Barbarossa JBE 2016

J Bus Ethics (2016) 134:229–247
DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2425-z
Positive and Negative Antecedents of Purchasing Eco-friendly

Products: A Comparison Between Green and Non-green
Consumers
Camilla Barbarossa • Patrick De Pelsmacker
Received: 24 March 2014 / Accepted: 9 October 2014 / Published online: 17 October 2014
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract This study aims to analyze what drives and that embraces both positive (altruistic and ego-centric) and
prevents the purchasing of eco-friendly products across negative (ego-centric) antecedents, which have been theo-
different consumer groups and develops a conceptual retically suggested in the past but have rarely been
model embracing the positive altruistic (care for the envi- empirically tested together. The second contribution of this
ronmental consequences of purchasing), positive ego-cen- study is that it develops insight into the specific antecedents
tric (green self-identity and moral obligation), and negative of eco-friendly products purchasing for green and non-
ego-centric (perceived personal inconvenience of pur- green consumers to assess potential similarities and dif-
chasing eco-friendly products) antecedents of eco-friendly ferences in eco-friendly products purchasing process, the
product purchase intention and behavior. We empirically hypothesized antecedents, their impact on eco-friendly
validate the conceptual model for green (n = 453) and products purchase intention and behavior, and the inten-
non-green (n = 473) consumers (i.e., consumers who tion–behavior relation.
engage in a set of pro-environmental behaviors for envi-
ronmental reasons versus consumers who do not engage in Keywords Eco-friendly products consumption
these behaviors). Data are analyzed using structural equa- Environment Self-identity Moral obligation Intention–
tion modeling and multi-group analysis of the two groups. behavior gap Spillover effect Structural equation
The results confirm the relevance of the determining fac- modeling Multi-group analysis
tors in the model and show significant differences in eco-
friendly product purchasing patterns between green and
non-green consumers. Altruistic motives are more impor- Introduction
tant for green than for non-green consumers. Negative ego-
centric motives affect the purchase intentions of non-green In recent years, international environmental policy debates
consumers more than the intentions of green consumers, have increasingly identified household consumption in
whereas the impact of negative motives on behavior is industrial countries as one of the main causes of environ-
stronger for green than for non-green consumers. The first mental problems (UNEP 2010) or even as ‘the mother of all
contribution of this paper is the development and testing of environmental issues’ (EEA 2012). Individual and house-
a parsimonious model of eco-friendly products purchasing hold consumption behavior has a substantial impact on the
environment (European Commission 2012b). In most
countries, household consumption over the lifecycle of
C. Barbarossa (&)
products accounts for more than 60 % of all environmental
Department of Human Studies, LUMSA University, Piazza delle
Vaschette, 101, 00193 Rome, Italy impacts of consumption (UNEP 2010). World population
e-mail: c.barbarossa@lumsa.it growth and resource use increase faster than the population
and make the disconnection of economic growth from
P. De Pelsmacker
environmental degradation even more urgent (SERI 2009).
Department of Marketing, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13,
2000 Antwerp, Belgium In this context, the role of purchasing eco-friendly
e-mail: patrick.depelsmacker@uantwerpen.be products (EFP) to reduce consumers’ environmental
123
230 C. Barbarossa, P. De Pelsmacker
footprint has recently been addressed (Griskevicius et al. consumers) versus consumers who do not engage in such
2012), especially for products that are purchased on a behaviors (‘non-green’ consumers). This knowledge is
regular basis, such as eco-friendly tissue paper products, essential to develop more effective policies and marketing
biodegradable detergents, and energy-saving light bulbs strategies tailored for each consumer group. Indeed,
(European Commission 2011b). Consequently, policy ‘combinations of different contents and tools should be
makers, marketers, and organizations have developed pol- applied to different population segments that vary accord-
icies (e.g., EU’s Action Plan), marketing campaigns (e.g., ing to environmental awareness and commitment, such as
Diesel Clothing’s ‘Global Warming Ready,’ Procter & ‘deep greens’ versus those who are honestly unengaged in
Gamble’s Tide Coldwater, or Timberland’s ‘Earthkeep- green behaviors’ (European Commission 2012a, p. 5).
ers’), and pro-environmental behavior campaigns (e.g., The present study addresses these research questions.
Greenpeace, the Green Party, and WWF’s ‘Don’t Flush The purpose of the study is twofold. First, it aims to
Tiger Forests’) to promote the purchasing of EFP among develop insights into the motivational process leading to
consumers. However, despite the efforts mentioned above the purchase of EFP. Building upon and integrating two
and consumers’ increased concerns about environmental separate streams of research, the Social Dilemma Theory
issues,1 the current market shares of EFP are still fairly low (Messick and Brewer 1983) and the Psychological Egoism
(approximately 1–6 %—Nielsen 2011). Theory (Steenhaut and van Kenhove 2006), we develop a
To enhance the effectiveness of policies and marketing conceptual model that embraces both positive (altruistic
campaigns and to stimulate the diffusion of EFP in the and ego-centric) and negative (ego-centric) antecedents of
market, policy makers and marketers now call for further EFP purchase intention and behavior to determine what
research into the decisional process that leads consumers to drives and prevents consumers from purchasing EFP.
purchase EFP (Prothero et al. 2011), specifically Second, this study aims to compare the EFP purchasing
processes of green and non-green consumers to determine
1. to develop further insight into the motivational ante-
whether there are significant differences between these two
cedents of purchasing EFP and
consumer groups in the motivational process of EFP pur-
2. to analyze whether the decisional process of purchas-
chasing. The notion of ‘spillover effects’ (Thøgersen and
ing EFP varies across different consumer segments.
Ölander 2003) provides the theoretical basis for the defi-
With respect to the first aspect, organizations such as the nition of the green and non-green consumers adopted in
European Commission (2012b) and UNEP (2010) call for this study. Green consumers are defined as those individ-
further investigation on (i) the most relevant positive and uals who engage in a set of pro-environmental behaviors
negative antecedents that, respectively, drive and prevent (e.g., recycling, reducing household waste) primarily for
consumers from purchasing EFP; (ii) the extent to which environmental reasons, while non-green consumers are
positive and negative antecedents influence individuals’ defined as those individuals who do not engage in a set of
EFP purchase intention and behavior; and (iii) the extent to pro-environmental behaviors. Accordingly, we propose
which EFP purchase intention and behavior correlate. This that being involved in a set of pro-environmental behaviors
knowledge is essential to appeal to the most relevant for environmental reasons versus not being involved in
motivational drivers of EFP consumption when developing these behaviors may lead to significant differences in
policies and marketing campaigns (Lindridge et al. 2013). consumers’ willingness to engage in EFP purchasing, in the
With respect to the second aspect, organizations such as effect that the positive (altruistic and ego-centric) and the
DEFRA (2008) and Deloitte (2012) have pinpointed the negative (ego-centric) antecedents exert on EFP purchase
need to analyze whether the motivational process of pur- intention and behavior, and in the EFP purchase intention–
chasing EFP may vary across specific consumer segments, behavior relationship (Koestner et al. 2001; Thøgersen and
such as consumers who already engage in pro-environ- Ölander 2002; Dono et al. 2010).
mental behaviors for environmental reasons (‘green’ In pursuing these research aims, the present study makes
two important contributions. First, despite the fact that
1
Thirty-three percent of Americans now prioritize environmental many models of EFP purchasing behavior have been
protection, and 46 % feel that citizens can take at least small steps to developed and tested, the vast majority have focused on
improve the environment (GfK Roper Consulting 2011). Similarly,
altruistic motivations. Only recently scholars have
58 % of Europeans feel that protecting the environment is very
important to them, and 87 % believe that environmental protection is emphasized how purchasing EFP can be determined by
the responsibility, at least in part, of citizens (European Commission more ego-centric antecedents (Bamberg and Möser 2007).
2011a). Consumers are also increasingly engaging in different pro- Nevertheless, conceptual models including both positive
environmental actions. Sixty-six percent of Europeans engage in
(altruistic and ego-centric) and negative (ego-centric)
recycling (?7 points since 2007), 53 % (?6) and 43 % (?6) in
reducing energy and water consumption, and 37 % (?7) in waste motivations are still lacking. The first contribution of this
reduction (European Commission 2012a). study is the conceptualization and empirical validation of a
123
Positive and Negative Antecedents of Purchasing Eco-friendly Products 231
parsimonious model that integrates both positive (altruistic

and ego-centric) and negative (ego-centric) antecedents of EC
EFP purchasing, which have been theoretically suggested
in the past but have rarely been empirically tested together
in a comprehensive model. GSI H1a (+) H1b (+)
Second, no previous research has explicitly made a
distinction between consumer groups in terms of their H2a (+)
H2b (+)
current pro-environmental behaviors and of the reasons for
engaging in these behaviors (see Moons and De Pels- MO
H3b (+)
macker 2012, as an exception). This distinction is impor-
H3a (+) H5a (+)
tant: green consumers may have a fundamentally different
IP P
EFP purchasing process and may be driven or constrained H4a (-)
by different factors than non-green consumers, and the H4b (-)
intention–behavior relationship may differ across the two PPI

consumer groups. The second contribution of this study is
that, for the first time, it explicitly compares the EFP
purchasing process of two relevant market segments, green Fig. 1 Conceptual model. Notes EC care for the environmental
consequences of purchasing, GSI green self-identity, MO moral
and non-green consumers. obligation, PPI perceived personal inconvenience of purchasing EFP,
In light of this twofold research aim, we present an IP intention to purchase EFP, P EFP self-reported purchase behavior
empirical study on the antecedents of purchasing EFP (i.e.,
eco-friendly tissue paper products) for green (n = 453) and
non-green (n = 473) consumers in Italy. The data are
analyzed using structural equation modeling and multi- assumed to purchase EFP because of a strong self-interest
group analysis. Implications for marketers and policy in perceiving themselves as green consumers (green self-
makers are addressed. identity—Freestone and McGoldrick 2008) and to avoid
feeling guilty by obeying moral obligations (moral obli-
gation—Steenhaut and van Kenhove 2006).
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses The altruistic and ego-centric antecedents of purchasing
EFP have generally been analyzed separately in the context
Antecedents of Purchasing Eco-friendly Products of either the Social Dilemma Theory or Psychological
Egoism Theory, but their joint effects on EFP purchase
The first objective of this study is to build and test a par- intention and behavior have rarely been analyzed together
simonious model of positive and negative antecedents of in comprehensive conceptual models (Moisander 2007).
purchasing EFP. Recently, scholars have argued in support of the multiple
Consistent with the ‘individual gain or common good’ determination of EFP consumption (Bamberg and Möser
dilemma, research applying the Social Dilemma Theory to 2007) and have emphasized that purchasing EFP should be
pro-environmental behaviors widely recognizes altruistic viewed as the result of a concurrent mixture of positive
drivers (i.e., care for the environmental consequences of (altruistic and ego-centric) and negative (ego-centric)
purchasing) as the dominant, if not unique, positive ante- antecedents (White and Peloza 2009).
cedents of EFP purchasing (Gupta and Ogden 2009). This In view of these considerations, we propose a theoretical
theory also recognizes the possible negative individual model that combines altruistic and ego-centric antecedents
consequences of pro-environmental consumption because of purchasing EFP. From the Social Dilemma Theory, we
consumers may bear individual loss when engaging in EFP adopt the trade-off between positive altruistic and negative
purchasing (i.e., perceived personal inconvenience of pur- ego-centric antecedents of purchasing EFP. From the
chasing EFP—Follows and Jobber 2000). However, the Psychological Egoism Theory, we consider positive ego-
Social Dilemma Theory mostly neglects how consumers centric motives as additional antecedents of purchasing
may derive personal benefits from purchasing green goods. EFP. We argue that an individual’s decision to purchase
In contrast, research applying the Psychological Egoism EFP can be seen as the result of two opposite evaluations.
Theory to pro-environmental behaviors proposes that On the one hand, positive antecedents, both altruistic (i.e.,
altruism implies obtaining personal pleasure from helping care for the environmental consequences of purchasing)
behavior. Thus, it recognizes ego-centric motives (positive and ego-centric (i.e., green self-identity and moral obliga-
self-interest) as the dominant antecedents of purchasing tion), exert a positive impact on consumers’ intention and
EFP (Steenhaut and van Kenhove 2006). Consumers are EFP purchase behavior. On the other hand, negative ego-
123
centric antecedents (i.e., perceived personal inconvenience (1995) found that people who identify themselves as ‘green
of purchasing EFP) exert a negative impact on consumers’ consumers’ buy organic food to a greater extent than those
intention and EFP purchase behavior (Fig. 1). who do not. Similarly, Mannetti et al. (2004) found that
people who see themselves as typical recyclers are more
Care for the Environmental Consequences likely to recycle than those who do not. Hence, we
of Purchasing (EC) hypothesize the following:
H2 Green self-identity has a positive effect on the
Consumers may purchase products based on the extent to
intention to purchase EFP (H2a) and the purchase of EFP
which they care for the way the consumption of these
(H2b).
products affects the natural environment (Follows and
Jobber 2000). Adopting a hierarchical model of value-
Moral Obligation (MO)
attitude-behavior, prior research (Thøgersen and Ölander
2002) has established that values belonging to the ‘uni-
Moral obligation can be defined as ‘a personal internal state
versalism’ value type (a broader concern for all people and
construct (that) is concerned with the extent to which an
nature), such as ‘protecting the environment’ and ‘unity
individual feels a sense of responsibility to act morally
with nature’ (Schwartz 1992), are significant antecedents of
when faced with an ethical situation’ (Haines et al. 2008,
care for the environmental consequences of purchasing.
p. 390). Within the domain of green consumerism, Koest-
These values have a direct impact on consumers’ EFP
ner et al. (2001) argue that behavioral choices are based on
purchase intention (Freestone and McGoldrick 2008) and
evaluations about what is right or wrong. A consumer may
actual purchase behavior (Bamberg 2003; Kilbourne and
adhere to specific eco-friendly principles because it is the
Pickett 2008). The more consumers care about environ-
right thing to do, and the violation of these principles is
mental degradation, the more importance they place on the
intrinsically wrong. The consciousness of not behaving in
environmental consequences of consuming specific pro-
the right way (i.e., purchasing products that substantially
ducts, and the more likely they are to purchase products
damage the environment) may lead consumers to feeling
that are less damaging to the environment (Kilbourne and
guilty, in an aroused form of emotional distress, and may
Pickett 2008). Hence, we hypothesize the following (Fig.
trigger negative anticipated emotions (Steenhaut and Van
1):
Kenhove 2006). Therefore, the purchase of EFP can be
H1 Care for the environmental consequences of pur- considered an ego-centric motivation to relieve one’s own
chasing has a positive effect on the intention to purchase distress and prime positive emotions (Haines et al. 2008).
EFP (H1a) and the purchase of EFP (H1b). Measures of moral obligation have been found to signifi-
cantly predict intention and behaviors involving moral
dimensions, such as purchasing ethical products (Sparks
Green Self-Identity (GSI)
and Shepherd 2002; Shaw and Shiu 2003; Peloza
et al. 2013). Hence, we hypothesize the following:
Self-identity (or personal identity), ‘how the individual
perceives himself’ (Grubb and Grathwohl 1967, p. 24), H3 Moral obligation has a positive effect on the intention
may be a positive motive for consumers to purchase EFP. to purchase EFP (H3a) and the purchase of EFP (H3b).
Whitmarsh and O’Neill (2010) recognize two levels at
which self-identity may operate in the context of pro- Perceived Personal Inconvenience of Purchasing EFP
environmental behaviors: ‘generic’ and ‘behavior-specific’. (PPI)
‘Generic’ green self-identity refers to an individual’s
overall self-perception based on his or her mental identi- Perceived personal inconvenience of purchasing EFP can
fication with the typical green consumer (Sparks and be defined as a consumer’s evaluation of (and aversion to)
Shepherd 1992). ‘Behavior-specific’ green self-identity bearing ‘personal efforts’ (Follows and Jobber 2000,
refers to an individual’s self-perception based on potential p. 727) when purchasing EFP. Gupta and Ogden (2009)
engagement in specific eco-friendly behaviors, such as affirm that consumers perceive EFP purchasing as a time
purchasing EFP (Mannetti et al. 2004). EFP may be a consuming, economically disadvantageous, and stressful
relevant way to satisfy consumers’ self-definitional needs activity, because consumers have to spend extra money,
(self-verification—Stets and Burke 2000) and enhance time, and cognitive resources when engaging in green
personal satisfaction (Bhattacharya and Sankar 2003). consumption. Bray et al. (2011) and Gleim et al. (2013)
Various studies have highlighted the identity–intention/ identify consumers’ perceptions of the lack of availability,
behavior link in relation to pro-environmental actions. For narrow product range, higher price, and lower quality of
example, Sparks and Shepherd (1992) and Sparks et al. EFP as reasons for less green consumption. D’Souza et al.
123
(2006) state that a large proportion of consumers experi- related green behaviors, but it also results in motivational
ences difficulties in selecting EFP due to a rampant pro- changes for an individual to perform related green
liferation of ambiguous green labels that ‘confuse behaviors. As Thøgersen and Crompton (2009, p.143)
consumers and undermine credibility’ (De Pelsmacker posit, ‘‘the spillover effect is (also) said to occur when
et al. 2005, p. 515). Consumers’ evaluations of (and dis- adoption of a particular (green) behavior increases the
favor for) the possible negative individual consequences of motivation for an individual to adopt other related (green)
purchasing EFP (i.e., paying more to purchase EFP, behaviors.’’ That is to say, the adoption of a particular
wasting time to go to specialized stores or to recognize eco-friendly behavior for pro-environmental reasons
EFP on the shelf) can be considered a negative ego-centric strengthens an individual’s (altruistic and ego-centric)
motivation for not engaging in EFP purchasing. Carrington positive motivations to engage in other pro-environ-
et al. (2014) maintain that, particularly with reference to mental-related behaviors.
frequently purchased items, individuals who believe they This twofold meaning of the spillover is grounded in
lack the necessary resources and opportunities to buy green psychological theories that postulate a common motiva-
goods are unlikely to form strong behavioral intentions or tional root leading to an individual’s consistency across
may be prevented from buying EFP at the moment of diverse pro-environmental behaviors. Bratanova et al.
purchase. Hence, we hypothesize the following: (2012) and Whitmarsh and O’Neill (2010) refer to Disso-
nance Theory (Festinger 1957) and Self-Perception Theory
H4 Perceived personal inconvenience of purchasing EFP
(Bem 1972) to postulate green consumers’ tendency to
has a negative effect on the intention to purchase EFP (H4a)
avoid inconsistencies in beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.
and the purchase of EFP (H4b).
As a person starts to behave pro-environmentally in one
area for pro-environmental reasons that person’s self-
Eco-friendly Product Purchasing Patterns of Green
identity, attitude, and moral norms are likely to change in a
and Non-green Consumers
way that (i) strengthens the (altruistic and ego-centric)
positive motivational roots of related pro-environmental
The second objective of this study is to assess differences
behaviors and (ii) increases consumers’ willingness to
in the motivational process that leads to purchasing EFP
perform related green behaviors.
between ‘green’ and ‘non-green’ consumers (i.e., con-
Care for the environmental consequences of purchasing,
sumers who engage in a set of pro-environmental behaviors
green self-identity, and moral obligation represent moti-
for environmental reasons vs. consumers who do not
vational causes of cross-situational pro-environmental
engage in these behaviors). We argue that green and non-
behaviors, such as recycling (Mannetti et al. 2004),
green consumers differ significantly in the influence that
bringing one’s own shopping bags to the grocery store
positive altruistic (EC), positive ego-centric (GSI, MO),
(Chan et al. 2008), green activism (Dono et al. 2010), and
and negative ego-centric (PPI) antecedents have on EFP
supporting charitable causes (White and Peloza 2009).
purchase intention and behavior, in the willingness to
Empirical research (albeit limited) has found that care for
purchase EFP, and in the intention–behavior relation.
the environmental consequences of purchasing, green self-
identity, and moral obligation have stronger effects on pro-
Effects of EC, GSI, and MO on the EFP Purchase
environmental behaviors for green consumers than for non-
Intention and Behavior of Green and Non-green
green consumers. For instance, Thøgersen and Ölander
Consumers
(2002) found that green consumers assign more importance
to altruistic variables in their choices than non-green con-
Prior research has found that consumers who already
sumers do. Dono et al. (2010) found greater self-identity
engage in a range of green activities (e.g., taking part in
enhancement in pro-environmental political actions for
pro-environmental organizations, sorting garbage, recy-
green than non-green consumers. Koestner et al. (2001)
cling items) for environmental reasons are more willing to
found that green consumers see greater potential for
engage in other green actions (e.g., purchasing EFP)
restorative experiences (avoiding distress) in natural envi-
(Thøgersen and Ölander 2002). The tendency of green
ronment activities than non-green consumers do. Hence,
behavior to spread across multiple areas of action is
we hypothesize the following:
called the ‘spillover effect’: as a person starts to behave in
an environmentally friendly way in one area, that person’s H5 The positive effect of care for the environmental
preparedness to behave in an environmentally friendly consequences of purchasing, green self-identity, and moral
way in other related areas will increase (Thøgersen and obligation on the intention to purchase EFP (H5a, H5b, H5c),
Ölander 2003). However, the spillover effect does not and the purchase of EFP (H5d, H5e, H5f) is greater for green
only concern the likelihood for an individual to perform than for non-green consumers.
123
Effects of PPI on EFP Purchase Intention and Behavior and Shiu 2003; Follows and Jobber 2000). However, when
and the Intention–Behavior Relation of Green and Non- they are inside a store, green consumers exhibit mixed
green Consumers ethical and ego-centric evaluations of EFP (Chan et al.
2008). Recent research has found that green consumers’
Traditional consumer behavior models, such as the Theory difficulties of finding EFP inside the store or of recognizing
of Planned Behavior (Ajzen 1991), widely assume that EFP on the shelves dampens actual green purchase
behavioral intention is a precursor of actual behavior (De behavior (Carrington et al. 2014). Hence, we hypothesize
Cannière et al. 2009). However, within the pro-environ- the following:
mental consumption literature, extant research has
H6a The negative effect exerted by perceived personal
emphasized significant differences in the EFP purchase
inconvenience of purchasing EFP on the intention to pur-
intention–behavior relation between green and non-green
chase EFP is greater for non-green than for green
consumers. Although green consumers might be more
consumers.
willing to purchase EFP than non-green consumers, green
consumers, as opposed to non-green consumers, often do H6b The negative effect exerted by perceived personal
not translate their EFP purchase intention into actual pur- inconvenience of purchasing EFP on the purchase of EFP
chase behavior (the ‘green purchasing gap’—Carrington is greater for green than for non-green consumers.
et al. 2014). These differences may be due to a different
H7 The intention to purchase EFP has a positive effect on
temporal evaluation of the personal inconvenience associ-
EFP purchase behavior (H7a), which is greater for non-
ated with purchasing EFP between green and non-green
green than for green consumers (H7b).
consumers and, thus, to a different effect of the negative
variable on EFP purchase intention and behavior for these Hypotheses are summarized in Table 3.
two consumer groups (Gupta and Ogden 2009).
Non-green consumers mainly evaluate the personal
inconvenience associated with purchasing EFP at the Method
intention-formation stage. Non-green consumers take the
utilitarian (e.g., quality and price) aspect of buying EFP Selected Product Category
into account more than the ethical aspect when forming
buying intentions (Carrigan and Attalla 2001), and they Consumers show different attitudes toward the purchase of
strongly associate negative personal ego-centric evalua- EFP according to the product category involved (Auger
tions (i.e., individual loss) with pro-environmental con- et al. 2010; Luchs et al. 2010; Davies et al. 2012). De
sumption (Chan et al. 2008). Furthermore, non-green Pelsmacker and Janssens (2007) stress the importance of
consumers’ low familiarity with eco-friendly behaviors the principle of ‘specificity’: measures of motivations,
enhances these consumers’ inertia and perceptions of the attitude, intentions, and behaviors should be specifically
costs that will be incurred when switching to unfamiliar related to the context of a study to provide a correct
eco-friendly behaviors (Bray et al. 2011; Gleim et al. interpretation of the motivational process. Therefore, there
2013), leading them to perceive EFP as undesirable alter- is a consensus on the study of green consumption for
natives and reducing their EFP purchase intentions. specific behaviors and product categories (Moisander
Therefore, when they are inside a store, non-green con- 2007). In light of these considerations, we defined all
sumers follow their intentions of opting for conventional concepts in the model in the context of purchasing one
alternatives, exhibiting a rather consistent intention– particular product category: eco-friendly tissue paper pro-
behavior relation. Similarly, when their considerations lead ducts (EFTPP). EFTPP products are paper napkins, toilet
them to a positive EFP buying intention, they are inclined papers, scrolls, paper towels, and paper tablecloths (Niel-
to act according to their intentions because they deliberated sen product category tree for grocery non-food) that (i) are
about which choice to make at the intention-formation manufactured from recycled paper, or paper from legally
stage. and sustainably harvested wood, or made of organic cotton;
In contrast, green consumers mainly evaluate the per- (ii) involve low energy and water consumption during the
sonal inconvenience of purchasing EFP at the behavioral manufacturing processes; and (iii) are not chlorine
stage. Green consumers are more motivated to engage in bleached (European Commission 2011b).
EFP purchasing than non-green consumers (Thøgersen and This product category was selected for the following
Ölander 2003). They attach high importance to the pre- reasons: (1) governments have recently addressed the role
sence of ethical attributes in the products (Auger et al. of EFP that are purchased on a regular basis, such as EF-
2010), which leads them to form stronger behavioral TPP, to reduce consumers’ environmental footprint, and
intentions to buy EFP than non-green consumers (Shaw they call for further research about these products
123
(European Commission 2011b), (2) eco-friendly paper of concrete singular object (such as purchase intention).
products show one of the highest growths in market share Finally, to measure self-reported purchasing of EFTPP (P),
among all eco-friendly product categories, presenting a we used two items from Follows and Jobber (2000). We
good context for the analysis of EFP purchasing (Co- measured all items on seven-point Likert scales anchored
operative Bank 2011), and (3) consumers cannot exhibit by ‘‘1 = Completely disagree’’ and ‘‘7 = Completely
compensatory post-purchasing behaviors (i.e., recycling or agree,’’ except items measuring the purchasing of EFTPP,
reusing materials) because tissue paper products cannot be which were coded on a seven-point Likert scale anchored
recycled after use (European Commission 2011b). by ‘‘1 = Never’’ and ‘‘7 = Always.’’
Pilot Studies and Measures Main Study: Procedure and Samples
We based the measures for the constructs in the model on a The main study involved a quantitative study (survey) in
thorough literature review and on the results of two Italy with purposive samples of green and non-green adult
exploratory qualitative studies involving adult Italian consumers (aged above 18) responsible for grocery shop-
consumers. We conducted the two qualitative studies to ping in the household.
explore potential additional facets of each construct and to The questionnaire was composed of four sections. The first
better adapt the constructs to the chosen product category section explained the aim of the study, that is, to analyze
(EFTPP). As in Carrigan and Attalla (2001), we conducted respondents’ consumption behaviors generally and as regards
five 2-h focus groups of six adult participants each and 51 commodities and eco-friendly commodities. Guidelines to
in-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews, which complete the questionnaire were also provided. The second
lasted for 1 h each. After preliminary analysis of five focus part contained two screening questions. The first concerned
groups and 51 interviews, theoretical saturation of the data consumers’ purchasing responsibility (‘Please indicate whe-
was reached (Patton 2002). ther you are responsible for the grocery shopping in the
We pre-tested the resulting questionnaire with a sample of household’—Follows and Jobber 2000), because we wanted
45 adult consumers to identify potential problems with clarity only grocery shoppers to partake in the study (Davies et al.
and comprehension. This process resulted in some minor 2012). The second screening question concerned consumers’
changes. The resulting scales are shown in Appendix 1. engagement in a set of pro-environmental behaviors (Moons
For care for the environmental consequences of pur- and De Pelsmacker 2012), because we aimed to identify green
chasing (EC), we used Follows and Jobber’s (2000) four- and non-green consumers (see Appendix 2). Respondents
item scale and adapted the scale to the product category at were asked to indicate whether they did or did not engage in a
hand (EFTPP). To measure green self-identity (GSI), we set of eco-friendly behaviors (e.g., avoiding wasting water,
added two items (GSI3 and GSI4) generated from the recycling items, taking part in pro-environmental campaigns),
qualitative studies to Sparks and Shepherd’s (1992) two- and, if yes, to indicate the reason for which they engaged in
item scale.2 To measure moral obligation (MO), we used each green behavior (anchors ranged from 1 to 5, with
Sparks and Shepherd’s (2002) three-item scale. To measure ‘‘1 = no,’’ ‘‘2 = yes, because I have to,’’ ‘‘3 = yes, because
concern for the personal inconvenience of purchasing EFP it saves me money,’’ ‘‘4 = yes, because it is better for the
(PPI), we developed a four-item scale based on a review of environment,’’ ‘‘5 = yes, because everybody does it’’). To be
the literature and on the qualitative studies. To measure considered green consumers, respondents should engage in
respondents’ intention to purchase EFTPP (IP), we used the majority ([50 %) of Moons and De Pelsmacker’s (2012)
Shaw and Shiu’s (2003) one-item scale, based on Bergkvist set of eco-friendly behaviors for environmental reasons
and Rossiter’s (2007) findings that single-item measures (‘4 = yes, because it is better for the environment’—see
were equally predictively valid as multiple-item measures Appendix 2). On the contrary, to be considered non-green
consumers, respondents should not engage in the majority
2
The results of an Exploratory Factor Analysis (PCA with Promax ([50 %) of Moons and De Pelsmacker’s (2012) set of eco-
Rotation) clearly suggest that the green self-identity scale is friendly behaviors (‘‘1 = no’’). Consistent with the theoreti-
unidimensional, for both the green and non-green consumer samples. cal notion of green consumers (individuals who are engaged in
Specifically, communalities are all greater than 0.60, ranging from
a set of pro-environmental behaviors for environmental rea-
0.611 to 0.712 for green consumers, and from 0.722 to 0.778 for non-
green-consumers. The criterion of Eigenvalue [1 clearly shows that, sons) and non-green consumers (individuals who are not
in both the samples, one factor emerges which explains 66.4 % engaged in a set of pro-environmental behaviors) adopted in
(green) and 75.2 % (non-green) of the variance. All factor loadings this study, we did not consider neither as green nor as non-
are significantly greater than 0.50, ranging from 0.782 to 0.844 for
green consumers those respondents who mostly engage in pro-
green consumers, and from 0.850 to 0.882 for non-green consumers.
Finally, Cronbach’s alphas are higher than 0.70 (green consumers: environmental behaviors because of mere utilitarian evalua-
a = 0.83; non-green consumers a = 0.89) (Appendix 1). tions (e.g., purchasing energy-saving lamps to save money) or
123
because the specific pro-environmental behavior may be Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the samples
mandatory (e.g., sorting garbage is mandatory in many Green (n = 453) Non-green (n = 473)
countries) (Whitmarsh and O’Neill 2010). Previous research
suggests that ‘spillover effects’ across pro-environmental Gender
behaviors may only occur if people perform the behavior for Male 46 44
environmental reasons (Thøgersen and Ölander 2003). The Female 54 56
third part of the questionnaire included the measurement Age
scales for the EFTPP model variables and the items for the 18–24 15 14
common method variance assessment.3 The last part recorded 25–34 31 30
socio-demographic data and thanked the participants. 35–44 22 25
In accordance with the aim of the study (to analyze EFP 45–55 13 15
purchasing patterns of green and non-green consumers) and [55 19 16
thus to properly reach both green and non-green consum- Education
ers, the authors and a team of research assistants delivered Junior high school 14 13
questionnaires during environmental activities (i.e., clean- High schoola 30 43
ing parks) or specific green days (i.e., the Day of the Earth) Bachelor or mastera 56 44
organized by different pro-environmental organizations
Cells are percentages (%)
(Greenpeace, Inachis, ISDE, Legambiente, LIPU, ProNa- a
Two-proportion Z test detected a significant difference between the
tura, WWF), as well as in the street in ordinary days. samples at p \ 0.05
Respondents were asked to complete off-line self-admin-
istered questionnaires. They received a small incentive to
behaviors for environmental reasons relative to other
partake in the study, that is, tickets for an online lottery of
reasons (i.e., they had to, the behavior saved them
multiple small prizes4 (Göritz 2004).
money, everybody did it);
1,196 consumers agreed to partake in the study (41 %
– 473 non-green consumers (42 % of qualified grocery
average response rate), and 1,147 fully completed the
shoppers) who did not engage in the majority ([50 %)
questionnaire, of whom 49 were disqualified because they
of Moons and De Pelsmacker’s (2012) set of eco-
were not responsible for grocery shopping in the household
friendly behaviors.
(screening question 1), resulting in a sample of 1,128 con-
sumers responsible for grocery shopping. Consistent with the
theoretical notion of green and non-green consumers adop-
ted in the study (screening question 2), 202 respondents Data Analysis and Results
(18 % of qualified grocery shoppers) were further disquali-
fied because they were neither green nor non-green con- Table 1 reports the socio-demographic composition of the
sumers, that is, they engaged in the majority ([50 %) of two samples. The two samples show similar socio-demo-
Moons and De Pelsmacker’s (2012) set of eco-friendly graphic characteristics in almost all respects (p [ 0.05),
behaviors for reasons different from environmental protec- except for one variable: the green sample is more highly
tion (i.e., they had to, the behavior saved them money, educated than the non-green sample (consistent with prior
everybody did it). Hence, the final sample was composed of research, e.g., Diamantopoulos et al. 2003).
926 valid questionnaires, characterized as follows: Results indicate significant (p \ 0.05) differences in the
construct means between the two samples (Appendix 1).
– 453 green consumers (40 % of qualified grocery
The mean scores for positive motivations (EC, GSI, and
shoppers) who engaged in the majority ([50 %) of
MO) and EFP purchase intention (IP) are significantly
Moons and De Pelsmacker’s (2012) set of eco-friendly
higher for green than for non-green consumers, and the
mean score of the negative motivation (PPI) is significantly
3
To reduce social desirability bias, the survey was separated into lower for green than for non-green consumers. Conversely,
four sections, where we only introduced EFTPP purchasing as the
the mean scores of EFP purchase behavior (P) do not differ
major research topic in section three (Davies et al. 2012). At the early
stage of this section, as suggested by Chan and Lau (2001, p. 18), significantly (p [ 0.05) between the two consumer groups.
‘since different people might have different interpretations of what We used structural equation modeling to test the model,
constitutes a green product, it is necessary to ensure that respondents following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step
under study would adopt a common frame of reference when
approach. The first step involved the assessment of the
answering.’ To this end, following Davies et al.’s (2012) suggestions,
we provided a simplified definition and pictures of unbranded EFTPP. measurement model by conducting confirmatory factor
4
The use of small incentives contributes to reduce selection bias and analysis (CFA) on each sample. The second step involved
increases response quantity and quality (Göritz 2004). the analysis of the full structural model on each sample.
123
Table 2 Confirmatory factor analysis: global measures of fit

v2 d.f. v2/df RMSEA SRMR NFI NNFI CFI
Green (n = 453) 376.072 121 3.10 0.070 0.043 0.967 0.971 0.977
Non-green (n = 473) 378.898 121 3.13 0.067 0.043 0.958 0.962 0.970
2
v Chi square, d.f. degrees of freedom, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, SRMR standardized root mean square residual, NFI
normed fit index, NNFI non-normed fit index, CFI comparative fit index
Table 3 Structural equation model: standardized path estimates and goodness of fit indices
Hypotheses Green (n = 453) Non-green (n = 453) Hypotheses
Stand. b t value Stand. b t value
H1a: EC ? IP c1,1 0.256 4.61** 0.023 0.53 (ns) H5a: EC ? IP; G[NG Dv2(1) = 10.82**
H1b: EC ? P c2,1 0.024 0.08 (ns) 0.003 0.39 (ns) H5d: EC ? P; G[NG p [ 0.10 (ns)
H2a: GSI ? IP c1,2 0.308 4.42** 0.335 5.72** H5b: GSI ? IP; G[NG p [ 0.10 (ns)
H2b: GSI ? P c2,2 0.010 1.57 (ns) 0.044 4.77** H5e: GSI ? P; G[NG p [ 0.10 (ns)
H3a: MO ? IP c1,3 0.120 2.01** 0.228 4.12** H5c: MO ? IP; G[NG p [ 0.10 (ns)
H3b: MO ? P c2,3 0.020 1.02(ns) 0.025 2.16** H5f: MO ? P; G[NG p [ 0.10 (ns)
H4a: PPI ? IP c1,4 -0.262 6.37** -0.353 8.05** H6a: PPI ? IP; NG[G Dv2(1) = 18.18**
H4b: PPI ? P c2,4 -0.765 18.25** -0.227 8.79** H6b: PPI ? P; G[NG Dv2(1) = 88.18**
H7a: IP ? P b2,1 0.209 4.32** 0.612 11.80** H7b: IP ? P; NG[G Dv2(1) = 33.31**
2 2
Global goodness of fit indices v /d.f. = 388.850/121 v /d.f. = 378.898/121
RMSEA = 0.070 RMSEA = 0.067
SRMR = 0.043 SRMR = 0.043
NFI = 0.967 NFI = 0.958
NNFI = 0.971 NNFI = 0.962
CFI = 0.977 CFI = 0.970
EC care for the environmental consequences of purchasing, GSI green self-identity, MO moral obligation, PPI perceived personal inconvenience
of purchasing EFP, EFP eco-friendly products, IP intention to purchase EFP, P EFP self-reported purchase behavior, G green consumers, NG
non-green consumers, Stand. b standardized beta coefficient, ns not significant
* p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01
Table 4 Configural, metric, and partial metric invariance acceptable RMSEA lower than 0.08, SRMR lower than
CI MI PMI
0.05, and NFI, NNFI, and CFI all greater than 0.95. Local
fit criteria are good. All the items significantly load on their
SRMR GFI SRMR GFI SRMR GFI constructs (p \ 0.001), and factor loadings are greater than
Green (n = 453) 0.043 0.909 0.053 0.905 0.044 0.906 0.60, ranging from 0.647 to 0.992 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988).
Non-green 0.043 0.908 0.044 0.903 0.046 0.908 Cronbach’s alphas (a) for all constructs are greater than
(n = 473) 0.70, in accordance with Nunnally and Bernstein (1994)
CI configural invariance, MI metric invariance, PMI partial metric
standard of internal consistency (Appendix 1). Cronbach’s
invariance alpha for the intention to purchase (IP) construct was not
computed because IP is measured by one single item. The
Finally, we performed multi-group analysis (Steenkamp composite reliability (CR) threshold of 0.60 is met for
and Baumgartner 1998) to assess differences between every factor, and the average variance extracted (AVE) is
green and non-green consumers. always greater than 0.50 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Dis-
criminant validity is confirmed because the shared variance
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Analysis between pairs of factors is always less than the corre-
sponding AVE (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
We validated the six-factor measurement model by means Analysis of the full structural model for each group was
of CFA using LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog and Sörbom 2006). performed using LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog and Sörbom
Global fit indices are good (Table 2). Both samples show 2006) and the Maximum Likelihood Method. Both global
123
Table 5 Full model: configural, metric and partial metric invariance

v2 d.f. RMSEA NFI NNFI CFI DCFI Dv2 Dd.f. p value
Full sample (N = 926)

CI 808.033 248 0.069 0.963 0.968 0.974
MI 858.282 260 0.07 0.961 0.968 0.972 0.002 50.25 12 0.001
PMI* 824.170 257 0.069 0.962 0.968 0.974 0.00 16.13 9 0.07
EC2, GSI2 and GO3 have been unconstrained
and local fit indices gave good results. All standardized purchasing EFP’ (PPI). PPI exerts a strong negative impact
item loadings are significantly (p \ 0.001) greater than especially on EFP purchase behavior. Therefore, H4b is con-
0.60, ranging from 0.647 to 0.993. The results of the firmed. Purchase intention has a significantly positive effect
structural paths are reported in Table 3 and Fig. 2.5 on buying behavior. Therefore, H7a is confirmed.
The results of the non-green sample reveal that all vari-
Multi-group Analysis ables are significant antecedents of the intention to purchase
EFP and purchase behavior (p \ 0.01), with the exception of
To check whether the model structure and the hypothesized care for the environmental consequences of purchasing
relationships among the examined constructs were invari- (p [ 0.10). Thus, for the non-green sample, all the hypoth-
ant across the investigated samples (Steenkamp and eses are confirmed except for H1a and H1b. PPI exerts a
Baumgartner 1998), we performed configural, metric, and negative impact on both IP and P with a similar magnitude as
structural invariance tests on the full sample model the positive motives. The relation between IP and P is rela-
(N = 926) (Tables 4, 5). tively strong. Therefore, H7a is confirmed for this sample.
Configural invariance (CI) (i.e., whether the pattern of The comparison between green and non-green consumers
fixed and free parameters is the same for the two groups) and (Fig. 2; Table 3) reveals that care for the environmental
partial metric invariance (PMI) (i.e., whether most of the consequences of purchasing (EC) exerts a stronger impact on
factor structure is statistically invariant between the groups) the formation of EFP purchase intention for green than for
are both met (Dv2(9) = 16.13, p = 0.07) (Tables 4, 5). non-green consumers (H5a:EC ? IP G [ NG, Dv2(1) =
Therefore, the model could be meaningfully compared across
the groups, and structural invariance (SI) (i.e., whether
regression weights for each of the structural paths are statis-
tically invariant between the groups) was tested. We began by
constraining all structural paths to be invariant between the EC
two groups and then entering the constraints one by one,
keeping previous invariant paths constrained while freeing G= .024(ns)
G= . 256**
non-invariant paths. GSI NG= .023(ns)
NG= .003(ns)
The results of the green sample reveal that the effects of the G= .010(ns)
G= .308**
NG= .044**
antecedents on intention to purchase EFP are all significant NG= .335**
(p \ 0.05). H1a, H2a, H3a, and H4a are confirmed (Table 3; G=.020(ns)
Fig. 2). In contrast, the effects of the same variables on EFP MO NG=.025**
G= .120* G= .209**
purchase behavior are not significant, with the exception of the NG= .228** NG= .612**
negative variable ‘perceived personal inconvenience of IP P
G= -.262**
NG= -.353** G= -.765**
NG= -.227**
5
Research in the domain of ethical consumption corroborates the PPI
conceptualization of EC, GSI, MO, and PPI holding similar cognitive
positions in the EFP purchase decision process, as hypothesized in
this study (Sparks and Shepherd 1992, 2002; Sparks et al. 1995; Shaw Fig. 2 Green and non-green samples. Path estimates and simulta-
and Shiu 2003). To confirm this conceptualization, we tested an neous multi-group analysis. Notes EC care for the environmental
alternative model, with GSI and MO being antecedents of PPI. consequences of purchasing, GSI green self-identity, MO moral
Results (Green consumers: v2 = 472.243, v2/d.f. = 3.75, obligation, PPI perceived personal inconvenience of purchasing EFP,
RMSEA = 0.076, SRMR = 0.082; Non-green consumers: IP intention to purchase EFP, P EFP self-reported purchase behav-
v2 = 553.734; v2/d.f. = 4.40; RMSEA = 0.079; SRMR = 0.087) iour, ns not significant, *p \ 0.05; **p \ 0.01; G green consumers,
confirm that the model we developed in the present study fits the NG non-green consumers; bolded parameters are significantly differ-
data better and should be preferred to the alternative one. ent from each other between groups (Dv2(1) ? p \ 0.01)
123
10.82, p = 0.001; H5a confirmed). Results of the means Common Method Variance Assessment
comparison (Appendix 1) also show that green consumers
assign more importance to the environmental consequences of As suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003), we followed ex
purchasing (l = 6.34) than non-green consumers (l = 4.02). ante and ex post procedures to control for order effects and
However, the effect of the same variable on EFP purchase common method variance. To control for possible order
behavior does not differ significantly (p [ 0.10) between the effects, we prepared two versions of the questionnaire with
two consumer groups (H5d not confirmed). That is, the dif- different orders of the items. To prevent evaluation
ference between the two consumer groups with respect to the apprehension, we assured respondents of the anonymity
impact of care for the environmental consequences of pur- and confidentiality of the study that there were no right or
chasing stops at the ‘intention-purchase’ stage. At the wrong answers, and that they should answer as honestly as
behavioral stage, the effect of the altruistic variable becomes possible. We statistically investigated common method
invariant between the two consumer groups, and green and variance by applying the ‘marker variable’ technique. We
non-green consumers show similar EFP purchasing behavior used as the marker variable the item ‘I do not feel strong
processes. The remaining paths (GSI and MO on intention and emotions while I am watching advertising,’ measured on a
behavior) do not significantly differ between the groups seven-point scale, which we expected to be conceptually
because Dv2(1) is always not significant (p [ 0.10). Thus, unrelated to both our predictors and the criterion variables.
H5b, H5c, H5e, and H5f are not confirmed. All coefficients that were significant in a bivariate corre-
Finally, the comparison between green and non-green lation analysis remained statistically significant after we
consumers reveals the different roles of the negative ego- controlled for the marker variable. Thus, common method
centric variable (perceived personal inconvenience of pur- variance does not represent a major threat in our data.
chasing EFP—PPI) on EFP purchase intention (IP) and
behavior (P) for green and non-green consumers. As we
hypothesized, the results confirm that the negative effect Discussion
exerted by PPI on intention to purchase EFP is greater for non-
green than for green consumers (H6a:PPI ? IP NG [ G, The present study proposes and tests a parsimonious model
Dv2(1) = 18.18, p = 0.001; H6a confirmed). In contrast, the of purchasing eco-friendly products (EFP) that integrates
negative effect of PPI on purchase behavior is greater for care for the environmental consequences of purchasing
green than for non-green consumers (H6b:PPI ? P G [ NG, (positive altruistic antecedent) green self-identity and
Dv2(1) = 88.18, p = 0.001; H6b confirmed). The perception moral obligation (positive ego-centric antecedents), and
of facing personal inconvenience when consuming green perceived personal inconvenience of purchasing EFP
goods affects non-green consumers mainly at the stage of (negative ego-centric antecedent). In addition, this study
intention formation, whereas PPI appears to affect green compares green and non-green consumers (i.e., consumers
consumers more at the behavioral stage. On the one hand, PPI who engage in green behaviors for environmental reasons
significantly reduces non-green consumers’ intention to pur- vs. consumers who do not engage in green behaviors), in
chase EFP, reinforcing non-green consumers’ unwillingness order to assess the extent to which the two consumer
to purchase EFP. For the non-green sample, intention corre- groups show different EFP purchasing processes with
lates with behavior (b2,1:IP ? P) rather strongly respect to consumers’ willingness to purchase EFP, the
(b2,1 = 0.612, p \ 0.01). On the other hand, PPI reduces effect of the antecedents on EFP purchase intention and
green consumers’ intention to purchase EFP to a lesser extent, behavior and the intention–behavior relation.
but PPI affects the behavioral stage substantially. Notwith- In general, the conceptual model is largely supported in
standing the declared willingness to buy EFP, in this sub- both groups. Ego-centric positive motives seem to be at
sample, intention and purchase behavior show a relatively least as important as altruistic ones, and negative motives
small correlation (b2,1 = 0.209, p = \0.01). Multi-group seem to be at least as relevant as positive ones. Green self-
comparison reveals that the intention–behavior relationship is identity, one of the two positive ego-centric antecedents,
significantly greater for non-green than for green consumers exerts the largest effect on the intention to purchase EFP in
(b2,1:IP ? P, Dv2(1) = 33.31, p = 0.001), confirming H7b. both samples, thus confirming the relevant role of ego-
These results are further supported by results of the means centric motivations in fueling green consumption. Our
comparison (Appendix 1). Despite the mean of IP is signifi- findings confirm the multiple determination of EFP pur-
cantly (p \ 0.05) higher for green (l = 5.52) than for non- chasing and that EFP purchasing should be best viewed as
green consumers (l = 4.17), the means of self-reported pur- driven by a mixture of altruistic and ego-centric positive
chase behavior (P) do not differ significantly between the two antecedents (White and Peloza 2009; Bamberg and Möser
samples (green l = 4.07; non-green l = 3.98; p [ 0.05). 2007).
123
Some remarkable differences in the decision process consumers. Despite the fact that green consumers are more
between green and non-green consumers emerged. Results willing to purchase EFP than non-green consumers, the
of the means comparison support the occurrence of a means of EFP self-reported purchase behavior do not differ
positive spillover effect for green consumers: EFP purchase between the two consumer samples.
intention is significantly higher for green than for non- Green and non-green consumer groups do not differ
green consumers. Consumers’ involvement in a set of significantly with respect to the impact exerted by green
green behaviors for environmental reasons increases their self-identity and moral obligation (the positive ego-centric
willingness to engage in EFP purchasing. antecedents) on EFP purchase intention and behavior. In
The results of the structural analysis also reveal signif- that respect, our results differ from Dono et al. (2010) and
icant differences between green and non-green consumers’ Koestner et al. (2001) who found a greater influence of
EFP purchasing process. The two samples differ with green self-identity and distress avoidance on green activ-
respect to the impact of the care for the environmental ism for green consumers. One possible explanation is that
consequences of purchasing on EFP purchase intention. green consumers may have been stricter with themselves
That is, the effect of care for the environmental conse- when answering the questionnaire than non-green con-
quences of purchasing on intention to purchase EFP is sumers. When asked whether they perceived themselves to
significant for green consumers, whereas it is not signifi- be green consumers, they might have answered according
cant for non-green consumers. Thus, for non-green con- to their ‘actual self’ due to the awareness that in their
sumers, the altruistic variable is not a significant everyday life they are still far from being fully green
motivational antecedent of EFP purchasing. Our results are consumers. In contrast, non-green consumers might be
consistent with Thøgersen and Ölander’s (2002) findings: aware to a lesser degree of what green consumption means
for consumers who engage in pro-environmental behaviors, and might have answered according to their ‘ideal self,’
altruistic values have a stronger effect on purchase inten- reflecting social desirability bias or neutralization (Chatz-
tion than for consumers who do not engage in pro-envi- idakis et al. 2007; White et al. 2012). A second possible
ronmental behaviors. Our results confirm that green explanation is related to the low-involvement nature of the
consumers place greater importance on the environmental product category studied (eco-friendly tissue paper pro-
consequences of purchasing specific products than non- ducts—EFTPP), which may have affected responses. The
green consumers do. low perceived positive environmental impact of buying
Second, green and non-green consumers differ with EFTPP compared to conventional products may have led to
respect to the negative effect exerted by the perceived a lower identification and moral obligation (self-relevance)
personal inconvenience of purchasing EFP (PPI). As we with the act of purchasing this product (Peloza et al. 2013).
hypothesized, the negative variable PPI mainly reduces Previous research has shown that there is a lack of product-
non-green consumers’ intention to purchase EFP, whereas specific information about the positive environmental
it mainly reduces green consumers’ EFP purchase behav- consequences of purchasing eco-friendly low-involvement
ior. Concerning the former, our results show that non-green products, which reduces perceived consumer effectiveness
consumers, who perceive personal inconvenience in buying (De Pelsmacker and Janssens 2007).
green goods, are unlikely to form strong behavioral
intentions. For this subsample, the negative variable PPI
reinforces and is consistent with non-green consumers’ less Theoretical Contribution
positive willingness to buy EFP. In this respect, our results
are consistent with Gupta and Ogden’s (2009) findings of The present study builds upon extant research on the ante-
consumers’ perceptions of EFP as unacceptable substitutes cedents of EFP consumption and adds insight into the EFP
for conventional versions. purchasing process in a number of ways. First, this study
In contrast, the results of the negative impact exerted by extends previous research in that, for the first time, it inte-
PPI on green consumers’ EFP purchase behavior show that, grates relevant positive and negative altruistic and ego-
although green consumers may have formed strong inten- centric antecedents of EFP purchasing into one compre-
tions to purchase EFP, they are inclined to actually pur- hensive theoretical framework, and it assesses the relative
chase less EFP as a result of the negative effect of PPI. Our importance of each of these antecedents on EFP purchase
results support Thøgersen et al.’s (2012) findings of also intention and behavior. Research has predominantly ana-
green consumers usually spending little time and effort lyzed altruistic variables; only recently researchers have
when buying a common repeat purchase product and recognized how personal benefits (ego-centric antecedents)
minimizing the amount of time and effort spent on the may drive consumers to engage in purchasing EFP. Despite
decision making. Results of the means comparison also this advancement, the development and empirical assess-
support the intention–behavior gap held by green ment of comprehensive models incorporating positive
123
(altruistic and ego-centric) and negative (ego-centric) ante- for environmental reasons, while non-green consumers as
cedents of EFP purchasing have been scarce. The few extant those individuals who do not engage in a set of pro-envi-
attempts have often resulted in rather complex models (Shaw ronmental behaviors. Accordingly, the empirical study
and Shiu 2003) due to the continuous addition of variables involved a final sample of 453 green and 473 non-green
into the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen 1991), which consumers (qualified grocery shoppers), while 202 grocery
has led scholars to call for an elementary revision and pos- shoppers were disqualified because they were neither green
sible replacement of this theoretical framework for green nor non-green consumers (i.e., they primarily engaged in
purchasing behavior (Moisander 2007). By integrating the pro-environmental behaviors for reasons different from the
Social Dilemma Theory and the Psychological Egoism lit- sake of the environment). The involvement of green and
erature, the first contribution of this paper is the development non-green consumers, as defined above, is purposive,
and testing of a parsimonious model for EFP purchasing that consistent with the notion of ‘spillover effects’ and with the
embraces both positive (altruistic and ego-centric) and aim of this study. Empirical evidence further supports the
negative (ego-centric) antecedents, which have been theo- distinction adopted in this work and posits that positive
retically suggested in the past but have rarely been empiri- spillover effects across pro-environmental behaviors may
cally tested together. occur only if people perform the green behavior for envi-
Second, the study improves previous insights with respect ronmental reasons (Thøgersen and Crompton 2009).
to the EFP purchasing process of different consumer seg- However, we invite future research to analyze the EFP
ments. EFP consumption processes have mainly been ana- purchasing process of that residual segment of ‘hybrid’
lyzed by studying undifferentiated consumer samples or self- consumers disqualified in this study, and to compare green,
declared green purchasers, whereas the comparison of con- non-green, and ‘hybrid’ consumers’ EFP purchasing pro-
sumers who engage differently in pro-environmental cess in order to assess significant differences across these
behaviors has rarely been investigated (see Whitmarsh and samples, and provide marketers and policy makers with
O’Neill 2010 and Moons and De Pelsmacker 2012, for a meaningful insights for developing effective policies and
few exceptions). Consistent with the notion of the ‘spillover marketing strategies tailored for each consumer group.
effect’ (Thøgersen and Ölander 2003), we propose that being Second, research about ‘pro-environmental’ issues may
involved in green behaviors for pro-environmental reasons suffer from social desirability bias (Auger and Devinney
versus not being involved in green behaviors may be an 2007). To avoid literal inconsistency and over-reported
effective criterion for segmenting consumers and their EFP results, researchers and marketers have strongly advocated
purchasing patterns. Our study confirms that when con- the necessity to address well-established green consumers,
sumers engage in a set of green behaviors for pro-environ- that is, consumers holding true, established attitudes
mental reasons (i) they are more willing to purchase EFP, (ii) toward the environment, such as those who actually engage
the adoption of eco-friendly behaviors strengthens the in pro-environmental behaviors (Shaw and Shiu 2003). To
positive motivations for an individual to adopt other pro- this end, we gathered data from consumers while they were
environmental related behaviors (Thøgersen and Ölander truly engaging in pro-environmental activities (i.e., clean-
2003). A further contribution of this study is that it develops ing parks during the Day of the Earth). However, despite
insight into the specific antecedents of EFP purchasing for the fact that this approach contributes to reducing literal
green and non-green consumers to assess potential similar- inconsistency (as suggested by previous research), it may
ities and differences in EFP purchasing process, the suffer from the fact that consumers are approached when
hypothesized antecedents, their impact on EFP purchase their connection with pro-environmental motives may be
intention and behavior, and the intention–behavior relation. higher than in ordinary, daily shopping contexts. Future
research is invited to deal with this issue, to balance the
trade-off between reduction of social desirability bias and
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research enhancement of realism in data collection contexts.
Third, the present study considers a specific product
While we provide new insights into EFP consumption, our category, eco-friendly tissue paper products, which
study has some limitations that should be addressed in includes different but homogeneous low-involvement pro-
future research. First, the model should be tested on other ducts (paper napkins, toilet papers, scrolls, paper towels,
consumer segments and in other consumption contexts. and paper tablecloths). To improve the external validity of
The present study aims to analyze the EFP purchasing the model, future research should replicate the study on
process of green and non-green consumers. Based on the high-involvement EFP (e.g., electric cars) and should
notion of ‘spillover effects’ (Thøgersen and Ölander 2003), replicate the study in culturally different environments to
green consumers are defined as those individuals who evaluate the impact of cultural dimensions on EFP buying
primarily engage in a set of pro-environmental behaviors processes.
123
Finally, our measures of purchase behavior are cross- might be used effectively when addressing green con-
sectional and self-reported. We have shown that EFP pur- sumers. When addressing green consumers, manufacturers
chase intention and self-reported purchase behavior were of EFP may develop co-branded partnerships with pro-
perceived by respondents as two different concepts because environmental organizations (as Kimberly Clark and WWF
discriminant validity was confirmed. In addition, signifi- did) to address active green members with tailored mar-
cant differences between green and non-green consumers keting campaigns (Vock et al. 2013). The content of this
in the intention–behavior relationship and the intention– communication should focus on the environmental moti-
behavior gap among green consumers suggest that the vations for purchasing EFP (Griskevicius et al. 2012) and,
respondents differentiated between the two variables when in particular, the specific amount of natural resources that
completing the questionnaire. Despite this, we acknowl- consumers may save by purchasing EFP. For instance,
edge that self-reported purchase behavior represents one of Small Steps has recently developed a ‘Tree Calculator’
the limitations of this study. Future research is invited to Tool (http://www.marcalsmallsteps.com/learn/tree-calcu
integrate self-reported measures with in-store observations lator) to calculate the specific number of trees and amount
to rely on panel data. of CO2 and water an individual or a family may save by
purchasing one or more packs of EFTPP. Concerning the
choice of communication media, when addressing green
Implications for Marketers and Policy Makers consumers, manufacturers of EFP may resort to using
e-mail marketing, social media profiles (i.e., Facebook), or
The present study has useful implications for marketers, mobile applications that allow tailored one-to-one mar-
policy makers, and organizations aiming to foster EFP keting communications focused on the environmental
consumption and enhance eco-friendly behavior change. consequences of purchasing specific goods. GoodGuide,
By developing communication programs that are specifi- for instance, is a phone application that reviews the envi-
cally tailored toward green and non-green consumers, ronmental implications of various products. While shop-
marketers and policy makers may appeal to the most ping, this device may allow green consumers to type in a
effective (altruistic and ego-centric) antecedents of EFP product they are about to buy and read a brief review of
purchasing of each consumer group, thus encouraging that product’s environmental impact.
more successfully the adoption of eco-friendly ‘daily’ Second, our results show the important role played by
purchasing patterns in each segment (Lindridge et al. consumers’ perception of the personal inconvenience of
2013). In addition, deeper knowledge about the differences purchasing EFP. For both green and non-green consumers,
in EFP motivational process between green and non-green consuming responsibly is seen as a time-consuming
consumers enables marketers, policy makers, and organi- activity that is economically disadvantageous and stressful.
zations to opt for tailored vs. standardized communication This negative ego-centric variable exerts a significant
strategies when addressing one specific consumer group or negative influence on both green and non-green consumers’
both simultaneously. EFP purchase intention and behavior. Our results show that
Our results show that convincing green consumers consumers perceive EFP as still lacking some of the
requires a partially different focus than persuading non- desired features identified by DEFRA (2008), such as
green audiences. Care for the environmental consequences accessibility, affordability, and awareness. Unless market
of purchasing (positive altruistic motivation) and consum- failures are corrected, both green and non-green consumers
ers’ perception of the personal inconvenience of purchas- will not be able to buy responsibly (Prothero et al. 2011).
ing EFP (negative ego-centric motivation) influence EFP Hence, one class of public policy initiatives should focus
purchase intention and behavior differently between green on ‘economic policies’ (market-based instruments that
and non-green consumers. Similarly, the strength of the influence purchasing decisions through taxes, incentives,
intention–behavior path significantly differs between the subsidies, penalties, or grants for green enterprises—
two consumer groups (Fig. 2). European Commission 2012b), such as ‘getting the prices
First, our results show that care for the environmental right’ or using tax instruments to adjust for environmental
consequences of purchasing influences EFP purchase impacts and other externalities not reflected in market
intention of green and non-green consumers differently. prices (Press and Arnould 2009). To enhance the afford-
The effect of care for the environmental consequences of ability of EFP and reduce green consumers’ perception of
purchasing on EFP purchase intention is significant only EFTPP as too expensive, manufacturers may practice
for green consumers, whereas it is not significant for non- temporary discounted prices (Hi-Low promotions) to
green consumers. Hence, the argument of ‘care for the encourage trial uses of these products.
environmental consequences of purchasing’ should be Furthermore, our results show remarkable differences in
ignored when addressing non-green consumers, while it the role that the negative ego-centric variable (PPI) plays in
123
the decisional process of purchasing EFP for green and obligation are both significant antecedents of EFP pur-
non-green consumers. Marketers and policy makers should chasing, and they influence green and non-green consum-
consider these significant differences when addressing ers’ EFP purchasing similarly. These results suggest that
green and non-green consumers. Perceived personal ego-centric arguments of green self-identity and moral
inconvenience of purchasing EFP strongly reduces non- obligation might be effectively used when marketers and
green consumers’ intentions to purchase EFP. Hence, when policy makers aim to address green and non-green con-
addressing non-green consumers, marketers should seek to sumers simultaneously. The content of this communication
increase non-green consumers’ intention to buy EFP should focus on the personal benefits that consumers can
through reducing non-green consumers’ perceptions of derive from purchasing and consuming eco-friendly alter-
EFP as being more expensive than the conventional alternatives in terms of green self-identity enhancement and
natives. Marketers should let non-green consumers know guilt avoidance by obeying moral obligations. By lever-
that despite the fact that purchasing EFP may be more aging anticipated positive emotions, marketers, policy
expensive at the moment of the ‘cash register,’ EFP con- makers, and pro-environmental organizations may boost
sumption may allow consumers to save money in the long green consumption behavior across larger segments of
run. For instance, although energy-saving light bulbs may (green and non-green) consumers (Cornelissen et al. 2008).
be more expensive than traditional incandescent alterna- With respect to the choice of communication media, mar-
tives, they allow consumers to save energy and money keters and policy makers may resort to national TV, gen-
when using these goods. General Electric’s energy smartÒ eral newspapers, in-store advertising, and labels that
LED A19 s advertising goes in this direction (https://www. address untargeted populations. In this respect, the story of
youtube.com/watch?v=fhBUFxo9udo). Eco-Lucart brand is explicative. Born in 1996 as producer
Conversely, our results show that PPI strongly reduces of ecological, high-quality tissue for hygienic and sanitary
green consumers’ EFP purchase behavior. Hence, when use, the brand gained great success in the niche of green
addressing green consumers, manufacturers of EFP should consumers. For almost ten years, the brand has advertised
enhance consumers’ perception of EFP accessibility and its EFTPP relying on communication contents which lev-
awareness inside the store, along with the development of eraged on altruistic drivers (e.g., the testimonial Albert, the
Hi-Low promotions mentioned above. For instance, man- cartoon baby tree who explained the environmental
ufacturers of EFP should cooperate with retailers to assign advantages of purchasing EFTPP). In 2005, the company
dedicated departments or shelves to EFP or to ensure a decided to cover a wider market of green and non-green
better position on the shelf if EFP are placed alongside consumers. To this end, the company renamed the brand
conventional products. Using smart phone technology to ‘Eco-Lucart’ as ‘Grazie’ (Thanks): a name easy to
communicate the presence of EFP inside the store while remember, yet full of meaning, which thanks and gratifies
green consumers are shopping might be a further strategy all the customers that have chosen and preferred the brand.
to provide real-time purchase input, thus reducing green Asphalt Art brand’s communication goes in a similar
consumers’ perception of EFP purchasing as a time-con- direction, because this brand’s advertises ‘Guilt Free Eco-
suming and stressful activity. For instance, GoodGuide and Friendly Materials from Asphalt Art.’ Finally, Lush, the
Eco-Label phone applications may be effective tools for ‘fresh handmade cosmetics’ brand, also promotes its Little
reaching this goal. GoodGuide app provides green con- Green Bag in the whole market as a ‘a gift for yourself,’
sumers with real time information about the presence of which makes women ‘looking so green and looking so
EFP inside the supermarket where these consumers are fine’, ‘a guilt-free gift to be proud of’ (https://www.you
actually shopping, thus reducing the time needed to find tube.com/watch?v=TEa-4MtU36k).
EFP. Eco-Label App provides green consumers with real
time information about which green product labels are truly Acknowledgments The authors are extremely grateful for the
constructive comments of the two anonymous reviewers, the sage
meaningful and which are not, thus overcoming the diffi- guidance of the section editor, and the support of the editor. The
culties in selecting EFP due to a rampant proliferation of authors wish to thank Maria Vernuccio and Simona Romani for
ambiguous green labels (De Pelsmacker et al. 2005). helpful comments on previous versions of this article. Alex C.
Finally, our results show important similarities between Michalos served as editor and Scott J. Vitell served as section editor
for this article.
green and non-green consumers. The effects of the ego-
centric positive antecedents, green self-identity and moral
obligation, on EFP purchase intention and behavior are
Appendix
significant for both green and non-green consumers, and
these effects do not differ significantly between the two
See Tables 6 and 7.
consumer groups. That is, green self-identity and moral
123
244
123
Table 6 Item list per construct, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, average variance extracted
Constructs and items Green Non-green
l SD a CR AVE l SD a CR AVE
Care for the environmental consequences of purchasing (EC) 6.34a 0.67 0.84 0.86 0.61 4.02a 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.60
How tissue paper products may affect the environment is important to me (EC1)
It is important to me whether tissue paper products cause the depletion of forests (EC2)
It is important to me whether manufacturing tissue paper products causes water pollution (EC3)
The amount of energy used to produce tissue paper products it is not important to me (EC4) (r.i.)
Green self-identity (GSI) 5.22a 0.99 0.83 0.83 0.56 4.34a 1.26 0.89 0.89 0.67
I think of myself as someone who is concerned about environmental issues (GSI1)
I think of myself as a ‘green’ consumer (GSI2)
Buying eco-friendly tissue paper products would make me feel like a green consumer (GSI3)
I would feel totally satisfied with myself if I bought eco-friendly tissue paper products (GSI4)
Moral obligation (MO) 5.27a 1.39 0.91 0.91 0.77 4.76a 1.44 0.93 0.93 0.82
I would feel guilty if I bought tissue paper products that damaged the environment (GO1)
Buying tissue paper products that damage the environment would be morally wrong for me (GO2)
Buying tissue paper products that affect the environment would go against my principles (GO3)
Perceived personal inconvenience of purchasing EFP (PPI) 4.30a 1.52 0.92 0.92 0.74 4.58a 1.33 0.88 0.88 0.64
I don’t like to pay more to buy eco-friendly tissue paper products (PPI1)
I don’t like to waste time going to specialized stores to buy eco-friendly tissue paper products (PPI2)
While shopping, I can’t easily recognize which tissue paper products are eco-friendly (PPI3)
Inside the store, I need a lot of time to find eco-friendly tissue paper products (PPI4)
Intention to purchase EFP (IP) 5.52* 1.08 0.91 0.91 4.17* 1.41 0.95 0.95
I intend to buy eco-friendly tissue paper products (IP1)
Purchasing of EFP (P) 4.07 1.06 0.95 0.95 0.90 3.98 1.05 0.94 0.94 0.89
At the present time, when I go shopping, I buy eco-friendly tissue paper products (P1)
Last month, I bought eco-friendly tissue paper products (P2)
l mean, SD standard deviation, a Cronbach’s alpha, CR composite reliability, AVE average variance extracted
a
t test for two independent samples detected a significant difference between the samples means at p \ 0.05
C. Barbarossa, P. De Pelsmacker
Table 7 Eco-friendly behaviors environmentalism. European Journal of Social Psychology,

42(5), 539–545.
I changed most of my lamps to energy-saving lamps Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into
I consistently sort my garbage the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business
Most of the time, I buy biologically degradable soaps Ethics, 98(4), 597–608.
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer:
I have invested in solar energy panels Do ethics matter in purchase behavior? Journal of Consumer
In my house or garden, I use rain water or water from my own Marketing, 18(7), 560–577.
natural water source Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2014). Lost in
My household energy is provided by a ‘green’ supplier translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior
gap. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2759–2767.
I am an active member of an environmental organization
Chan, R. Y., & Lau, L. B. (2001). Explaining green purchasing
When doing my grocery shopping, I avoid unnecessary packaging behavior: A cross-cultural study on American and Chinese
I take short showers to avoid wasting water consumers. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 14(2/
I have a water saving button on my toilet 3), 9–40.
Chan, R. Y., Wong, Y. H., & Leung, T. K. (2008). Applying ethical
I regularly talk to others about a more environmentally friendly concepts to the study of green consumer behavior: An analysis of
lifestyle chinese consumers’ intentions to bring their own shopping bags.
My clothes are made from environmentally friendly products Journal of Business Ethics, 79(4), 469–481.
My house is extra insulated Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S., & Smith, A. (2007). Why people don’t
take their concerns about fair trade to the supermarket: The role
I have installed a heat pump at my house
of neutralisation. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(1), 89–100.
Whenever possible, I avoid using my car Co-operative Bank. (20011). Annual Ethical Consumerism Report,
Please indicate whether you engage or not in the following set of eco- available at: http://www.co-operative.coop/PageFiles/
friendly behaviors. If yes, please, also indicate the most suitable 416561607/Ethical-Consumerism-Report-2011.pdf.
answer to explain the reason for which you engage in each behavior. Cornelissen, G., Pandelaere, M., Warlop, L., & Dewitte, S. (2008).
Anchors range from 1 to 5, with ‘‘1 = no’’, ‘‘2 = yes because I have Positive cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer behavior by
to’’, ‘‘3 = yes, because it saves me money’’, ‘‘4 = yes, because it is cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental.
better for the environment’’, ‘‘5 = yes, because everybody does it’’ International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25, 46–55.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Lamb, P. (2006). An empirical study on
the influence of environmental labels on consumers. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 1(2), 144–157.
References Davies, I. A., Lee, Z., & Ahonkhai, I. (2012). Do consumers care
about ethical-luxury? Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 37–51.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational De Cannière, M. H., De Pelsmacker, P., & Geuens, M. (2009).
Behavior and the Human Decision Process, 50(2), 179–211. Relationship quality and the theory of planned behavior models
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation of behavioral intentions and purchase behavior. Journal of
modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step Business Research, 62(1), 82–92.
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers
Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2007). Do what consumers say matter? care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. The
The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363–385.
intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4), 361–383. De Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (2007). A model for fair trade
Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. F. (2010). buying behaviour: The role of perceived quantity and quality of
The importance of social product attributes in consumer information and of product-specific attitudes. Journal of Busi-
purchasing decisions: A multi-country comparative study. ness Ethics, 75(4), 361–380.
International Business Review, 19(2), 140–159. DEFRA. (2008). A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours,
Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/
models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(2), pb13574-behaviours-report-080110.pdf.
74–94. Deloitte. (2012). Bridging the Advice Gap, available at: http://www.
Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedKingdom/Local%20Assets/
specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an Documents/Industries/Financial%20Services/uk-fs-bridging-the-
old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 21–32. advice-gap.pdf.
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., &
Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of determinants Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role
of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an
Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6),
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental 465–480.
Social Psychology, 6, 1–62. Dono, J., Webb, J., & Richardson, B. (2010). The relationship
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of between environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour
multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same con- and social identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2),
structs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(May), 175–184. 178–186.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sankar, S. (2003). Consumer-company iden- European Commission. (2011a). Europeans’ Attitudes Towards the
tification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relation- Issue of Sustainable Consumption and Production, available at:
ships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(April), 76–88. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/EB_summary_EB752.pdf.
Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., & Gatersleben, B. (2012). The moral European Commission. (2011b). Green Public Procurement. Tissue
circle as a common motivational cause of cross-situational pro- Paper. Technical Background Report, available at: http://ec.
123
europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/Draft%20Technical%20Back Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism.

ground%20Report%20on%20Tissue%20Paper.pdf. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(4), 404–409.
European Commission. (2012a). Green Behaviour, available at: Moons, I., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2012). Emotions as determinants of
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/ electric car usage intention. Journal of Marketing Management,
pdf/FB4.pdf. 28(3–4), 195–237.
European Commission. (2012b). Policies to Encourage Sustainable Nielsen. (2011). The ‘Green’ gap between environmental concerns
Consumption, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ and the cash register, available at:http://www.nielsen.com/ca/en/
eussd/pdf/report_22082012.pdf. insights/news/2011/the-green-gap-between-environmental-con
European Environment Agency. (2012). Consumption and the cerns-and-the-cash-register.html.
Environment, available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publica Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, H. I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd
tions/consumption-and-the-environment-2012. ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods
Stanford University Press. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Follows, S. B., & Jobber, D. (2000). Environmentally responsible Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The
purchase behaviour: A test of consumer model. European role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products
Journal of Marketing, 34(5/6), 723–746. with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104–119.
Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equations Podsakoff, P. M., Scott, B., MacKenzie, L., Jeong-Yeon, L., &
models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
Freestone, O. M., & McGoldrick, P. J. (2008). Motivations of the remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
ethical consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(4), 445–467. Press, M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). Constraints on sustainable energy
GfK Roper Consulting. (2011). The Environment: Public Attitudes consumption: Marketing and public policy challenges and
and Individual Behavior. A Twenty-Year Evolution, available at: opportunities. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(1),
http://www.scjohnson.com/Libraries/Download_Documents/ 102–113.
SCJ_and_GfK_Roper_Green_Gauge.sflb.ashx. Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W., Luchs, M.,
Gleim, M., Smith, J. S., Andrews, D., & Cronin, J, Jr. (2013). Against Ozanne, L., et al. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportuni-
the green: A multi-method examination of the barriers to green ties for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public
consumption. Journal of Retailing, 89(1), 44–61. Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.
Göritz, A. S. (2004). The impact of material incentives on response Schwartz, M. S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of
quantity, response quality, sample composition, survey outcome, values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
and cost in online access panels. International Journal of Market In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology.
Research, 46(3), 327–345. San Diego: Academic Press.
Griskevicius, V., Cantú, S., & Van Vugt, M. (2012). The evolutionary SERI, GLOBAL 2000 and Friends of the Earth Europe. (2009).
bases for sustainable behavior: Implications for marketing, Overconsumption? Our Use of the World’s Natural Resources,
policy, and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy & available at: http://old.seri.at/documentupload/SERI%20PR/over
Marketing, 31(1), 115–128. consumption–2009.pdf.
Grubb, E. L., & Grathwohl, H. L. (1967). Consumer self-concept, Shaw, D., & Shiu, E. (2003). Ethics in consumer choice: A
symbolism and market behavior: A theoretical approach. Journal multivariate modeling approach. European Journal of Market-
of Marketing, 31(October), 22–27. ing, 37(10), 1485–1498.
Gupta, S., & Ogden, D. T. (2009). To buy or not to buy? A social Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of
Dilemma perspective on green buying. Journal of Consumer planned behaviour: Assessing the role of identification with Green
Marketing, 26(6), 376–391. consumerism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(4), 388–399.
Haines, R., Street, M. D., & Haines, D. (2008). The influence of Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (2002). The role of moral judgments
perceived importance of an ethical issue on moral judgment, within expectancy-value-based attitude-behavior models. Ethics
moral obligation, and moral intent. Journal of Business Ethics, and Behavior, 12(4), 299–321.
81(2), 387–399. Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. (1995). Assessing and
Jöreskog, K. G, & Sörbom, D. (2006), LISREL 8.80: User’s Reference structuring attitudes toward the use of gene technology in food
Guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International. production: The role of perceived ethical obligation. Basic and
Kilbourne, W., & Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects Applied Social Psychology, 16(3), 267–285.
environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible Steenhaut, S., & van Kenhove, P. (2006). The mediating role of
behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 61, 885–893. anticipated guilt in consumers’ ethical decision-making. Journal
Koestner, R., Houlfort, N., Paquet, S., & Knight, C. (2001). On the of Business Ethics, 69, 269–288.
risks of recycling because of guilt: An examination of the Steenkamp, J.-B., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement
consequences of introjection. Journal of Applied Social Psy- invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of
chology, 31(12), 2545–2560. Consumer Research, 25(June), 78–90.
Lindridge, A., MacAskill, S., Gnich, W., Eadie, D., & Holme, I. (2013). Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity
Applying an ecological model to social marketing communica- theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 224–237.
tions. European Journal of Marketing, 47(9), 1399–1420. Thøgersen, J., & Crompton, T. (2009). Simple and painless? The
Luchs, M. G., Walker Naylor, R., & Irwin, J. R. (2010). The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal
sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on of Consumer Policy, 32(2), 141–163.
product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 18–31. Thøgersen, J., Jørgensen, A.-K., & Sandager, S. (2012). Consumer
Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: Planned and decision making regarding a green everyday product. Psychol-
self-expressive behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychol- ogy & Marketing, 29(4), 187–197.
ogy, 24(2), 227–236. Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2002). Human values and the
Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas: A emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study.
review. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 11–44. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 605–630.
123
Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2003). Spillover of environment- White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Ellard, J. (2012). Belief in a just world:
friendly consumer behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psy- Consumer intentions and behaviors toward ethical products.
chology, 23(3), 225–236. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 103–118.
UNEP. (2010). Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit
and Production: Priority Products and Materials, available at: Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charita-
http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/Priority ble Support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109–124.
ProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf. Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living?
Vock, M., van Dolen, W., & Kolk, A. (2013). Changing behaviour The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining
through business-nonprofit collaboration? Consumer responses to consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Jour-
social alliances. European Journal of Marketing, 47(9), 1476–1503. nal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305–314.
123
Journal of Business Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved.

Barbarossa JBE 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barbarossa JBE 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Barbarossa JBE 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Bus Ethics (2016) 134:229–247

Positive and Negative Antecedents of Purchasing Eco-friendly

parsimonious model that integrates both positive (altruistic

intention–behavior relationship may differ across the two PPI

Pilot Studies and Measures Main Study: Procedure and Samples

Table 2 Confirmatory factor analysis: global measures of fit

Table 5 Full model: configural, metric and partial metric invariance

Full sample (N = 926)

Table 7 Eco-friendly behaviors environmentalism. European Journal of Social Psychology,

europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/Draft%20Technical%20Back Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism.

You might also like