem
solving methods. Emotional engagement was defined as feelings of pride and inspiration that
emerge as a result of a decision to put more effort into preserving the environment, to pay more for
green products, etc. Behavioral engagement was defined as consumer efforts to behave/consume
responsibly (to buy sustainable products, efficiently use the resources, recycle, etc.). A twelve item
seven‐point Likert scale (1—“completely disagree”; 7—“completely agree”) was developed for
measuring CESC. Exploratory factor analysis (principal component analysis with Varimax rotation)
confirmed the three‐dimensional structure of engagement (KMO—0.940, p < 0.001); three factors
accounted for 62.35% of variability of the original 12 items. Internal consistency of sub‐scales and the
overall scale was tested and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients showed high levels of reliability (see Table
2).
Table 2. Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis and reliability of CESC1 subscales.
Factor
Cronbach’s Factor % of
(number of Authors
alpha loadings variance
items)
Cognitive (4) 0.90 0.64–0.77 23.83
Developed by authors based on Calder et
Emotional (4) 0.90 0.49–0.72 23.15
al. [61], Hollebeek et al. [48]; So et al. [62]
Behavioral (4) 0.89 0.58–0.76 22.20
Overall (12) 0.95
1 CESC = consumer engagement in sustainable consumption.
Green product buying in our research represented the form of sustainable consumption. This
single aspect of sustainable consumption (first stage—acquisition) was chosen as one of many
possible results of consumer engagement. A six item scale was developed based on the works of Lin
and Huang [47], Leonidou et al. [58] and Geng et al. [14]. Items were measured with the seven‐point
Likert scale. While originally developed in this research, the scale showed a high level of reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha—0.89), and exploratory factor analysis (principal component analysis with
Varimax rotation) resulted in one dimension showing the internal consistency of the scale (KMO =
0.839, p < 0.001, 65.25% of explained variance, factor loadings ranging between 0.743 and 0.847).
The items of all scales along with means and standard deviations are reported in Appendix A
Table A1.
Since our study contains self‐reported information, which is subject to social‐desirability bias,
we checked for common method problems by using Harman’s single‐factor test in which an
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 10 of 19
exploratory factor analysis was conducted on all Likert‐scale items without factor rotation [63]. This
analysis resulted in eight factors with an eigenvalue >1, explaining 66.9% of the total variance, and
the first factor explaining 39.5%. In addition, a confirmatory factor analysis in SPSS AMOS ver. 25
(IBM, Wexford, PA, USA), with one general (method) factor showed poor fit (χ2/df = 5.46, p < 0.001,
NFI = 0.63, CFI = 0.67; RMSEA = 0.11; the fit criteria are explained below). Therefore, we tentatively
conclude that common method bias was not a serious problem in this study.
4. Results
The results are provided in a the following order: 1) Descriptive analysis of determinants,
consumer engagement in sustainable consumption and green product buying behavior is presented
first; then 2) results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modelling (SEM)
are presented; and finally 3) differences based on socio‐demographic characteristics are briefly
discussed.
Descriptive statistics of determinants showed that mean scores were higher for internal factors,
showing that internal concern of respondents towards sustainability issues was quite strong. The
mean scores of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption showed that respondents were
more engaged emotionally (5.49 on a seven‐points scale) than, for example, behaviorally. Green
product buying reflects similar moderate willingness to buy “greener” production despite the
declared concern about the environment (see Table 3).
Table 3. Descriptive statistics.
For examining the fitness of the measures of the model, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
performed, which yielded adequate fit for the studied factors (see Table 4).
Table 4. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
CFA model fit indices
Factor Factor loadings χ2/df p NFI 1 CFI 2 RMSEA 3
Internal factors 0.60–0.89 2.01 <0.001 0.97 0.99 0.05
External factors 0.31–0.78 1.93 <0.001 0.92 0.96 0.05
Overall Engagement in SC 0.69–0.91 2.06 <0.001 0.98 0.99 0.05
Green product buying 0.48–0.90 0.39 0.81 1.00 1.00 <0.001
NFI = Normed Fit Index, 2 CFI = Comparative Fit Index, 3 RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
1
For description of constructs and items see Appendix. CFA fit criteria based on Byrne [64] and
Hair et al. [65]: χ2/df (close to 2), p (not significant), NFI = Normed Fit Index (>0.95), CFI =
Comparative Fit Index (>0.95); RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (<0.08). Green
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 11 of 19
product buying behavior is called a just identified indicator model in which “there are just enough
degrees of freedom to estimate all free parameters” [65] (pp. 699).
Table 5 shows the correlations of the scales. We can see that in general there are many
inter‐correlations between the scales except for the scale “conditions for sustainable consumption”.
This can be explained by the nature of the scale (see Appendix). It clearly differs from other
measures as it represents the accessibility of infrastructure that facilitates sustainable behavior.
Obviously, available conditions are not favorably perceived by respondents, in contrast to the other
measures.
Table 5. Correlations of scales, Cronbach’s alpha’s on the diagonal (N = 405).
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Environmental
0.88
attitude (1)
Perceived
0.76 ** 0.83
responsibility (2)
Perceived behavioral
0.73 ** 0.79 ** 0.87
efficiency (3)
Conditions for SC 1 (4) −0.12 * −0.06 −0.05 0.62
Social environment
0.33 ** 0.28 ** 0.35 ** 0.01 0.69
(5)
Promotion of SC (6) 0.55 ** 0.48 ** 0.51 ** −0.20 ** 0.42 ** 0.72
Cognitive (7) 0.58 ** 0.56 ** 0.49 ** −0.16 ** 0.25 ** 0.38 ** 0.90
Emotional (8) 0.46 ** 0.47 ** 0.55 ** −0.08 0.36 ** 0.50 ** 0.15 ** 0.90
Behavioral (9) 0.37 ** 0.24 ** 0.22 ** −0.09 0.31 ** 0.27 ** 0.20 ** 0.09 0.89
Green product buying
0.60 ** 0.56 ** 0.51 ** −0.12 * 0.42 ** 0.46 ** 0.55 ** 0.40 ** 0.50 ** 0.89
(10)
1 Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was carried out to test the hypotheses. The results showed
that the model with overall engagement in sustainable consumption as mediator quite adequately
fitted the data (χ2/df = 3.63, p < 0.001, NFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.08; see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Model showing mediation of overall engagement in sustainable consumption. Note. See Appendix for
labels of items i1–i6. Values indicate standardized regression coefficients (ps < 0.01), correlation (p < 0.01) and
proportion explained variance (R2) in bold.
Results revealed significant predictive power of internal and external factors on consumer
engagement in sustainable consumption. Internal factors were found to have stronger impact on
consumer engagement (β = 0.53, p < 0.01) than external factors had (β = 0.43, p < 0.01). The results
thus support hypotheses H1 and H2. In total, 80% of the variance in consumer engagement in
sustainable consumption was accounted for by the two groups of factors, showing their importance
for consumer engagement.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 12 of 19
The results also supported hypothesis H3, indicating that consumer engagement in sustainable
consumption has a positive direct impact on green product buying (β = 0.82, p < 0.01).
Since the construct of consumer engagement is often considered to be a mediator that facilitates
some expected outcomes (e.g., loyalty, value for company, value for customer, sustainable
behavior), we derived two mediation hypotheses H4 and H5. In line with James et al. [66], we tested
for complete and partial mediation. The effects of internal factors and external factors on green
product buying behavior appeared to be completely mediated by consumer engagement in
sustainable consumption (standardized indirect effects: 0.43 and 0.35, respectively, ps < 0.01),
supporting hypotheses H4 and H5. Altogether, 67% of the variance in green product buying
behavior was explained by the indirect effects of the two groups of factors and the direct effect of
engagement. We tested an alternative model in which internal factors, external factors and consumer
engagement in sustainable consumption were all independent variables. This model showed that
the direct effects of internal factors and external factors were not statistically significant. So, there are
no direct effects of the two former factors, but the mechanism goes indirectly via overall engagement
in SC, evidencing its pivotal position.
Additionally, we used nonparametric tests in order to look for possible differences in results
based on socio‐demographic characteristics of respondents. Mann–Whitney U tests showed that
engagement in sustainable consumption in female respondents (Mdn = 5.58, N = 310) was
significantly higher than in male respondents (Mdn = 4.58, N = 95) (U = 8963, Z = ‐3.48, p < 0.001).
Engagement was higher with respondents over 25 years old (Mdn = 5.58, N = 210) than with those
younger than 25 (Mdn = 5.00, N = 195) (U = 15616, Z = −4.13, p < 0.001). Single respondents (Mdn =
5.00, N = 186) showed significantly lower engagement than those who were married or cohabitated
(Mdn = 5.58, N = 219) (U = 15221, Z = −4.39, p < 0.001). Respondents with children (Mdn = 5.58, N =
119) reported higher engagement than respondents who did not have children (Mdn = 5.25, N = 280)
(U = 13349, Z = −3.14, p = 0.002). There were no significant differences found based on education and
income. These findings suggest that people who already have a family and have children
(consequently who are a little bit more mature) were more willing to engage in sustainable
consumption practices.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
With this study, we tried to disclose factors that might be important in fostering consumer
engagement in sustainable consumption. It is an attempt to integrate the consumer engagement
construct into the context of sustainable consumption, as marketing literature indicates that
engagement is an important and strategic tool when promoting some kinds of consumer behavior.
While consumer engagement is context specific, engagement in sustainable consumption represents
an area that lacks conceptual and empirical background. At the same time, finding internal and
external factors influencing the engagement also represents the new research direction in the area of
sustainability. Therefore, our study contributes both to the development of theories in consumer
behavior and sustainable consumption fields.
We based our research framework, which combines determinants of consumer engagement, the
consumer engagement construct itself and the consequence of engagement (green product buying)
on the stimulus–organism–response paradigm, which is widely applied in consumer behavior
research [27,32,33]. Since our study is one of the first attempts to use the SOR model for explanation
of the phenomenon of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption, the confirmation of its
suitability could serve as an important outcome as well.
We identified six factors (environmental attitude, perceived responsibility, perceived
behavioral efficiency, conditions for SC, social environment and promotion of SC) grouped into
internal and external factors that were proved to have a significant positive impact on consumer
engagement in sustainable consumption. Internal factors had the stronger direct impact on
consumer engagement than external factors, but both groups of factors accounted for 80% of
variance in engagement. In general, the results imply that consumers who care about sustainability
issues, understand their own responsibility and believe that actions of one individual can make a
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 13 of 19
difference are more willing to engage in sustainable consumption. The lack of empirical research in
the area does not allow making meaningful comparisons with findings in similar research. However,
existing research that involves sustainable consumption without the construct of consumer
engagement showed that the positive attitude to environmental issues [13,14,58], perceived
responsibility [8] and perceived effectiveness of one’s behavior [14] had a direct positive impact on
consumer behavior. Our research contributes to existing research in the field of sustainable
consumption by emphasizing the importance of consumer engagement in the context of sustainable
consumption.
Another important contribution is the development of the consumer engagement construct in
the context of sustainable consumption. Engagement in publications of social sciences is based on
various conceptual approaches and various sub‐forms of the phenomenon may be found. On the
basis of the dynamic model of Hollebeek [22], we conceptualized consumer engagement as a
particular level of consumers’ motivational state depending on a particular situation, which may be
described as activity of cognition, emotion and behavior in interaction with the engagement object.
Research on consumer engagement often reports the positive results of engagement in the form
of consumer loyalty, satisfaction, perceived value, intentions or actual behavior [18,22]. A
process‐based approach to sustainable consumption allows defining sustainable consumption from
consumers’ perspective as a three‐stage process that involves purchase, use and disposal of goods
and services [1,46]. In our paper we selected green product buying (acquisition phase) as one of
many possible results of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption, although other possible
activities in each of the three stages could represent the outcome of engagement as well. The results
confirmed the positive influence of engagement on green product buying. Moreover, our results
showed the mediating role of the consumer engagement construct. The effects of internal factors and
external factors on green product buying were fully mediated by consumer engagement in
sustainable consumption. Cognitive, emotional and behavioral engagement strengthens the actual
sustainable behavior practices. This is in line with the findings of Joshi and Rahman [67], who
suggested that engagement in any kind of sustainable behavior leads to a sense of responsibility and
well‐being—feeling like part of the change process. Again, the uniqueness of this research does not
allow a comparison of the results with existing studies, but studies involving, for example, brand
engagement, allow recognition of the common tendency that consumers tend to be more willing to
engage with the object emotionally and this emotional state leads to the desirable results, e.g.,
stronger commitment to the object of engagement. In general, our findings prove that consumer
engagement can foster desirable changes in consumer behavior.
6. Implications and Limitations
6.1. Theoretical Implications
The contribution of this study is the depiction of the construct of consumer engagement in
sustainable consumption. So far, no research has focused on examining engagement in sustainable
consumption as a consumer’s internal state, described through cognitive, emotional and behavioral
dimensions. This study is also innovative as it includes and examines external and internal
determinants of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption. The findings highlight the need
to take into account the mediating role of consumer engagement when analyzing sustainable
consumption behavior. Therefore, the present study claims that the SOR paradigm is applicable to
research on consumer engagement in sustainable consumption. We argue that engagement, as an
internal state of a consumer, can be evoked through both external and internal stimuli, in contrast to
traditional approaches, where stimuli are primarily considered as factors outside of individuals. Our
findings confirm that perceived responsibility, perceived behavioral efficiency and environmental
attitude (internal factors) could be treated as consumers’ reasons for engagement, showing the
significant positive impact. This study suggests that personal traits of a consumer (e.g., perceived
responsibility) as well as external/environmental factors could influence his/her internal state (e.g.,
engagement), which in turn leads to response (e.g., green product buying). As such, this present
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 14 of 19
study adds to the application of the SOR model by suggesting that personal traits of a consumer
could be promising independent variables for the internal state of a consumer as an outcome.
6.2. Managerial implications
Research results showed that respondents had a positive attitude to green product promotion
and to the application of other “engaging mechanisms” for sustainable consumption promotion.
Social organizations could benefit from any kind of consumer engagement initiatives, as findings
imply that one‐way communication about the damage of overconsumption and unsustainable
consumption is not so efficient as more engaging ways of sustainable consumption promotion.
Those more engaging ways, for example, could involve the creation and use of apps for tracing
sustainable consumption behavior in purchasing, use and disposal of goods, resources and services;
other gamification practices that provide public acknowledgment and other rewards for results in
sustainable consumption behavior; and the creation and support of various online/offline
communities that promote sustainability. The findings implicate that social organizations should
create initiatives for promoting positive attitudes to environmental issues and to reinforce the
positive evaluation of sustainable consumption behavior in society. Companies should try to
improve green product accessibility with regard to price and convenience, taking other possible
conditions for improving more sustainable consumption behavior into consideration. Social ad
campaigns should stress individual responsibility and emphasize the significance of the individual’s
actions in harming the environment and fostering sustainable consumption. Finally, as the social
environment was also found to be important, it is obvious that a call for change should address the
whole society, hoping for a positive transformation in perception and performance at all levels.
6.3. Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Our study can be considered as an exploration in nature since it represents one of the first
attempts to use the construct of consumer engagement in the topic of sustainable consumption.
Therefore, is has a number of limitations, which in turn show the possible directions for further
research. Our research is limited geographically to the population of one European
country—Lithuania; the results might differ, taking other cultural contexts into account. Moreover,
younger people dominated in the current research and therefore we recommend repeating the
research in other samples representative of age difference. However, considering the novelty of the
topic, even the current case serves as a basis for further exploration and contributes to the existing
body of knowledge. In this study we identified six factors that form two groups (internal and
external) that influence consumer engagement in sustainable consumption. Logically, there might be
other factors that could be considered important in determining consumer engagement. Future
research might consider those other factors and variables excluded in the present study. Finally, in
our research we took green product buying as the result of consumer engagement in sustainable
consumption. Sustainable consumption has a variety of possible forms of expression, which also
show possible directions for further research in the area.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Ž. P., A. Ž., A. D. and J. B.; Data curation, A. Ž.; Formal analysis, Ž.
P., H. K., A. Ž., A. D. and J. B.; Investigation, A. Ž.; Methodology, Ž. P., H. K. and A. Ž.; Project administration,
Ž. P., A. D. and J. B.; Resources, Ž. P., A. Ž., A. D. and J. B.; Software, Ž. P., H. K. and A. Ž.; Validation, H. K., A.
Ž.; Visualization, Ž. P., H. K.; Writing—original draft, Ž. P., A. Ž., A. D. and J. B.; Writing—review and editing,
Ž. P., H. K., A. D. and J. B.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by a grant (No. S‐MIP‐17‐123) from the Research Council of Lithuania.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 15 of 19
Appendix A
Table A1. Measures.
to environment.
2. I like to know more about the ways my consumption habits may
5.54 1.41
contribute to environment preservation.
3. When buying goods, I think about the effect my buying habits may
4.63 1.65
have on the environment.
4. I consider the possibility to reuse before disposing unnecessary
5.47 1.53
things.
1. I feel better person if I can contribute to the environment protection. 5.62 1.35
2. I feel better when I purchase green products instead of regular. 5.31 1.58
Emotional 3. I feel happy when I see that I can contribute to the environment
5.72 1.03
protection.
4. I am proud for myself each time when I find time to recycle. 5.29 1.48
1. I spend a lot of time for searching “greener” product alternatives. 3.96 1.72
2. I try to switch off the electrical appliances right after using them to
5.11 1.57
reduce electricity consumption.
Behavioral 3. I sort waste and send them to a sorted dustbin, collect used plastic
5.68 1.37
bottles and paper for sales.
4. I like to discuss the issues about environment protection with others,
4.34 1.83
sharing ideas and recommendations.
Green product buying behavior
1. When choosing among similar products, I select the one which is
4.90 1.61
more environmental‐friendly.
2. I buy green or organic food products. 4.93 1.61
3. I buy products with eco‐label. 4.68 1.60
4. I buy electrical appliances with labels of energy‐saving. 4.48 1.75
5. When purchasing the goods, I will consider whether they are made
4.17 1.76
of recycling materials (plastic, paper, etc.)
6. I prefer products with recyclable or reusable packages. 4.62 1.81
References
1. Geiger, S.M.; Fischer, D.; Schrader, U. Measuring what matters in sustainable consumption: an integrative
framework for the selection of relevant behaviors. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 18–33.
2. Mont, O.; Neuvonen, A.; Lähteenoja, S. Sustainable lifestyles 2050: stakeholder visions, emerging practices
and future research. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 24–32. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.007
3. Liu, Y., Qu, Y.; Lei, Z.; Jia, H. Understanding the evolution of sustainable consumption research. Sustain.
Dev. 2017, 25, 414–430. doi:10.1002/sd.1671
4. Pepper, M.; Jackson, T.; Uzzell, D. An examination of the values that motivate socially conscious and
frugal consumer behaviours. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2009, 33, 126–136. doi:10.1111/j.1470‐6431.2009.00753.x
5. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro‐environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 29, 309–317. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
6. Van Doorn, J.; Lemon, K.N.; Mittal, V.; Nass, S.; Pick, D.; Pirner P.; Verhoef, P.C. Customer Engagement
Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research Directions. J. Serv. Res. 2010, 13, 253–266.
doi:10.1177/1094670510375599
7. Plé, L.; Lecocq, X.; Angot, J. Customer‐Integrated Business Models: A Theoretical Framework. Management
2010, 13, 226–265. doi:10.3917/mana.134.0226.
8. Wang, P.; Liu, Q.; Qi, Y. Factors Influencing Sustainable Consumption Behaviors: a Survey of the Rural
Residents in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 152–165. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.007
9. Steg, L.; Perlaviciute, G.; van der Werff, E. Understanding the human dimensions of a sustainable energy
transition. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 805. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00805
10. Biswas, A.; Roy, M. Leveraging factors for sustained green consumption behavior based on consumption
value perceptions: testing the structural model. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 95, 332–340.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.042
11. Han, H.; Jae, M.; Hwang, J. Cruise travelers’ environmentally responsible decision‐making: An integrative
framework of goal‐directed behavior and norm activation process. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 53, 94–105.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.12.005
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 17 of 19
12. Paço, A.; Rodrigues, R.G. Environmental activism and consumers’ perceived responsibility. Int. J. Consum.
Stud. 2016, 40, 466–474. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12272
13. Wu, C.; Zhou, X.; Song, M. Sustainable consumer behavior in China: an empirical analysis from the
Midwest regions. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 147–165. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.057
14. Geng, D.; Liu, J.; Zhu, Q. Motivating sustainable consumption among Chinese adolescents: An empirical
examination. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 315–322. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.113
15. Brulle, R.J. From environmental campaigns to advancing the public dialog: Environmental
communication for civic engagement. Environ. Commun. 2010, 4, 82–98. doi:10.1080/17524030903522397
16. Huber, M.Z.; Hilty, L.M. Gamification and Sustainable Consumption: Overcoming the Limitations of
Persuasive Technologies. In: ICT Innovations for Sustainability, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing,
Hilty, L.M., Aebischer, B. Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 310,
pp. 367–385.
17. Mattila, A.S.; Wu, L.; Choi, C. Powerful or powerless customers: the influence of gratitude on engagement
with CSR. J. Serv. Mark. 2016, 30, 519–528. doi:10.1108/JSM‐07‐2014‐0233
18. Brodie, R.J.; Hollebeek, L.D.; Jurić, B.; Ilić, A. Customer Engagement: Conceptual Domain, Fundamental
Propositions, and Implications for Research. J. Serv. Res. 2011, 14, 1–20. doi:10.1177/1094670511411703
19. Gatautis, R.; Banytė, J.; Kuvykaitė, R.; Virvilaitė, R.; Dovalienė, A.; Piligrimienė, Ž.; Gadeikienė, A.;
Vitkauskaitė, E.; Tarutė, A. Sužaidybinimu grįstas vartotojų įsitraukimas į vertės kūrimą IRT plėtros kontekste.
UAB Ciklonas: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2015.
20. Hollebeek, L.D.; Conduit, J.; Sweeney, J.; Soutar, G.; Karpen, I.O.; Jarvis, W.; Chen, T. Epilogue to the
Special Issue and reflections on the future of engagement research. J. Mark. Manag. 2016, 32, 586–594.
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2016.1144340
21. Thakur, R. Understanding Customer Engagement and Loyalty: A Case of Mobile Devices for Shopping. J.
Retailing. Consum. Serv. 2016, 32, 151–163. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.06.004
22. Hollebeek, L. Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. J. Strat. Market. 2011, 19,
555‐573. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493
23. Mckenzie‐Mohr, D. New ways to promote pro‐environmental behavior: Promoting sustainable behavior:
An introduction to community‐based social marketing. J. Soc. Issues. 2000, 56, 543–554.
24. Cornelissen, G.; Pandelaere, M.; Warlop, L.; Dewitte, S. Positive cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer
behavior by cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2008, 25, 46–55.
25. Barrios‐O’Neill, D.; Schuitema, G. Online engagement for sustainable energy projects: A systematic review
and framework for integration. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 2016, 54, 1611–1621.
26. Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J.A. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA,
1974.
27. Koklič, M.K. Effect of Specialty Store Environment on Consumer’s Emotional States: The Moderating
Role of Price Consciousness. Market‐Tržište. 2019, 31, 7–22. doi:10.22598/mt/2019.31.1.7
28. Donovan, R.; Rossiter, J. Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology approach. J. Retail. 1982, 58,
34–57.
29. Vieira, V.A. Stimuli‐organism‐response framework: A meta‐analytic review in the store environment. J.
Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1420–1426. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.05.009
30. Otterbring, T. Smile for a while: the effect of employee‐displayed smiling on customer affect and
satisfaction. J. Serv. Manage. 2017, 28, 284–304. doi:10.1108/JOSM‐11‐2015‐0372
31. O’Brien, H. L. The influence of hedonic and utilitarian motivations on user engagement: The case of online
shopping experiences. Interact. Comput. 2010, 22, 344–352. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.001
32. Peng, C.; Kim, Y.G. Application of the stimuli‐organism‐response (SOR) framework to online shopping
behavior. J. Internet Commer. 2014, 13, 159–176. doi:10.1080/15332861.2014.944437
33. Chan, T.K.; Cheung, C.M.; Lee, Z.W. The state of online impulse‐buying research: A literature analysis.
Inform. Manag.—Amster. 2017, 54, 204–217. doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.06.001
34. Fiore, A.M.; Kim, J. An integrative framework capturing experiential and utilitarian shopping experience.
Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2007, 35, 421–442.
35. Durif, F.; Boivin, C.; Julien, C. In search of green product definition. Innov. Mark. 2010, 6, 25–33.
36. Balderjahn, I.; Buerke, A.; Kirchgeorg, M.; Peyer, M.; Seegebarth, B.; Wiedmann, K.P. Consciousness for
sustainable consumption: scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’
sustainability. Acad. Mark. Sci. Rev. 2013, 3, 181–192.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 18 of 19
37. Phipps, M.; Ozanne, L.K.; Luchs, M.G.; Subrahmanyan, S.; Kapitan, S.; Catlin, J.R.; Gau, R.; Naylor, R.W.;
Rose, R.L.; Simpson, B.; Weaver, T. Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A
social cognitive framework. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1227–1234.
38. Gupta, S.; Agraval, R. Environmentally Responsible Consumption: Construct Definition, Scale
Development, and Validation. Corp. Soc. Resp. Env. Ma. 2017, 25, 523–526.
39. Peattie, K. Green consumption: behavior and norms. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 2010, 35, 195–228.
doi:10.1146/annurev‐environ‐032609‐094328
40. Adams, M.; Raisborough, J. Making a difference: ethical consumption and the everyday. Brit. J. Sociol.
2010, 61, 256–274. doi:10.1111/j.1468‐4446.2010.01312.x
41. Koos, S. What drives political consumption in Europe? A multi‐level analysis on individual characteristics,
opportunity structures and globalization. Acta Sociol. 2012, 55, 37–57. doi:10.1177/0001699311431594
42. Sheth, J.N.; Sethia, N.K.; Srinivas, S. Mindful consumption: a customer‐centric approach to sustainability.
J. Acad. Market. Sci. 2011, 39, 21–39. doi:10.1007/s11747‐010‐0216‐3
43. Park, J.; Ha, S. Understanding pro‐environmental behavior: a comparison of sustainable consumers and
apathetic consumers. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2012, 40, 388–403. doi:10.1108/09590551211222367
44. Green, T., & Peloza, J. Finding the right shade of green: The effect of advertising appeal type on
environmentally friendly consumption. J. Advertising. 2014, 43, 128–141. doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.834805
45. Jackson, T.; Michaelis, L. Policies for Sustainable Consumption. Sustainable Development Commission:
London, UK, 2003.
46. Kim, S.Y.; Yeo, J.; Sohn, S.H.; Rha, J.Y.; Choi, S.; Choi, A.Y.; Shin, S. Toward a composite measure of green
consumption: An exploratory study using a Korean sample. J. Fam. Econ. Iss 2012, 33, 199–214.
doi:10.1007/s10834‐012‐9318‐z
47. Lin, P.; Huang, Y. The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green products based on the theory
of consumption values. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 22, 11–18. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.002
48. Hollebeek, L.D.; Glynn, M.S.; Brodie, R.J. Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media:
Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation. J. Interact. Mark. 2014, 28, 149–165.
doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002
49. Javornik, A.; Mandelli, A. Research categories in studying customer engagement. In Proceedings of
AM2013 Academy of Marketing Conference, Cardiff, UK, 8–11 July 2013.
50. Groeger, L.; Moroko L.; Hollebeek, L.D. Capturing value from non‐paying consumers’ engagement
behaviours: field evidence and development of a theoretical model. J. Strat. Market. 2016, 24, 190–290.
doi:10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095223
51. Harring, N.; Jagers, S.C. Should We Trust in Values? Explaining Public Support for Pro‐Environmental
Taxes. Sustainability 2013, 5, 210. doi:10.3390/su5010210
52. Zhu , Q.; Li, Y.; Geng, Y.; Qi, Y. Green food consumption intention, behaviors and influencing factors
among Chinese consumers. Food Qual. Pefer. 2013, 28, 279–286. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.005
53. Jacoby, J. Stimulus‐organism‐response reconsidered: an evolutionary step in modeling (consumer)
behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 2002, 12, 51–57
54. Salanova, M.; Schaufeli, W.B. A cross‐national study of work engagement as a mediator between job
resources and proactive behaviour, Int. J. Hum. Resour. Man. 2008, 19, 116–131.
doi:10.1080/09585190701763982
55. Husnain, M.; Toor, A. The impact of social Network marketing on consumer purchase intention in
Pakistan: Consumer engagement as a mediator. Asian J. Bus. Acc. 2017, 10, 167–199.
56. Etikan, I.; Musa, S.A.; Alkassim, R.S. Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. Am.
J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 2016, 5, 2016. doi:10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
57. Sarstedt, M.; Bengart, P.; Shaltoni, A.M.; Lehmann, S. The use of sampling methods in advertising
research: a gap between theory and practice. Int. J. Advert. 2018, 37, 650–663.
doi:10.1080/02650487.2017.1348329
58. Leonidou, L.C.; Leonidou, C.N.; Kvasova, O. Antecedents and outcomes of consumer environmentally
friendly attitudes and behaviour. J. Mark. Manag. 2010, 26, 1319–1344. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2010.523710
59. Kang, J.; Liu, C.; Kim, S. Environmentally sustainable textile and apparel consumption: the role of
cons.umer knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness and perceived personal relevance. Int. J. Consum.
Stud. 2013, 37, 442–452. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12013
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349 19 of 19
60. Sharma, C.S.; Sharma, N. Relationship between Consumers’ Spirituality and Green Purchasing Intentions:
The Mediation Effect of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness. IIM Kozhikode Soc. Manag. Rev. 2016, 6, 204–214.
doi:10.1177/2277975216665694
61. Calder, B.J.; Malthouse, E.C.; Schaedel, U. An experimental study of the relationship between online
engagement and advertising effectiveness. J. Interact. Mark. 2009, 23, 321–331. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2017.02.002
62. So, K.K.F.; King, C.; Sparks, B. Customer Engagement with Tourism Brands: Scale Development and
Validation. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2014, 38, 304–329. doi:10.1177/1096348012451456
63. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88,
879–903.
64. Byrne, B.M. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming,
2nd ed. Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
65. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective, 7th ed.;
Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010.
66. James, L.R.; Mulaik, S.A.; Brett, J.M. A tale of two methods. Organ. Res. Methods. 2006, 9, 233–244.
doi:10.1177/1094428105285144
67. Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Investigating the determinants of consumers’ sustainable purchase behaviour.
Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2017, 10, 110–120. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2017.02.002
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).