The Influence of Religion On Sustainable Consumption

sustainability
Review
The Influence of Religion on Sustainable
Consumption: A Systematic Review and Future
Research Agenda
Anabel Orellano 1, * , Carmen Valor 2 and Emilio Chuvieco 1
1 Environmental Ethics Chair, Department of Geology, Geography and the Environment, University of Alcalá,
C/Colegios, 2, 28801 Alcalá de Henares, Spain; emilio.chuvieco@uah.es
2 E-SOST Research Group, Marketing Department, Management School, Universidad Pontificia Comillas,
c/Alberto Aguilera, 23, 28015 Madrid, Spain; cvalor@comillas.edu
* Correspondence: anabel.orellano@uah.es

Received: 28 August 2020; Accepted: 22 September 2020; Published: 24 September 2020
Abstract: Background: Due to the current environmental crisis, sustainable consumption (SC)
behaviour and its drivers has gained significant attention among researchers. One of the potential
drivers of SC, religion, have been analysed in the last few years. The study of the relationship
between religion and adoption of SC at the individual level have reached mixed and inconclusive
results. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of articles published
between 1998 and 2019 was conducted using the Web of Science and Scopus databases. Search
terms included sustainable consumption, green consumption, ethical consumption, responsible
consumption, pro-environmental behaviour and religion. Results: This systematic review reveals
that contradictory results are due to methodological and theoretical reasons and provides a unifying
understanding about the influence of religion on SC practices. Results highlight the role of religion as a
distal or background factor of other proximal determinants of environmental behaviour. Conclusions:
This paper contributes to the literature concerning SC by synthesising previous scholarship showing
that religion shapes SC indirectly by affecting attitudes, values, self-efficacy, social norms and identity.
The review concludes with a research agenda to encourage scholars the study of other unexamined
mediating constructs, such as beliefs in after life, cleansing rituals and prayer, moral emotions, moral
identity, the role of virtues and self-restrain.
Keywords: religion; sustainable consumption; behavioral factors; review
1. Introduction
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by all United Nations Member States in
2015, aims to coordinate efforts to advance sustainable development. The 12th Sustainable Development
Goal promotes sustainable consumption and production patterns; one of its targets fosters educating
and engaging citizens on sustainable consumption and lifestyles. However, there are not clear
progresses to meet this Goal in view of the growing unsustainable consumption patterns [1,2]. For this
reason, understanding the drivers for sustainable consumption (SC hereafter) behaviour is becoming
increasingly important [3].
One of the such drivers that have received growing attention in the literature is religion. It is
estimated that 84% of the world’s population belong to a religious group [4]. Of this, approximately,
32% are Christians, 23% Muslims, 15% Hindus, 7% Buddhist, 0.2% Jews, 6% folk or traditional religions
and less than 1% others [4]. These religions are a significant source of wisdom, morality and ethics for
individuals [5,6].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7901; doi:10.3390/su12197901 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 7901 2 of 21
In the last decade, environmental sciences have acknowledged the potential of religion to address
the ecological crisis [7]. Recently, environmental psychology has provided insights on how to enhance
behavioural change [8–10] pointing to the manifold routes whereby religion influences individual
perceptions, beliefs and practices [11]. As it has been long recognized in conservation psychology
“conservation without moral values cannot sustain itself. Unless we reach people through beauty,
ethics, spiritual, or religious values or whatever, we are not going to keep our wilderness areas” [12]
(p. 130).
Thus, religious beliefs, ideas and practices may be a driver for adoption of SC, by fostering salient
and inner motivations for behavioural change. Other scholarship has shown that religion is one of the
factors influencing consumer behaviours [13], and more specifically, consumer ethics [14], evaluation of
product quality [15], product pricing [16], and materialism [17]. In view of this evidence, it is plausible
to think that religion at the individual level may influence adoption of SC as well.
However, past studies have reached mixed, inconclusive, and contradictory results about the
relationship between individual’s religion and SC [18–21]. A systematic review may contribute to
reconcile these disparate results as it will clarify the relationship between these two constructs, and it
will identify the mediating variables that can explain why religion affects SC and the moderators or
boundary conditions of such influence [22].
This paper intends to enrich our understanding of the influence of religion on SC. Even though
religion may play a key role in the transition to more SC at an institutional level [23], at the organisational
level [24] and at the individual level, this study focuses on the latter as it examines the influence of
religion on the individual’s adoption of SC. As mentioned above, research on consumer behaviour
shows that religion can be considered an individual difference variable and recently, studies have
emerged addressing this influence on SC, but how this influence operates needs to be clarified. This is
in line with recent calls from psychology about the importance of understanding the individual
motivations that underpin behavioural processes leading to improved or constrained sustainable
lifestyles [9,12,25]. Our research aims to answer three research questions (RQ):
RQ 1: What is the relationship between religion and SC? Does this relationship change depending on
methodological issues (e.g., measurement of the constructs), the particular religion being studied,
or the country under examination?
RQ 2: What are the mediating variables or constructs whereby religion influences others proximal and
proven antecedent of SC?
RQ 3: Are there any moderators that weaken or strengthen the influence of religion on SC?
To achieve this goal, a systematic literature review was carried out, following the PRISMA
guidelines. Reported studies were grouped according to whether they analysed the direct or mediated
relationship between religion and SC. Thus, this review differentiates between studies treating religion
as a distal or background factor and those including mediating variables or proximal determinants of
environmental behaviour, following the socio psychological model proposes by Clayton and Myers [12].
This integrative model proposes two main sources of behaviour: internal (within the individual)
including knowledge, attitudes, values, emotions, responsibility and efficacy, and external (related to
the environment) including social norms, affordances, reinforcement contingencies, prompts, goals
and feedback.
This paper makes three contributions to the literature. First, this study concludes that the disparate
results of past studies are due to the limited consideration of the influences of the cultural context,
to methodological aspects regarding the measure of religion and to the insufficient theoretical support
of most studies. Second, this review contributes by proposing that religion should be treated as a
background factor influencing indirectly other proximal antecedents of behaviour. Finally, this paper
defends that, because of the complex nature of the relationship between the constructs examined,
approaches that consider a mediated relationship/moderating role of religion are needed as they can
provide a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the psychological underpinnings of the
relationship between the constructs.
2. Sustainable Consumption and Religion: Definitions and Measurement

The SDG 12 aims to reduce the ecological footprint by changing the methods of production and
consumption of goods. This implies using resources efficiently, respecting resource constraints and
reducing pressures in natural capital in order to increase overall wellbeing, keep the environment clean
and healthy, and safeguard the needs of future generations [26].
Choosing a sustainable option when purchasing, decreasing waste generation by reducing
consumption, reusing, recycling and being more efficient in the use of energy, are some of the actions
that individuals may carry out to achieve the SDG12 goal. These actions are included in the umbrella
term “sustainable consumption”, also referred to as “ethical” or “green” or “responsible” consumption”.
In this paper, we adopt a broad view of SC understanding that it goes beyond the mere purchasing of
green goods and that it also includes actions related to the use and disposal of merchandises, or even
to avoiding consumption. This broader definition of SC is consistent with recent conceptualizations of
this construct [27].
SC overlaps with other similar constructs such as pro-environmental behaviour (PEB hereafter)
defined as “behaviour that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on
the natural and built world” [28] (p. 240). Actions usually including in the PEB are similar to
the ones described above, namely the limitation of energy consumption, the reduction of waste
production and recycling, as well as the concept of SC. Thus, considering the similarity between the
two constructs, in this paper we used the terms “responsible consumption”, “green consumption”,
“ethical consumption” and “pro-environmental behaviour” as synonyms of SC.
Defining the causal construct under examination, i.e., “religion” is more difficult, first because
it is a construct highly contest in literature (see for example [29,30]), and then because, being such
a complex construct, a standard definition is not possible [11]. Also, religion can be studied at
different level of analysis; here we focus on the individual level, understanding religion as beliefs
in superhuman beings [31] or the “systems of meaning embodied in a pattern of life, a community
of faith, and a worldview that articulate a view of the sacred and of what ultimately matters” [32]
(p. 10). This definition foregrounds that religion concerns beliefs, goals, communitarian norms and
guidelines. Indeed, “religions provide specific norms and moral arguments defining what is right
and wrong, and it posits higher moral such as altruistic sacrifice, humility, or strong self-control of
impulsivity-related behaviours” [33] (p. 1327).
An important clarification is the difference between religion and spirituality. Although both
concepts comprise a search for the sacred [34], it is accepted that religion is rooted in institutionalized
authorities (faith communities) that transcend the person and where the person is embedded, whereas
spirituality is understood outside faith communities [11]. Another clarification merits the spirituality of
Indigenous Peoples, which cannot be encompassed within the category “religion”; an approximation
would be to say that it is a communitarian experience of the world that comprises balance, harmony
and interrelationship among all that exists [30]. This is not intended to be a definition, but to reflect the
importance of terminological clarification, so as not to fall into a universalizing gloss of “religion” as a
catch-all category [35]. This review will focus on institutionalized religions and spirituality will be
excluded from the analysis.
Empirically, disparate operationalizations of the construct religion can be found in past research.
They are briefly reviewed in turn, although theoretically all religious dimensions are interrelated [33].
First, it is important to differentiate between affiliate religion and practiced religion or religiosity.
Whereas affiliate religion is the particular faith an individual belongs to [36], religiosity is “the degree to
which beliefs in specific religious values and ideals are held and practiced by an individual” [37] (p. 27).
The difference is noteworthy because affiliate religion may reflect cultural conventions or norms and
not necessarily capture the strength of the individual’s adherence to the beliefs and principles that
derive from a particular religion. In turn, as Mokhlis [38] points, religiosity can be measured with
different indicators, such as self-perceived level of religiosity [37], frequency of church attendance [39],
religious identity [40] or ad hoc scales. To illustrate, the Religious Commitment Inventory (RCI)
measures the degree to which a person is consistent with his/her religious values, beliefs, and practices
them in daily life [41].
Another fundamental distinction was established by Allport and Ross [42] between intrinsic and
extrinsic Religious Orientation, operationalized in the Religious Orientation Scale. Intrinsic religiosity
refers to the individual’s effort to internalize and fully follow a religious creed [42]. In contrast,
individuals with extrinsic religiosity use religion as a tool to increase their acceptance in particular
social environments [42]. The most used religious measures are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Religious measures and its definitions.
Religious Measures Definitions

Religious affiliation Belong formally to a religious denomination [39].
The degree to which beliefs in specific religious values and
Self-perceived
ideals are held and practiced [37].
Church attendance Frequency of church services attendance [39].
Individual effort to internalize and fully follow a
Intrinsic religiosity
religious creed [42].
Religiosity Use of religion as a tool to increase acceptance in particular
Extrinsic religiosity
social environments [42].
The degree to which a person is consistent to his/her religious
Intrapersonal commitment
values and beliefs. Intrapersonal dimension of religiosity [41].
The practice of religious values and beliefs into daily life.
Interpersonal commitment
Interpersonal dimension of religiosity [41].
Importance of religious faith as it pertains to the self-concept
Religious identity
and personal identity [40].
3. Methods
3.1. Search Strategy and Study Selection

This systematic review aims to structure the research field by identifying emergent themes, point
out gaps and contribute to theory development, including quantitative and qualitative analysis [43]
following the PRISMA guidelines [44]. To minimize the risk of bias, this study reports the steps
followed in the PRISMA checklist (see Appendix A).
The first step was a search for articles using the Web of Science and Scopus database, using the
string search: “sustainable consumption” OR “green consumption” OR “ethical consumption” OR
“responsible consumption” OR “pro-environmental behav*” and relig* (September 2019). The second
step was to determine the papers eligible for analysis. These were used as inclusion criteria:
(1) any studies assessing directs impact of religion on SC outcomes; (2) papers referring to SC outcomes
related to the indirect effect of religion; (3), no restrictions of language and publication status were
used; (4), neither time nor geographical restrictions were applied; (5) peer-reviewed studies identified
by searching the bibliographies of selected articles were included.
An illustration of the entire study selection process from initial searches and those studies put
forward for data extraction and coding is provided in Figure 1. Screening against the inclusion criteria
resulted in a final set of 83 documents. The titles and abstracts were checked for relevance; as a result,
25 out of these 83 documents were excluded because they did not address the topic under examination.
6 additional records were excluded because, after an exhaustive search the full text was not accessible.
For the remaining 52 references, the full texts were collected and analysed. Another 4 records were
excluded after full text reading. However, 4 new records identified by bibliographies of selected articles
were included. Finally, a total of 52 records were judged relevant and were selected for the analysis.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram. Adapted from Moher et al. (2009).

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram. Adapted from Moher et al. [44].
3.2. Coding
3.2. Coding Process
Process
A data extraction table was designed to extract relevant information. The first author extracted
A data extraction table was designed to extract relevant information. The first author extracted the
the following data from included studies and the other authors checked the extracted data.
following data from included studies and the other authors checked the extracted data. Information was
Information was extracted from each included article on: (1) author, year and journal of publication;
extracted from each
(2) religion included
construct usedarticle on:aspects
(3) SC (1) author, year and
involved; journal of
(4) theories or publication; (2) religion
conceptual models used;construct
(5)
used measures;
(3) SC aspects involved;and
(6) mediating (4) theories
moderator or conceptual
variables; (7)models
sampleused;size (5)
andmeasures; (6) mediating
sample description; (8) and
moderator
sampling and estimation method and (9) results. Qualitative studies were coded following the same and
variables; (7) sample size and sample description; (8) sampling and estimation method
(9) results. Qualitative
items except (5) andstudies
(6). were coded following the same items except (5) and (6).
The finally
The finally selected
selected paperswere
papers were classified
classified according
according to the methodological
to the methodologicalapproaches used, inused,
approaches
quantitative,qualitative
in quantitative, qualitative andand conceptual/theoretical
conceptual/theoretical studies.
studies. Mixed-method
Mixed-method papers werewere
papers classified
classified
into the other two categories, as appropriate. Most quantitative studies were
into the other two categories, as appropriate. Most quantitative studies were correlational, using correlational, using
survey-based methods and statistical samples of respondents. There were also 3 intervention or
survey-based methods and statistical samples of respondents. There were also 3 intervention or
quasi-experimental studies comparing attitudes and behaviours before and after the implementation
quasi-experimental studies comparing attitudes and behaviours before and after the implementation
of sustainability-related educational programmes in religious communities. Theoretical studies were
of sustainability-related educational
also included in the review programmes
but excluded from thisin religious
coding system. communities. Theoretical
These conceptual studies were
papers examined
also included in the review but excluded from this coding system. These conceptual
an aspect of SC from a religious concept; to illustrate, these papers examined SC and the meaning papers examined
of
an aspect of SC from
self-realization a religious
through a Hindu concept; to illustrate,
perspective [45] or thethese papers
relevance examined
of gratitude SC and the
as antecedent to meaning
pro-
environmental through
of self-realization behavioura[46].HinduThe perspective
description of[45]
eachor
studies is offered in
the relevance ofAppendix
gratitudeB.as antecedent to
In order tobehaviour
pro-environmental structure the results
[46]. The and answer the
description research
of each questions,
studies quantitative
is offered papersB.were
in Appendix
In order to structure the results and answer the research questions, quantitativeSC.
classified according to whether they analysed a direct or indirect influence of religion on Thosewere
papers
papers proposing a mediated relationship, the influence of religion was consider as a background of
classified according to whether they analysed a direct or indirect influence of religion on SC. Those papers
other proven determinants of behaviour, following the social psychological model of behaviour
proposing a mediated relationship, the influence of religion was consider as a background of other
proposes by Clayton and Myers [12].
proven determinants of behaviour, following the social psychological model of behaviour proposes by
Clayton and Myers [12].
3.3. Description of Studies Included in the Systematic Review

Research on religion and SC is growing. The oldest publication dates from 1998 and most studies
were published in recent years, with half of the publications from the period 2016–2019, with a growing
trend towards quantitative studies.
Of the 52 studies considered in the review, 11 were conceptual (24%), 35 papers were quantitative
(65%) (3 of which were experimental studies) and the remaining were qualitative. Regarding the
quantitative studies, the most frequently applied method was ad hoc survey design (83%) followed
by data extraction from National General Social Surveys (17%). In total, the sample size of these
quantitative studies was 86,203. Samples were selected using probabilistic methods: 71.4% Stratified
and 7.6% Random techniques, corresponding to the studies that used nationally representative data
from a general social survey. Non-probabilistic methods were also used in the remaining studies:
10.9%, convenience, 7.4% judgement, 2.4% Snowball and 0.3% Quota sampling. Regarding the 11%
qualitative papers, their aggregated base of informants yields 179. In-depth semi-structured interviews
was the most used technique. All qualitative papers used purposive sampling.
Regarding the geographical distribution of studies, United States was the most represented
country (28% of the case studies), followed by research in Pakistan and Australia (8% respectively) and
Indonesia (5%). Four studies did a cross-country examination; namely, United States and Germany [47];
United States and South Korea [48]; Indonesia and Malaysia [49]. One of the papers included a
multilevel analysis of 34 countries [50].
Of the total sample, 65.10% of the informants described themselves as religious, 25.40% as
non-religious and the rest did not report. In terms of affiliation, Christians (11.21%) and Islamic (4.66%)
confessions were the most studied, followed by Buddhists (1.60%) and Hindus (1.16%), others (1.14%)
and the rest was group as religious that did not specify their affiliation (45.33%).
4. Results
This section presents a synthesis of the most relevant insights classifying them according to
whether they have studied a direct or a mediated relationship between religion and SC.
4.1. A Direct Relationship between Religion and Sustainable Consumption

Regarding RQ1 about the relationship between religion and SC, it is important to note that
historically, this research domain emerged as a reaction to White’s thesis [51] who sustained that
Judeo-Christian religion was responsible for the environmental crisis. White’s emphasis on the
significance of a dominion view of nature—derived from the Bible in his view—for predicting
environmental attitudes and behaviour has been central to support a causal relationship between
religion and SC. Scholarship tested empirically the stewardship or the dominion hypothesis, with the
aim of clarifying if religion would improve or constrain SC intention, attitudes and/or behaviours.
In doing so, a direct test of this influence was proposed and analysed in 69% of quantitative studies
(24 papers) with disparate and inconclusive results that can be summarized as follows:
• Some studies focused on religious and non-religious differences, finding that religious individuals
adopt SC to a greater extent have a more SC than less or non-religious ones [52–56], while others
proved the opposite [57–61].
• Other studies examined differences across faiths on the understanding that if White’s hypothesis
was right, it would not hold in Eastern religious followers (Buddhist and Hindi), as these religions
are not anchored on the dominion belief, according to White. This line of inquiry also resulted in
mixed findings: whereas some studies found that believers of Eastern religions were more likely
to carry out sustainable behaviours and hold more positive environmental views than Western
religious followers, Christians in particular [48,62], others found contradicting findings [63,64].
A similar conclusion was found in a global study comparing the environmental performance of
countries with different religions, concluding that similar values were found across Eastern and
Christian traditions [65].
Three reasons could explain these inconclusive outcomes: the concurrent influence of cultural
and country effects, methodological issues and theoretical reasons. First, different results are observed
between countries. These country differences point to the need to take into account the impact of the
complex cultural and geographical contexts where studies were carried out. Believers in the same
religion/individuals with a similar religious affiliation are considered to share a common cognitive
system of beliefs, values and expectations and are supposed to behave similarly [66]. However,
this assumption ignores the contextual influences that may explain why those sharing a religious
affiliation behave differently in different countries [67]. Following this rationale, cross-cultural studies
have shown that religion cannot be studied in isolation of other contextual influences. For example, in a
study carried out in the United States and South Korea [48], researchers found that not only religious
affiliation and religiosity but also the country and the interactions among the two, significantly predicted
sustainable behaviours. Similarly, another cross-country study in United States and Germany [47],
found remarkable differences between individuals of the same religion in these two countries: among
US respondents, a positive stronger correlation between religious attendance and ethical consumption
was found, whereas among Germans the relationship was negative and not significant. Researchers
explained this difference by pointing out a geographical effect: the US subsample was taken in
California, and this is one of the greenest states in the country.
A second reason for the contradictory results is the methodology employed, in particular the
conceptualization on which the measure of religion is based. Two observations are worth noting. First,
religion has been measured differently across studies and this dissimilar operationalization of the
construct implies that results cannot be integrated [68]. To illustrate, examining only religious affiliation,
the results show a negative [57] or positive [69] influence of religion on environmental attitudes and
behaviours. But when the measure of religion reflects the individual’s deeper commitment, such as the
self-perceived level of religiosity, results are different. Indeed, the self-perceived level of religiosity
has been found to positively correlate with self-reported sustainable household behaviours [54] and
behaviours such as avoid buying products, pay higher taxes and accept cut in living standards for
environmental reasons [70,71]. Reinforcing this argument, studies differentiating between an intrinsic
and extrinsic orientation to religiosity [42] have shown that intrinsic religiosity predict positive SC
outcomes while extrinsic religiosity does not [52,72,73].
Nonetheless, external religiosity could also predict SC [63,64], but the mediating mechanism is
different. While internal religiosity is linked to the inherent views and values provided by religion,
external religiosity would be a by-product of the intersection between public participation in religious
activities and local culture. However, the relationship between external religiosity and other constructs
makes it difficult to disentangle which of them is actually the cause of the behaviour so that it
is not possible to rule out that the relationship between external religiosity and SC is spurious.
Methodologically, using only affiliation as a measure of the construct should be discouraged as it does
not capture the degree to which its members accept the associated beliefs and practices.
A final reason for the inconsistent results is the limited theoretical grounding for the relationship
between religion and SC. Most of the studies testing a direct effect are empirical or data-driven and lack
a solid theoretical approach to explain the relationship. In contrast, studies that propose a mediating
relationship (31% of quantitative papers) are usually grounded on a theoretical framework. To these
studies we turn our attention next.
4.2. A Mediated/Moderate Relationship between Religion and Sustainable Consumption

Concerning RQ2 and RQ3, studies that defended a mediating and/or moderating role of religion
on SC were analysed. Although the majority of the papers proposed and tested a direct relationship
between these two constructs, 11 papers have defended a mediated relationship on the basis that
religion is a background factor that influence other proximal (and already proven) antecedents
of environment behaviour [74]; and/or proposes some moderators that weaken or strengthen the
religion-SC link. These behavioural antecedents are grouped into external and internal, as suggests the
social psychological model of behaviour by Clayton and Myers. This integrative model proposes two
main sources of behaviour: internal (within the individual) including knowledge, attitudes, values,
emotions, responsibility and efficacy, and external (related to the environment) including social norms,
affordances, reinforcement contingencies, prompts, goals and feedback [12]. The influence of religion
on these determinants are describe below.
Attitudes. Religion may affect behaviour by influencing the cognitive schemata. Research has
shown that individuals make reasoned choices that sustain their SC decisions and practices. Religion
may be one of the factors affecting such reasoning. Attitudes, a prominent construct to study this
cognitive schemata, have been systematically found a significant predictor of intention, which in
turn affects behaviour [75]. Religious values has been found to significantly influence attitudes,
either directly or indirectly through the mediation of environmental concern and natural environmental
orientation [49,76,77] or the individual’s beliefs and perceptions about nature [78].
Thus, in Muslims countries, having religious values- refers to values based on Islamic
scriptures such as Quran and Hadiths -was found to positively and significantly influence the
perception that humans are entrusted to steward the earth, which in turn nurtures pro-environmental
attitudes [49,76,77].
Beliefs of dominion and stewardship emerge as a key construct in understanding adoption of
SC among religious consumers. Drawing from White’s thesis, studies examining the links between
religion, belief of dominion (stewardship) and SC were conducted among Christians. Studies have
shown that these beliefs are not equally present among Christian affiliates; rather, the belief seems to
depend on the conservative or progressive interpretation of the scriptures. The dominion beliefs is held
by Protestant Christian to a greater extent, whereas the stewardship beliefs is shared by Catholics and
Orthodox to a lesser extent [79]. As expected, beliefs of dominion were associated with lesser adoption
of SC behaviours; similarly, beliefs of stewardship are significantly and positively correlated with
SC adoption. Specifically, these beliefs mediate the relationship between religiosity and behavioural
intention, with stewardship (dominion) exhibiting a positive (negative) influence on the willingness to
pay for sustainable alternatives of common consumer goods [60].
Environmental concern, or the evaluation of the environmental consequents of one’s behaviour [80],
is considered a consistent predictor of SC attitudes, intention and behaviour [9]. Several studies have
examined the relationship between religion and environmental concern. To illustrate, religiosity has
been found a moderator construct as it strengthens the intention to consume ecological products [81].
It is important to note that there are other constructs that have been found to weaken or strengthen
the relationship between religion and environmental concern. For example, political orientation was
found to be a powerful predictor of concern among religious people. More specifically, American
Christians with a conservative ideology displayed lower levels of environmental concern, compared to
those having a liberal political orientation [58]. This shows again the complex relationship between an
individual’s religion and political orientation.
Another two constructs were found to moderate the relationship between religion and
environmental concern in a multilevel analysis of data from 34 countries [50]. Life satisfaction [82,83]
and indulgence as a construct highly dependent on emotion [84] were found to be significant moderators
of the relationship between religiosity and environmental concern, measured at the country level. At low
levels of life satisfaction, non-religious people have low concern for the environment. This finding is
explained by contending that individuals with low life satisfaction are more focused on satisfying basic
needs, rather than higher level needs associated with environmental protection. However, religious
people show higher levels of environmental concern based on their religiosity, even when their most
basic needs are not satisfied [50]. Yet, these results should be interpreted with caution: this study did
not control for the influence of religion on life satisfaction which raises concerns of endogeneity.
Values. Several studies have found that self-transcendence (universalism and benevolence) values
positively affect adoption of SC [85,86], whilst self-enhancement values (related to the self-interest,
such as achievement and hedonism) negatively affects it. Similarly, it has been repeatedly found that
social-altruistic and biospheric value orientation are positively associated with pro-environmental
attitudes and behaviour [87,88]. The analysed studies show that the more individuals adhere to
self-transcendent values beyond their self-interest (self-enhancement values), the more likely they are
to adopt SC. Similarly, an altruistic value orientation, measured through attitude toward charitable
institutions, was found to predict sustainable purchase intention and religion, as an antecedent,
significantly and positively affect altruism, which in turn affect the intention to purchase green [72].
In contrast, hedonistic shopping values (an egoistic value orientation) is negatively associated with
the purchase of sustainable products; however religiosity was found to moderate this negative effect,
diminishing it [89].
The results shown above demonstrate that religion may influence SC by impinging on cognitive
processes. However, SC behaviour is guided by other factors than cognitive processes, in particular,
by automatic or habitual action. Religion may also affect habits. Indeed, for religious people of
Muslims countries green purchase intention depended less on attitudes as a predictor. In other words,
the purchases of green products not only involve cognitive judgments but also habitual decision
making and religious consumers choose sustainable alternatives first based on their habits (habits that
are already informed by their religious values), and not only by assessing the green information of
products on every purchase occasion [77].
Self-efficacy. The perceived ability to successfully complete an action [90] or the understanding
that one could make a difference on environmental and social injustices is an important variable
influencing SC behavior. In the sample, only one study examined the relationship between religion and
self-efficacy, finding that self-considered religious individuals have self-efficacy beliefs; these, in turn,
affect the intention to purchase products that contained a message of socio-ecological justice [91].
Social norms. Regarding the external behaviour factors, only limitedly studies have examined the
influence of religion on subjective or social norms [12]. Nonetheless, existing evidence seems to suggest
that religion may enable adoption of SC affecting the social norms; the importance that a particular
sustainable behavior, like recycling, has for a religious community was found to be the most important
predictor of recycling intention [69]. This is what literature called perceived peer endorsement or the
relevance of the reference group on the decision-making process [92].
Identity. Many studies have demonstrated the key role of identity-related constructs in explaining
adoption of SC [8]. Yet, none of the quantitative studies has examined the association between religion
and environmental identity. However, the fact that religion contributes to nurturing a form of green
identity is a fundamental conclusion of the analysed qualitative studies. Indeed, these studies have
examined the meaning-making practices of informants of their religious identity construct and its
influence on SC outcomes. Religious identity [93], strongly influences environmental beliefs and
practices of religious leaders [94] and religious environmentalists [95–97]. These studies show that
caring for the environment is a religious calling so that their belief in the creation as sacred and the
stewardship of the earth drives their everyday practices. Of important note, interviewees understand
their identity as holistic, as they involve existential and practical concerns, and include self-identity
and identity in context, in relation to others and they try to be coherent in all aspects of their identity
and its expression. In doing so, informants try to make gradual, serial and controlled changes on
their everyday actions to have a more intense and holistic SC [98]. In general, Christians and Muslims
consumers intend to avoid over-consumption and extravagance following their religious principles
like austerity and following their perceived association with socio-environmental injustices [96,97,99].
In summary, this review shows that religion influences internal determinants of SC such as
attitudes, values and self-efficacy, and external determinants, such as social norms. Also, religious
identity seems to be a central construct to explain SC practices but quantitative papers measuring this
association are missing.
5. Discussion
5.1. Main Findings

This systematic review presents an integrative understanding of the influence of individual’s
religion on adoption of SC. The contribution to literature is threefold. First, this review helps to
reconcile conflicting findings of past research by unveiling the methodological and theorical problems
that may explain the contradictory results about the relationship between these constructs.
First, the review foregrounds the difficulties in disentangling the religious influence from cultural
influences. Saroglou and Cohen [67] already aid that there is a bidirectional influences between
religion and culture, which imply that religion is influenced by culture and reciprocally, culture-level
dimensions shape religion at the individual level. They point out that cultural elements (for instance,
cultural specifics in cognition, emotion, self-concept, morality, personality, and social behaviour) shape
religions and religious experience. As far as these cultural influences are universal, they may explain
why, to some extent, religion seems to share commonalities across cultural contexts; however, as far
as these cultural elements are different across cultural contexts, they lead to group differences in
religious expressions. These may be differences between religions, between denominations, or even,
between cultural groups of the same religion (e.g., a British Christian and a Peruvian Christian). So,
establishing simple causal relationships between religion and SC does not seem a valid approach,
insofar as the religion construct cannot be demarcated from other cultural-related constructs.
Second, this review shows the limited validity of affiliate-based measures of religion and the need
for religiosity measures [38]. Thus, by differentiating how the dimension of religion had been measured,
this review is able to make sense of seemingly divergent findings. Results show that when the measure
captures the extent to which the person adheres to the tenets of a religion, the relationship between the
constructs is significant and positive. Internal religiosity was found to positive predict SC, leading to
conclude that when religion is a fundamental source of identity, values and worldviews the relationship
between the constructs is positive. This is consistent with other studies having demonstrated the impact
of intrinsic religiosity on consumer ethics [14], consumer’s ethical beliefs [100], frugality consciousness
and connectedness to nature that affected PEB intention [101].
Another reason for the contradictory results concerns the approach to causation on which the
study is based. As said above, simple causal relationships seem to lack internal validity as the routes by
which religion may influence behaviour are multiple. Moreover, results seem to point to religion not as
a causal variable that can be measured in isolation but as a cross-cutting construct affecting a myriad of
others, namely, attitudes, values, habits or social norms. Affiliated or practiced religion nurtures a
lifeworld that can mould every aspect of daily life, including SC [102]. Environmental psychology
identifies internal or intrapersonal (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, and values), interpersonal (e.g., social norms)
and external factors (e.g., rewards and punishments) as the most influential predictors of environmental
behaviour [12,103]. RQ2 and RQ3 explored this assumption by showing the multiple psychological
underpinnings whereby religion influences SC such as shaping cognitions, habits or identity.
This review has shown that religion may influences beliefs and attitudes that would eventually
explain greater SC adoption. The stewardship belief is the most studied belief and its positive
association with SC seems well-established. Similarly, past studies have agreed in showing the positive
influence of religion on self-transcendence values that, in turn, are associated with sustainable purchase
intention. Also, the more the individual practices a religion, the less likely is that s/he has a hedonic goal
orientation and the more likely s/he has an altruistic orientation that leads to SC adoption. Abounding
on this, religiosity seem to foster altruistic and pro-social behaviours [104].
Whereas the relationship between religiosity and pro-environmental beliefs/values seem
well-established in the literature, the relationship between religiosity and self-efficacy beliefs is
underexamined. Notwithstanding, initial evidence seems to suggest that religiosity positively

influences these beliefs that, turn, are associated with greater green purchase intention [105–107].
Likewise, the study of the association between religious participation/religiosity and interpersonal
influences on SC is still in its infancy. There is some evidence that when religious groups hold a
pro-environmental norm about a given behaviour (e.g., recycling), it is more likely that its members
carry out this behaviour [107,108] especially those members that identify the most with the group [107].
Abounding on this, each religion not only provides a distinct group identification, but also a “coherent
and stable set of norms, institutions, traditions, and moral values that provide the basis for an individual
to establish and maintain a secure identity” [13] (p. 5). SC practices are a way to express the religious
identity, as qualitative studies have shown, although quantitative studies are still necessary to measure
this causal relationship.
5.2. Future Research Agenda

This systematic review indicates that religion at the individual level can drive adoption of SC
through its impact on individual’s attitudes, values, self-efficacy, social norms and identity. Nonetheless,
other routes of influence have gone unexamined. For instance, the influence of religiosity on nature
relatedness or social connectedness, two constructs already found predictors of SC, has not been
examined. Similarly, there are missing studies examining whether religiosity shapes the construal of
ecological problems. It is plausible to assume that religion would nurture intrinsic value aspirations
but research has yet to establish this relationship [109].
The influence of religion on emotions remains to be investigated, although affect is considered a
determinant of environmental behavior [9]. Future research should explore, for example, the relevance
of gratitude or forgiveness, basic emotions across faiths, on environmental behaviour. There are some
insights about gratitude as a positive emotion relate to both pollution avoidance and green purchasing
intentions [110].
More research is needed about the ability of religion to affect these and the other internal/external
antecedents of environmental behaviour and to examine the boundary conditions of this influence.
In addition to enrich the mediating factors whereby religion shapes SC, it is necessary to disentangle
this construct to examine its multiple facets so to unveil the multiple ways in which religion may
affect SC at the individual level. The integrative measure of religion proposed by Saroglou [33] could
be very appropriate for this, for several reasons. First, this scale was found to be reliable across the
different religious faiths, solving the problems of others scales that were developed for particular
religion affiliations. Second, it associates the four aspects of religion (beliefs, rituals, morality and
identity) with distinct psychological processes (cognitive, emotional, moral, and social). Drawing on
this basis, Mathras et al. developed a conceptual framework for exploring the effects of religion on
general consumer behaviour [111], and it may serve to ask deeper questions about what salient aspects
of religion drives SC behaviour.
Among the religious beliefs, beliefs about the after-life are a common characteristic across
confessions [111]. It has been proven to reduce levels of death anxiety that result in less materialism [112].
Given that materialism is negatively associated with SC adoption because implies values and goals
focused on possessions and status that standing in conflict whit the well-being of others and the natural
word [113], beliefs in after-life may be a particular religion facet that can contribute to greater SC.
Ritual is another dimension of all religions that affects consumer behaviour. Religious practices
of cleansing rituals [111] has the potential to transform individuals from a small self to a greater
self [114] that is expressed on leaving, for example, a green transgression. A preliminary study shows
that Catholics demonstrate more environmentally friendly behaviours after confession (versus only
intellectual reflection) about sins against the environment [115]. Likewise, praying as a religious
practice may foster SC, as it is suggested by studies on mindfulness and SC [116,117]. Future studies
should examine the link between the practice of praying and SC adoption.
Regarding the morality and the identity facets of religion, there are missing studies examining the
mediating role of moral identity [118] in the relationship between religion and environmental behaviour.
This omission is relevant since moral identity was found to increase, for example, the willingness to
choose green products [119]. Moral identity is related to certain beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours,
particularly when that identity is highly self-important [120], as it is for religious people [121]. Also,
the role of virtues like prudence, simplicity, non-violence, compassion, humility, nurtured by all
religions [122] is other research avenue, because of their direct relationship with SC adoption [123,124].
Finally, the evidence shows that some types of religious beliefs, cognition and behaviour foster
self-regulation and self-control [125] and future studies should link it with SC outcomes such as
frugality and reduction of consumption, that necessarily implies the self-regulatory strength. These are
some of the many ways in which religion could foster SC at the individual level, and this systematic
review encourages scholars to advance research in these unexamined areas.
In summary, this research agenda encourage scholars to study other unexamined mediating
constructs -such as beliefs in after life, cleansing rituals and prayer, moral emotions, moral identity,
the role of virtues and self-restraint- that could enhance the understanding of the influence of religion
on SC.
5.3. Limitations
No study goes without limitations. As it has been the case of other systematic reviews, we
privileged Web of Science and Scopus as the source of studies; however, publications that were not
indexed in the chosen databases are not included in this study. The results of this systematic review
should be taken as a starting point for academic debate and research and not as closed conclusions.
Finally, researchers should be careful about constructs that may overlap with religion such as political
orientation; the evidence found for this systematic review is inconclusive in this regard and indicates
the need to analyse this in more depth to reach certain conclusions. Also, we did not carry out a quality
check of studies as a criterion to screen in/out studies. Indeed, some of the reported studies may raise
concerns of construct validity, endogeneity, and reverse causality. However, given the limited set of
studies we decided to include them all and discuss the methodological limitations as a reason for the
inconclusive findings.
6. Conclusions
This systematic review has shown there is evidence to suggest that individual’s religion may
play an important role in shaping SC. It integrates the existing studies by analyzing a potential causal
relationship between religion and SC. This study shows that religion at the individual level drives SC
behavior indirectly through its impact on other proven antecedents of SC, such as attitudes, values,
self-efficacy, social norms and identity. In addition to enrich the mediating factors whereby religion
shapes SC, the research agenda encourage scholars to disentangle the construct “religion” in its facets
(related to specific psychological processes) so to unveil the multiple ways in which religion may affect
SC. The development of a comprehensive understanding of the influence of religiosity on SC will
allow advancing research in this domain and suggestions are given in this respect. In sum, this paper
foregrounds the potential of religiosity to foster adoption of sustainable lifestyles, which, in turn,
benefits the whole society and the natural world.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.O., C.V., and E.C.; methodology, A.O.; writing—original draft
preparation, A.O.; writing—review and editing, C.V., and E.C.; supervision C.V., and E.C. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by a pre-doctoral fellowship of “Fundación Tatiana Perez de Guzmán el Bueno”.
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.
Appendix A
Table A1. PRISMA Checklist.
Reported
Section/Topic # Checklist Item
on Page #
TITLE
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. 1
ABSTRACT
Provide a structured summary including, as applicable:
background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria,
Structured summary 2 participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis 1
methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key
findings; systematic review registration number.
INTRODUCTION
Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is
Rationale 3 1–4
already known.
Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with
Objectives 4 reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, 2
and study design (PICOS).
METHODS
Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed
Protocol and
5 (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration -
registration
information including registration number.
Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up)
Eligibility criteria 6 and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, 4
publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of
Information sources 7 coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional 4
studies) in the search and date last searched.
Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database,
Search 8 4
including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility,
Study selection 9 included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in 4,5
the meta-analysis).
Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted
Data collection
10 forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for 5
process
obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
List and define all variables for which data were sought
Data items 11 (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and 5
simplifications made.
Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual
Risk of bias in studies (including specification of whether this was done at the
12 5
individual studies study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in
any data synthesis.
State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference
Summary measures 13 5,6
in means).
Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of
Synthesis of results 14 studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for 6
each meta-analysis.
Table A1. Cont.
Reported
Section/Topic # Checklist Item
on Page #
Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the
Risk of bias
15 cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting 5
across studies
within studies).
Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or
Additional analyses 16 subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which -
were pre-specified.
RESULTS
Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility,
Study selection 17 and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each Figure 1
stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
For each study, present characteristics for which data were
Study characteristics 18 extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide 6
the citations.
Risk of bias Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available,
19 6
within studies any outcome level assessment (see item 12).
For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each
Results of study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group
20 Appendix B
individual studies (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a
forest plot.
Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence
Synthesis of results 21 6–9
intervals and measures of consistency.
Risk of bias Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies
22 -
across studies (see Item 15).
Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or
Additional analysis 23 -
subgroup analyses, meta-regression (see Item 16).
DISCUSSION
Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence
Summary of
24 for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups 9–12
evidence
(e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias),
Limitations 25 and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified 12
research, reporting bias).
Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of
Conclusions 26 12
other evidence, and implications for future research.
FUNDING
Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other
Funding 27 support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the 12
systematic review.
Appendix B
Table A2. Final List of Articles Included in the Systematic Review.
Author/Year of Publication Direction of the Influence of Religion on SC

Quantitative studies
Klineberg, McKeever & Rothenbach (1998) Not significant
Rice (2006) Positive
Bove, Nagpal & Dorsett (2006) Not significant
Chauhan, Rama das, Haigh & Rita (2010) Positive
Witkowski & Reddy (2010) Positive
Doran & Natale (2011) Positive
Warner, Brook & Shaw (2012) Positive
Clements, McCright & Xiao (2013) Negative
Garfield, Drwecki, Moore, Kortenkamp & Gracz (2014) Positive
Hassan (2014) Positive
Martin & Bateman (2014) Positive
Minton, Kahle & Kim (2015) Positive
Minton, Jiuan, Kahle & Tambyah (2015) Positive
Diaz, Vélez & Costa (2015) Negative
Akremi & Smaoui (2015) Positive
Leary, Minton & Mittelstaedt (2016) Negative
Liobikienė, Niaura, Mandravickaitė & Vabuolas (2016) Positive
Peeper & Leonard (2016) Negative
Ariswibowo & Ghazali (2017) Positive
Arli & Tjiptono (2017) Positive
Bhuian & Sharma (2017) Positive
Davari, Iyer & Strutton (2017) Positive
Graafland (2017) Positive
Ghazali, Mutum & Ariswibowo (2018) Positive
Hwang (2018) Positive
Lakhan (2018) Positive
Yang & Huang (2018) Not significant
Felix, hinsch, Rauschnabel & Schlegelmilch (2018) Positive
Minton, Leary & Upadhyaya (2018) Positive
Minton, Xie, Gurel-Atay & Kahle (2018) Positive
Razzaq, Z., Razzaq, A., Yousaf & Hong (2018) Positive
Ali, Danish, Khuwaja, Sajjad & Zahid (2019) Positive
Gutsche (2019) Positive
Hammed, Waris & Amin ul Haq (2019) Positive
Ukenna, Nkamnebe & Idoko (2019) Negative
Qualitative studies
Lorenzen (2012) Positive
Warner, Brook & Shaw (2012) Positive
Waylen Fischer McGowan & Milner -Gulland (2012) Positive
Akremi & Smaoui (2015) Positive
Lorenzen (2017) Positive
Perera and Hewege (2018) Positive
Table A2. Cont.
Author/Year of Publication Direction of the Influence of Religion on SC

Conceptual papers
Emmons & Paloutzian (2003)
Narayanan (2010)
Witkowski (2010)
Papaoikonomou, Ryan & Valverde (2011)
Azizan &Wahid (2012)
Chaminda & Ratnayake (2013)
Zaleha (2013)
Gifford & Nilsson (2014)
Van der Noortgaete & De Tavernier (2014)
Van der Noortgaete (2016)
Taylor (2016)
Taylor, Van Wieren & Zaleha (2016)
Quoquaba & Mohammadb (2016)
References
1. Bengtsson, M. Transforming systems of consumption and production for achieving the sustainable
development goals: Moving beyond efficiency. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1533–1547. [CrossRef]
2. United Nations The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
3. UNEP: Division of Technology, Industry, and Economics Sustainable Consumption & Production Branc.
In Visions For Change. Recommendations for Effective Policies on Sustainable Lifestyles; United Nations Environment
Programme Task Force on Sustainable Lifestyles: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011.
4. Hackett, C.; Grim, B.J. The Global Religious Landscape. Pew Res. Cent. Rep. 2012, 1, 81.
5. Palmer, M.; Finlay, V. Faith in Conservation, New Approaches to Religions and the Environment; The World Bank:
Washington, DC, USA, 2003; ISBN 0821355597.
6. Rice, G. Pro-environmental behavior in Egypt: Is there a role for Islamic environmental ethics? J. Bus. Ethics
2006, 65, 373–390. [CrossRef]
7. Rolston III, H. Science and Religion in the Face of the Environmental Crisis. In The Oxford Handbook of Religion
and Ecology; Gottlieb, R.S., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 1–22, ISBN 9780199892136.
8. Gifford, R.; Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour:
A review. Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 49, 141–157. [CrossRef]
9. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [CrossRef]
10. Osbaldiston, R.; Schott, J.P. Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of
proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environ. Behav. 2012, 44, 257–299. [CrossRef]
11. Emmons, R.; Paloutzian, R. The psychology of religion. Annu. Revis. Psychol. 2003, 377–402. [CrossRef]
12. Clayton, S.; Myers, G. Conservation Psychology: Understanding and Promoting Human Care for Nature;
John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2015; ISBN 978-1-444-35641-0.
13. Coşgel, M.M.; Minkler, L. Religious identity and consumption. Rev. Soc. Econ. 2004, 62, 339–350. [CrossRef]
14. Vitell, S.J. The Role of Religiosity in Business and Consumer Ethics: A Review of the Literature. J. Bus. Ethics
2009, 90, 155–167. [CrossRef]
15. Mokhlis, S. Religious Differences in Some Selected Aspects of Consumer Behaviour: A Malaysian Study.
J. Int. Manag. 2009, 4, 67–76.
16. Essoo, N.; Dibb, S. Religious Influences on Shopping Behaviour: An Exploratory Study. J. Mark. Manag.
2004, 20, 638–712. [CrossRef]
17. Stillman, T.F.; Fincham, F.D.; Vohs, K.D.; Lambert, N.M.; Phillips, C.A. The material and immaterial in
conflict: Spirituality reduces conspicuous consumption. J. Econ. Psychol. 2012, 33, 1–7. [CrossRef]
18. Djupe, P.A.; Hunt, P.K. Beyond the Lynn White Thesis: Congregational Effects on Environmental Concern.
J. Sci. Study Relig. 2009, 48, 670–686. [CrossRef]
19. Hand, C.M.; Van Liere, K.D. Religion, Mastery-Over-Nature, and Environmental Concern. Soc. Forces
1984, 63, 555–570. [CrossRef]
20. Woodrum, E.; Hoban, T. Theology and Religiosity Effects on Environmentalism. Rev. Relig. Res. 1994, 35,
193–206. [CrossRef]
21. Wolkomir, M.; Futreal, M.; Woodrum, E.; Hoban, T. Substantive Religious Belief and Environmentalism.
Soc. Sci. Q. 1997, 78, 96–108.
22. Taylor, B.; Van Wieren, G.; Zaleha, B. The Greening of Religion Hypothesis (Part Two): Assessing the data
from Lynn White, Jr, to Pope Francis. J. Study Relig. Nat. Cult. 2016, 10, 306–378. [CrossRef]
23. Tucker, M.E. World Religions, the Earth Charter, and Sustainability. Worldviews 2008, 12, 115–128. [CrossRef]
24. Freyer, B.; Aversano-Dearborn, V.; Winkler, G.; Leipold, S.; Haidl, H.; Karl, A.; Brand, W.; Rosenberger, M.;
Wallnig, T. Is there a Relation Between Ecological Practices and Spirituality? The Case of Benedictine
Monasteries Ecological Practices in Benedictine Monasteries. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2018, 31, 559–582.
[CrossRef]
25. Di Fabio, A.; Rosen, M.A. Opening the Black Box of Psychological Processes in the Science of Sustainable
Development: A New Frontier Opening the Black Box of Psychological Processes in the Science of Sustainable
Development: A New Frontier. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 2, 2542–4742. [CrossRef]
26. United Nations Goal 12: Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns. Available online: https:
//www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ (accessed on 25 May 2020).
27. Papaoikonomou, E. Sustainable lifestyles in an urban context: Towards a holistic understanding of ethical
consumer behaviours. Empirical evidence from Catalonia, Spain. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 37, 181–188.
[CrossRef]
28. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Environmental Education Research Mind the Gap: Why do people act
environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8,
29. Chidester, D. Empire of Religion. Imperialism and Comparative Religion; University of Chicago Press: Chicago,
IL, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-0-226-11726-3.
30. Tinker, T. Why I do not believe in a creator. In Buffalo Shout, Salmon Cry: Conversations on Creation, Land
Justice, and Life Together; Heinrichs, S., Ed.; Herald Press: Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2013; ISBN 9780836196894.
31. Taylor, B. The Greening of Religion Hypothesis (Part One): From Lynn White, Jr and claims that religions can
promote environmentally destructive attitudes and behaviors to assertions they are becoming environmentally
friendly. J. Study Relig. Nat. Cult. 2016, 10, 268–305. [CrossRef]
32. Schmidt, R.; Sager, G.C.; Carney, G.; Jackson, J.J.; Zanca, K.; Muller, A.; Jackson, J. Patterns of Religion;
Wadsworth Publishing: Belmont, CA, USA, 1999.
33. Saroglou, V. Believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging: The big four religious dimensions and cultural
variation. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 2011, 42, 1320–1340. [CrossRef]
34. Zinnbauer, B.J.; Pargament, K.I.; Scott, A.B. The Emerging Meanings of Religiousness and Spirituality:
Problems and Prospects. J. Pers. 1999, 67, 889–919. [CrossRef]
35. Masuzawa, T. The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of
Pluralism; Bibliovault OAI Repos. Univ. Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2007. [CrossRef]
36. Agarwala, R.; Mishra, P.; Singh, R. Religiosity and consumer behavior: A summarizing review. J. Manag.
Spiritual. Relig. 2019, 16, 32–54. [CrossRef]
37. Delener, N. The Effects of Religious Factors on Perceived Risk in Durable Goods Purchase Decisions.
J. Consum. Mark. 1990, 7, 27–38. [CrossRef]
38. Mokhlis, S. Relevancy and Measurement of Religiosity in Consumer Behavior Research. Int. Bus. Res.
2009, 2, 75–84. [CrossRef]
39. Alston, J. Three Measures of Current Levels of Religiosity. J. Sci. Study Relig. 1975, 14, 165–168. [CrossRef]
40. Cosgel, M.; Minkler, L. Rationality, Integrity, and Religious Behavior. J. Socio-Econ. 2004, 33, 329–341.
41. Worthington, E.L., Jr.; Wade, N.G.; Hight, T.L.; Ripley, J.S.; McCullough, M.E.; Berry, J.W.; Schmitt, M.M.;
Berry, J.T.; Bursley, K.H.; O’Connor, L. The Religious Commitment Inventory—10: Development, refinement,
and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. J. Couns. Psychol. 2003, 50, 84–96. [CrossRef]
42. Allport, G.W.; Ross, J.M. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1967, 5, 432–443.
[CrossRef]
43. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management
Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [CrossRef]
44. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA, G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Phys. Ther. 2009, 89, 873–880. [CrossRef]
45. Narayanan, Y. Sustainable consumption as a means to self-realization: A Hindu perspective on when enough
is enough. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 252–259. [CrossRef]
46. Van Den Noortgaete, F. Generous being: The environmental-ethical relevance of ontological gratitude.
Ethics Environ. 2016, 21, 119–142. [CrossRef]
47. Witkowski, T.H.; Reddy, S. Antecedents of ethical consumption activities in Germany and the United States.
Australas. Mark. J. 2010, 18, 8–14. [CrossRef]
48. Minton, E.; Kahle, L.; Kim, C. Religion and motives for sustainable behaviors: A cross-cultural comparison
and contrast. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1937–1944. [CrossRef]
49. Ghazali, E.M.; Mutum, D.S.; Ariswibowo, N. Impact of religious values and habit on an extended green
purchase behaviour model. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 639–654. [CrossRef]
50. Felix, R.; Hinsch, C.; Rauschnabel, P.A.; Schlegelmilch, B.B. Religiousness and environmental concern:
A multilevel and multi-country analysis of the role of life satisfaction and indulgence. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 91,
51. White, L. The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science 1967, 155, 1203–1207. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Arli, D.; Tjiptono, F. God and green: Investigating the impact of religiousness on green marketing.
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2017, 22, 1–11. [CrossRef]
53. Graafland, J. Religiosity, Attitude, and the Demand for Socially Responsible Products. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 144,
54. Gutsche, G. Individual and Regional Christian Religion and the Consideration of Sustainable Criteria in
Consumption and Investment Decisions: An Exploratory Econometric Analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 157,
1155–1182. [CrossRef]
55. Liobikienė, G.; Niaura, A.; Mandravickaitė, J.; Vabuolas, Ž. Does religiosity influence environmental attitude
and behaviour? The case of young Lithuanians. Eur. J. Sci. Theol. 2016, 12, 81–96.
56. Martin, W.C.; Bateman, C.R. Consumer religious commitment’s influence on ecocentric attitudes and behavior.
J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 5–11. [CrossRef]
57. Díaz, E.M.; Vélez, G.P.; Costa, P.M. Environmental beliefs and ideology in Chilean population. Universum
2015, 30, 219–236. [CrossRef]
58. Clements, J.M.; McCright, A.M.; Xiao, C. Green Christians? An Empirical Examination of Environmental
Concern Within the U.S. General Public. Organ. Environ. 2013, 27, 85–102. [CrossRef]
59. Yang, Y.; Huang, S. Religious beliefs and environmental behaviors in China. Religions 2018, 9, 72. [CrossRef]
60. Leary, B.; Minton, E.; Mittelstaedt, J. Thou Shall Not? The Influence of Religion on Beliefs of Stewardship
and Dominion, Sustainable Behaviors, and Marketing Systems. J. Macromark. 2016, 36, 457–470. [CrossRef]
61. Ukenna, S.; Nkamnebe, A.; Idoko, E. Inhibitors of sustainable consumption: Insights from university
academic staff in southern Nigeria. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 96–108. [CrossRef]
62. Doran, C.J.; Natale, S.M. e{open}’µπάθe{open}ια (Empatheia) and Caritas: The Role of Religion in Fair Trade
Consumption. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 98, 1–15. [CrossRef]
63. Hwang, H. Do religion and religiosity affect consumers’ intentions to adopt pro-environmental behaviours?
Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 664–674. [CrossRef]
64. Minton, E.A.; Kahle, L.R.; Jiuan, T.S.; Tambyah, S.K. Addressing Criticisms of Global Religion Research:
A Consumption-Based Exploration of Status and Materialism, Sustainability, and Volunteering Behavior.
J. Sci. Study Relig. 2016, 55, 365–383. [CrossRef]
65. Chuvieco, E.; Burgui, M.; Gallego-Álvarez, I. Impacts of Religious Beliefs on Environmental Indicators Is
Christianity More Aggressive Than Other Religions? Worldviews 2016, 20, 251–271. [CrossRef]
66. Hirschman, E.C. Religious affiliation and consumption processes. An initial paradigm. Res. Mark. 1983, 6,
31–170.
67. Saroglou, V.; Cohen, A.B. Psychology of culture and religion: Introduction to the JCCP special issue. J. Cross.
Cult. Psychol. 2011, 42, 1309–1319. [CrossRef]
68. Markle, G.L. Pro-Environmental Behavior: Does It Matter How It’s Measured? Development and Validation
of the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS). Hum. Ecol. 2013, 41, 905–914. [CrossRef]
69. Lakhan, C. The garbage gospel: Using the theory of planned behavior to explain the role of religious
institutions in affecting pro-environmental behavior among ethnic minorities. J. Environ. Educ. 2018, 49,
43–58. [CrossRef]
70. Minton, E. Religion and Religiosity ’ s Influence on Sustainable Consumption Behaviors: An Exploratory
Study. In Communicating Sustainability for the Green Economy; Kahle, L.R., Gurel-Atay, E., Eds.; M.E.Sharpe,
Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 73–87. ISBN 7980765636805.
71. Minton, E.; Jeffrey Xie, H.; Gurel-Atay, E.; Kahle, L.R. Greening up because of god: The relations among
religion, sustainable consumption and subjective well-being. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 655–663.
[CrossRef]
72. Davari, A.; Iyer, P.; Strutton, D. Investigating Moral Links Between Religiosity, Altruism, and Green
Consumption. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 2017, 29, 385–414. [CrossRef]
73. Hameed, I.; Waris, I.; Amin ul Haq, M. Predicting eco-conscious consumer behavior using theory of planned
behavior in Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 15535–15547. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Sherkat, D.E.; Ellison, C.G. Structuring the religion-environment connection: Identifying religious influences
on environmental concern and activism. J. Sci. Study Relig. 2007, 46, 71–85. [CrossRef]
75. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
76. Hassan, S.H. The role of Islamic values on green purchase intention. J. Islam. Mark. 2014, 5, 379–395.
[CrossRef]
77. Ariswibowo, N.; Ghazali, E. The Role of Religious Value and Environmental Knowledge on Green Purchase
Behaviours of Muslim Consumers. Organ. Stud. Innov. 2017, 4, 34–56.
78. Ewert, A.; Baker, D. Standing for Where You Sit: An Exploratory Analysis of the Relationship between
Academic Major and Environment Beliefs. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 687–707. [CrossRef]
79. Jones, R.; Cox, D.; Navarro-Rivera, J.; Dionne, E.J.J.; Galston, W. Do Americans Believe Capitalism and Government
Are Working? Religious Left, Religious Right and the Future of the Economic Debate; Public Religion Research
Institute and The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
80. Fransson, N.; Gärling, T. Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research
findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 369–382. [CrossRef]
81. Bhuian, S.; Sharma, S.K. Predicting consumer pro-environmental behavioral intention: The moderating role
of religiosity. Rev. Int. Bus. Strateg. 2017, 27, 352–368. [CrossRef]
82. Diener, E.; Emmons, R.A.; Larsen, R.J.; Griffin, S. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. J. Pers. Assess. 1985, 49,
71–75. [CrossRef]
83. Diener, E.; Inglehart, R.; Tay, L. Theory and Validity of Life Satisfaction Scales. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 112,
84. Wilcox, K.; Kramer, T.; Sen, S. Indulgence or Self-Control: A Dual Process Model of the Effect of Incidental
Pride on Indulgent Choice. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 38, 151–163. [CrossRef]
85. Schwartz, S.H. A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 1999, 48,
23–47. [CrossRef]
86. Schwartz, S.H. An overreview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2012, 2,
1–20. [CrossRef]
87. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social
movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97.
88. Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.
J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [CrossRef]
89. Razzaq, Z.; Razzaq, A.; Yousaf, S.; Hong, Z. The Impact of Utilitarian and Hedonistic Shopping Values on
Sustainable Fashion Consumption: The Moderating Role of Religiosity. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2018, 19, 1224–1239.
[CrossRef]
90. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifing Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215.
[CrossRef]
91. Minton, E.A.; Bret Leary, R.; Upadhyaya, S. Religion’s influence on consumer response to moral vs. justice
message appeals. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 768–778. [CrossRef]
92. Cialdini, R.; Reno, R.; Kallgren, C. A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms
to Reduce Littering in Public Places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58, 1015–1026. [CrossRef]
93. Werbner, P. Religious identity. In The SAGE Handbook of Identities; Wetherell, M., Mohanty, C.T., Eds.;
SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2010; pp. 233–257, ISBN 9781446200889.
94. Warner, K.D.; Brook, A.; Shaw, K. Facilitating religious environmentalism: Ethnology plus conservation
psychology tools can assess an interfaith environmental intervention. Worldviews Environ. Cult. Relig.
2012, 16, 111–134. [CrossRef]
95. Waylen, K.A.; Fischer, A.; McGowan, P.J.K.; Milner-Gulland, E.J. Interactions Between a Collectivist Culture
and Buddhist Teachings Influence Environmental Concerns and Behaviors in the Republic of Kalmykia,
Russia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 1118–1133. [CrossRef]
96. Lorenzen, J.A. Going Green: The Process of Lifestyle Change. Sociol. Forum 2012, 27, 94–116. [CrossRef]
97. Lorenzen, J.A. Social Network Challenges to Reducing Consumption: The Problem of Gift Giving.
Symb. Interact. 2018, 41, 247–266. [CrossRef]
98. Perera, C.; Hewege, C. Religiosity and Environmentally Concerned Consumer Behaviour: ‘becoming one
with God (nature)’ through Surrendering Environmental Identities. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 627–638.
[CrossRef]
99. Akremi, A.; Smaoui, F. Socially Responsible Consumption in Emerging Markets: Do Cultural Values and
Religiosity Matter? In Proceedings of the Marketing Spring Colloquy (MSC), Verona, Italy, 16–18 September
2015; pp. 46–60.
100. Schneider, H.; Krieger, J.; Bayraktar, A. The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs:
Does It Depend on the Type of Religion? A Comparison of Christian and Moslem Consumers in Germany
and Turkey. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 102, 319–332. [CrossRef]
101. Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Zhou, K. How and when does religiosity contribute to tourists’ intention to behave
pro-environmentally in hotels? J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1120–1137. [CrossRef]
102. Geertz, C. Religion as a cultural system. In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays; Fontana Press:
Oxford, UK, 1993; pp. 87–125. ISBN 0006862608.
103. Kormos, C.; Gifford, R. The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: Ameta-analytic
review. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 359–371. [CrossRef]
104. Wilson, J.; Musick, M. Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1997, 62,
105. Gupta, S.; Ogden, D.T. To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying. J. Consum. Mark.
2009, 26, 378–393. [CrossRef]
106. Sachdeva, S. Religious Identity, Beliefs, and Views about Climate Change. 2016. Available online:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.335 (accessed on 14 July 2020).
107. Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behaviour and Future Research Directions. Int. Strateg.
Manag. Rev. 2015, 3, 128–143. [CrossRef]
108. Lim, C.; Putnam, R.D. Religion, social networks, and life satisfaction. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2010, 75, 914–933.
[CrossRef]
109. Hurst, M.; Dittmar, H.; Bond, R.; Kasser, T. The relationship between materialistic values and environmental
attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 257–269. [CrossRef]
110. Liang, D.; Hou, C.; Jo, M.S.; Sarigöllü, E. Pollution avoidance and green purchase: The role of moral emotions.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 1301–1310. [CrossRef]
111. Mathras, D.; Cohen, A.B.; Mandel, N.; Mick, D.G. The effects of religion on consumer behavior: A conceptual
framework and research agenda. J. Consum. Psychol. 2016, 26, 298–311. [CrossRef]
112. Kasser, T.; Sheldon, K.M. Of Wealth and Death: Materialism, Mortality Salience, and Consumption Behavior.
Psychol. Sci. 2000, 11, 348–351. [CrossRef]
113. Kasser, T. Materialistic Values and Goals. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2016, 67, 489–514. [CrossRef]
114. Grim, J.; Tucker, M.E. Ecology and Religion. Foundations of Contemporary Studies; Island Press: Washington DC,
USA, 2014; ISBN 1610912357.
115. Mathras, D. Consumer Confessions; Arizona State University: Tempe, AZ, USA, 2015; ISBN 1321719353.
116. Wamsler, C.; Brossmann, J.; Hendersson, H.; Kristjansdottir, R.; McDonald, C.; Scarampi, P. Mindfulness in
sustainability science, practice, and teaching. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 143–162. [CrossRef]
117. Fischer, D.; Stanszus, L.; Geiger, S.; Grossman, P.; Schrader, U. Mindfulness and sustainable consumption:
A systematic literature review of research approaches and findings. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 544–558.
[CrossRef]
118. Jia, F.; Soucie, K.; Alisat, S.; Curtin, D.; Pratt, M. Are environmental issues moral issues? Moral identity in
relation to protecting the natural world. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 52, 104–113. [CrossRef]
119. Wu, B.; Yang, Z. The impact of moral identity on consumers’ green consumption tendency: The role of
perceived responsibility for environmental damage. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 59, 74–84. [CrossRef]
120. Aquino, K.; Americus, R. The self-importance of moral identity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 83, 1423–1440.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
121. Vitell, S.J.; King, R.A.; Howie, K.; Toti, J.F.; Albert, L.; Hidalgo, E.R.; Yacout, O. Spirituality, Moral Identity,
and Consumer Ethics: A Multi-cultural Study. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 139, 147–160. [CrossRef]
122. Peterson, C.; Seligman, M.E.P. Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification; Oxford University
Press: Oxford, UK, 2004; Volume 42, ISBN 0195167015.
123. Corral-Verdugo, V.; Tapia-Fonllem, C.; Ortiz-Valdez, A. On the Relationship Between Character Strengths
and Sustainable Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2014, 47, 877–901. [CrossRef]
124. Valor, C.; Antonetti, P.; Merino, A. The relationship between moral competences and sustainable consumption
among higher education students. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119161. [CrossRef]
125. Mccullough, M.; Willoughby, B. Religion, Self-Regulation, and Self-Control: Associations, Explanations,
and Implications. Psychol. Bull. 2009, 135, 69–93. [CrossRef]
© 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/).

The Influence of Religion On Sustainable Consumption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Religion On Sustainable Consumption

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Religion On Sustainable Consumption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: religion; sustainable consumption; behavioral factors; review

Sustainability 2020, 12, 7901; doi:10.3390/su12197901 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Sustainable Consumption and Religion: Definitions and Measurement

Table 1. Religious measures and its definitions.

Religious Measures Definitions

3.1. Search Strategy and Study Selection

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram. Adapted from Moher et al. (2009).

3.3. Description of Studies Included in the Systematic Review

4.1. A Direct Relationship between Religion and Sustainable Consumption

4.2. A Mediated/Moderate Relationship between Religion and Sustainable Consumption

5.1. Main Findings

underexamined. Notwithstanding, initial evidence seems to suggest that religiosity positively

5.2. Future Research Agenda

Table A1. PRISMA Checklist.

Table A1. Cont.

Table A2. Final List of Articles Included in the Systematic Review.

Author/Year of Publication Direction of the Influence of Religion on SC

Table A2. Cont.

Author/Year of Publication Direction of the Influence of Religion on SC

You might also like