Abstract
Purpose
This study intends to contribute to the literature of eco-innovation by examining the pro-environmental intentions and behaviour among consumers through their understanding of eco-innovation. Thus, the relationship among eco-innovation, general pro-social attitude, generativity, environmental concern, purchasing intentions and buying environmentally friendly products and the differences of the relationship between high and low emotional loyalty and Generation Y and Z were investigated via structural equation modelling (SEM).
Design/methodology/approach
Data were collected through an online questionnaire directed to Indian consumers, and analysis was done through partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in two stages, i.e. measurement model and structural model.
Findings
Results confirm the relationships established in the proposed model, and some differences were found between the levels of emotional loyalty and the Generations Y and Z. The research shows that individualistic norms and perceived marketplace influence play a purposeful role in transforming environmental concerns into buying behaviour towards eco-innovation-driven products.
Practical implications
From a policy and management perspective, the results not only imply the importance of continuous performance and environmental improvement but also those policies hindering diffusion and adoption need to be addressed. Green buying is an elusive task but can be opportunely attained by marketers by adding elements of eco-innovations and understanding mindsets of consumers to create win–win situations for themselves and consumers.
Originality/value
The results reinforced that emotional loyalty and Generations Y and Z vitally impact consumers' green buying decision within the framework of eco-innovation and cognitive factors.
Keywords
Citation
Sharma, N., Paço, A. and Kautish, P. (2022), "The impact of eco-innovation on green buying behaviour: the moderating effect of emotional loyalty and generation", Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1026-1045. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-11-2021-0267
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited
1. Introduction
Across the globe, natural environment has not always been a matter of concern for human beings, which has led to environmental deterioration in a big way (Tang et al., 2020). The ubiquitous attention on environmental protection is borne out of the desire to curtail climate changes in the form of global warming, pollution of seas and rivers, and desertification, which adversely affects human health, a deep-rooted and abiding concern (Dwidienawati et al., 2021). Individuals' environmental interests, values and behavioural characteristics contribute to highlighting the need of having a population that is educated, motivated and prepared to take care of the environment for future generations (Sharma et al., 2020). Similarly, many firms are strategizing their operations from an environmental perspective by altering the production process and manufacturing technologies to incorporate green via eco-innovation. The demarcation of eco-innovation is not only limited by ecological motivated innovations but also serendipitous environmental innovations, like recycling of unconsumed material in factory or saving water and electricity in firms through sustainable ways (Kautish et al., 2019; Ofori and Mensah, 2022).
The literature attempted to define eco-innovation as “the production, assimilation or exploitation of a product, production process, service or management or business method that is novel to the organisation (developing or adopting it) and which results, throughout its life cycle, in a reduction of environmental risk, pollution and other negative impacts of resources use (including energy use) compared to relevant alternatives” as per the European Commission (Horbach and Rennings, 2007, p. 7). Unequivocally, eco-innovation positively impacts the environment (Bossle et al., 2016) and is a pre-eminent approach to retain and allure the customer, particularly the consumers with green orientation (Paparoidamis et al., 2019). Therefore, many past studies have examined why and how firms adopt eco-innovation in practices (e.g. Bitencourt et al., 2020; Arranz et al., 2019). However, how consumers perceive eco-innovation and its impact on pro-environmental behaviour have been scantly researched and empirically studied.
It is significant to examine consumer orientation towards eco-innovation, and how and to what extent consumers induce green behaviour via an understanding of eco-innovation firms are going. First, consumers' knowledge and understanding of eco-innovation provide a platform for policymakers to understand the expectations of green consumers (Paparoidamis et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2022). Second, environmental aspects, like concern and attitude, notably impact the intentions and behaviour of consumers (Sharma et al., 2020). Therefore, it is quite possible that understanding the eco-innovation done by the firms might impact the intentions to buy green products. Third, consumers are opting for greener options, and this opportunity can ameliorate policymakers' green strategies and functions (Sharma and Paço, 2021). Fourth, consumers are cynical regarding green products (Sarabia-Andreu et al., 2019), and apprehension regarding greenwashing is intensifying (Kautish and Sharma, 2020). These critical issues can be resolved when firms are engaged in environmental modernization and consumers are aware of these innovations. However, how the knowledge and cognition related to eco-innovation sway green buying behaviour of consumers is at a very nascent stage.
Hence, with the above argument, the present study aims to contribute to the literature of eco-innovation in threefold ways. Academically, this article addresses the gap in the literature, which primarily emphasizes the organizational facets of eco-innovations rather than focusing on the integration of individual behavioural and marketplace influences about eco-innovations. Also, the present study holistically examines the pro-environmental behaviour of consumers, via norm activation and marketplace-driven influences, towards eco-innovation adoption by the firms. The cognitive perspective of consumers, via general pro-social attitude, norms and concern for futuristic market, is also examined to have a comprehensive understanding of pro-environmental intentions (Kautish et al., 2021). In addition, how intentions direct the behaviour of consumers via norm activation inter alia perceived marketplace influence. The theoretical framework presented in the next section shows that the conception of psychological perspective has been operationalized at an individual level by using norm activation model (NAM) and at the collective level with help of the theory of perceived marketplace influence (TPMI). Empirically, the model proposed in the present study examines the relationship of pro-environmental intentions and behaviour among consumers through their understanding of eco-innovation by using partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Additionally, mediation effects will be investigated to provide efficacious insights to the marketers. In parallel, the present study examines the moderating effect of emotional loyalty of consumers on the whole model, as loyalty is one of the foremost aspects of green marketing (Pahlevi and Suhartanto, 2020). Therefore, unearthing of general pro-social attitude and concern through eco-innovation by firms provides the contextual and conceptual awareness to the marketers that how to strategize the eco-products, eco-activities and eco-functions in the organizations among high and low emotionally loyal green consumers.
1.1 Theoretical framework
1.1.1 Norm activation model (NAM)
The NAM was developed by Schwartz (1977) to explore the altruistic intentions and behavioural disposition in a pro-social context. According to Harland et al. (2007), the norm activation denotes to a process in which individuals' construct self-expectations regarding pro-social behaviour. The NAM embraces three underlying dimensions which explain the formation of pro-social intentions and behaviour and are closely linked to the present study: first, the individuals' level of awareness about the consequences of their actions; second, it ascribes to the responsibility of consequences and third, the personal norm (Schwartz, 1977). The personal norm is considered a pivotal construct to understand and operationalize the norm activation process (De Groot and Steg, 2009). Personal norm is described as “internalized rules of conduct that are socially learned vary among individuals within the same society and direct behaviour in a particular situation” (Berenguer, 2010, p. 112). Although originally, the NAM was designed to predict individuals' altruistic intentions and behaviour, still the applicability of NAM to a range of innovation oriented eco-friendly behaviour and pro-environmental aspects has been constantly acknowledged in previous research (Kautish et al., 2020), as, for example, morality (De Groot and Steg, 2009), public transportation adoption (Goel et al., 2021) and electricity saving behaviour (Zhang et al., 2013).
1.1.2 Theory of perceived marketplace influence (TPMI)
The TPMI is related to the individuals' opinion pertinent to the decision-making towards innovative eco-friendly products, which could determine and encourage other consumers' behaviour as well (Groening et al., 2018; Joshi and Rahman, 2017). The TPMI validates eco-conscious buyer behaviour as a distinctive quality associated with consumers who contribute to selecting innovative products that are less destructive to the environment than generic products (Groening et al., 2018). As personal costs associated with pro-environmental behaviour are typically much more conspicuous than its benefits (Harland et al., 2007), this phenomenon epitomizes a perception geared towards instigating an attitudinal and behavioural shift from traditional consumer decision-making based on exploiting meagre functional utility without much thinking of the future generational concerns (Thøgersen, 2009). Therefore, the present research incorporates generativity as an extension of the ideology of TPMI, which enrich the pro-social attitudes and self-sufficient concerns towards validating individual preferences for eco-innovations (Ding et al., 2017). It has been presented as a significant variable in determining the pro-social attitude towards eco-innovation oriented products and an important antecedent of environmentally conscious consumer behaviour. As Paparoidamis and Tran (2019) pronounce that the doctrine of eco-innovations is still in its nascent stage in emerging countries (i.e. India) in comparison to the developed world, thus, an individual who embraces “acceptance for eco-innovative product” in an emerging country can be considered an “social innovator”, who may exhibit leadership ability and social influence (Rogers, 1995). Studies show that eco-innovations can work well if those specific generational cohorts with pro-social attitudes can be targeted (Long et al., 2015).
2. Model proposal and research hypotheses
According to Hojnik et al. (2018), the concept of eco-innovation is related to some type of innovation with a focus on environmental sustainability, as could be the case of an innovative new product that was made and uses an environmentally friendly source of energy; it can also be a product that does not damage the environment by being less polluting, that can be recycled, biodegradable and so son (Severo et al., 2018). Thus, it is possible to find some studies dedicated to the topic of eco-innovation (e.g. Bossle et al., 2016), but there is a lack of evidence about the factors that contribute to the diffusion of green innovation and about its consequences and/or effects. What is more or less evident is that the environmental awareness of managers positively impacts eco-innovation (Peng and Liu, 2016). From the point of view of Severo et al. (2018), and according to their study, a positive perception of the individuals regarding eco-innovation has a positive impact on the socio-environmental consciousness. This way, we can also assume that eco-innovation has a positive effect on pro-social attitudes, which refer to attitudes that will result in voluntary behaviours being valuable for other individuals (e.g. peer sharing and volunteering) and contexts (natural environment) (Brouwer and Engels, 2021). Given the above, the first hypothesis is formulated as follows:
Eco-innovation has a positive effect on general pro-social attitudes.
Consumers' lifestyles and their buying patterns have a substantial impact on the environmental damage bringing severe problems for future generations (Shiel et al., 2020). At this point, it could be useful to introduce the generativity concept, which was first presented by Erikson (1950) and has to do with the concern for establishing and orienting the next generation, leaving, if possible, a social legacy. This can be perceived in personal or professional life, volunteering activities and belonging and being an activist in certain organizations. All individuals have the capacity for generativity; nevertheless, parents tend to present a higher sense of generativity, which lead us to the idea that this concept depends on intergenerational continuity (McAdams and de St. Aubin, 1992).
According to Liobikiene and Bernatoniene (2017), the way to safeguard a sustainable future for all will be less production/consumption of products that are harmful to the environment while promoting environmentally friendly goods and services. Thus, innovative solutions incorporating the principles of sustainable production are needed and can have a positive effect, mostly on the consumers more concerned with the future of next generations. In fact, as individuals become more conscious about the way their consumption affects the environment, they can change their habits for the benefit of future generations (Paço et al., 2019). This way, the second hypothesis is presented:
Eco-innovation has a positive effect on generativity.
Social factors affect sustainable consumer behaviour. Pro-social behaviour, being about collaboration and activities to protect the welfare of others, include obviously environmental protection attitudes and behaviours (Weinstein and Ryan, 2010). Antonides and Van Raaij (1998) define this concern as an attitude that, in turn, is linked to environmental consequences. Note that the attitude can be influenced by own or other experiences, by the information received, by the media communication or by other factors (Paço et al., 2019). In turn, Žabkar and Hosta (2013) consider that the concern is part of the system of beliefs and attitudes towards the environment, influencing the individual's intentions but not necessarily influencing his/her behaviour. Additionally, pro-social attitudes influence green consumption values, considered as the value of environmental protection translated to individual choices and purchases (Kautish and Sharma, 2021; Paço et al., 2019). Nevertheless, Osgood and Muraven (2015) pointed some contradiction between pro-social effects and corresponding green attitudes and behaviours. Thus, the following hypothesis is formulated:
General pro-social attitudes have a positive effect on environmental concerns.
Some activities, such as taking care of children/older people, preserving traditions, and conserving the environment, are intrinsically linked with generativity, which is different from altruism or pro-social attitudes (McAdams et al., 1998). Given this, it is possible that older adults might convert their generative concern into pro-environmental attitudes as a way of leaving a long-term legacy for future generations (Warburton and Gooch, 2007). According to Wells et al. (2016), several studies explore the relationship between generativity and environmental concern. For instance, Chan (2009) investigated the relationship between generativity and environmental concern and, in the end, assumed that generativity performed a relevant role in environmental commitment. The author considers the commitment to environmental sustainability as a generative concern. In their study, Wells et al. (2016) also emphasized the link between generativity and environmental attitudes. Given the stated above, the fourth hypothesis was formulated as follows:
Generativity has a positive effect on environmental concerns.
Environmental concern directly and significantly impacts attitude towards green products, which further influences the purchase intention for such products. The idea of consumers having high environmental concern is directly associated with their positive attitude toward green products, which, in turn, is related to their high level of purchasing intention for such products (Mostafa, 2006). According to Paço et al. (2019), previous research evidence that even when individuals are really concerned for the environment, such attitudes do not always influence their intention or their purchasing behaviour. For instance, Laroche et al. (2002) refer that a significant part of the consumers just acts according to their environmental concern when they feel that it does not imply personal costs (economic and lifestyle). However, there are studies in which it is possible to verify the linking between environmental concerns and intention to buy green (e.g. Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2012). In Jaiswal and Kant (2018) study involving Indian consumers, the results showed that green buying intention was significantly and directly pushed by environmental concern. Other studies with Indian consumers reported that young consumers were concerned about environmental problems and have a positive attitude toward buying green products in future (Yadav and Pathak, 2016). Lastly, Chaudhary and Bisai (2018) found that nevertheless, the direct effect of environmental concern on purchase intention was insignificant, and it influenced the intention indirectly through its effect on the attitude of young Indian Millennials. Given the contradictory results from the studies presented above, the fifth hypothesis is presented:
Environmental concern has a positive effect on purchase intentions.
As already noticed, there are inconsistent results regarding the intention–behaviour relation concerning green issues. For instance, in Chan (2001) research, the high levels of eco-friendly purchase intentions reported by consumers had no influence on their buying behaviour. However, the Akehurst et al. (2012) study proved the existence of a relationship between intentions and the buying of green products. In fact, most of the existing literature showed that intention is a major predictor of certain behaviour, and this relation has been proved for green products by some current studies in the local context, including India (Jaiswal and Kant, 2018; Kautish et al., 2020). Note that here the green buying behaviour is understood as “the purchasing in a responsible, ethical, sustainable and environmentally friendly way includes buying energy efficient products, avoiding over packaged goods, exhibiting a preference for biodegradable and recycled articles, buying fairtrade and locally sourced products” (Paço et al., 2019, p. 1,001). This type of behaviour benefits both society and the planet (Straughan and Roberts, 1999). Given the above, the sixth hypothesis was formulated as follows:
Purchase intentions have a positive effect on buying behaviour.
Emotional loyalty involves both affective loyalty and affective commitment; furthermore, the emotional benefits associated with the brands can be used as an encouragement to the consumers to alter their consumption patterns (Kim et al., 2014). It can be said that commitment is a crucial mediating factor regarding customer loyalty (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). According to previous studies, emotional loyalty is not only about feelings but also about rationality; the affective connection will drive a continuity of the relationship with a brand or object by repeating the buying (Kim et al., 2014). Han et al. (2011) enforce that affective loyalty can be theorized in terms of both positive emotions and negative emotions about a product or a service. Following the same line of research from Kim et al. (2014), in order to analyse differences in the constructs (eco-innovation, general pro-social attitudes, generativity, environmental concern, purchase intentions and buying behaviour) between the high and low emotional loyalty groups of consumers, which meanwhile will be established, we formulated several hypotheses regarding the moderating role of emotional loyalty:
The relationship between eco-innovation and general pro-social attitude is stronger in the high emotional loyalty group than in the low emotional group.
The relationship between eco-innovation and generations is stronger in the high emotional group than in the low emotional group.
The relationship between general pro-social attitude and environmental concern is stronger in the high emotional group than in the low emotional group.
The relationship between generations and environmental concern is stronger in the high emotional group than in the low emotional group.
The relationship between environmental concern and purchase intentions is stronger in the high emotional group than in the low emotional group.
The relationship between purchase intentions and buying behaviour is stronger in the high emotional group than in the low emotional group.
Generation Y (born between 1982 and 1994) is also designated as the generation of Millennials, known for being “revolutionary”, having been a pioneer in the use of social networks and digital platforms. The social impact of their choices has been studied by some authors (e.g. Gurtner and Soyez, 2016), proving that the consumption experience is closely associated with social and cultural factors. To these consumers, it is just as important to protect the environment through their purchase options as to enjoy the product, making them a relevant actor in creating new trends and presenting a lifestyle based on innovation and ecology. In Joshi and Rahman (2017) study, Generation Y evidences the predisposition to implement in society great changes regarding the responsible consumption levels; nevertheless, the research revealed a gap between pro-environmental attitudes and ecological purchasing behaviour, being this generation more influenced by environmental knowledge, attitudes, participation in recycling activities, labelling and by the messages from media. In turn, Generation Z (born between 1995 and 2010), also called the post-millennial generation, is prone to be socially involved in society, demonstrating a great interest in participating actively in social issues. These young adults reveal a high level of environmental consciousness, concern for the environment and favourable attitudes regarding green products (Jain and Kaur, 2006). Some authors like Leonidou et al. (2011) reported other findings, disclosing that these individuals do not endorse environmental regulations and pay less attention to eco-labelling than the older consumers. Nevertheless, this generation is more educated on sustainable living than preceding generations, tending to be more environmentally friendly and community oriented. Given the lack of studies comparing these two generations (Y and Z) regarding several environment related constructs, a set of hypotheses was formulated as follows:
There is a statistical difference in the relationship between eco-innovation and general pro-social attitude in Generations Y and Z.
There is a statistical difference in the relationship between eco-innovation and Generations Y and Z.
There is a statistical difference in the relationship between general pro-social attitude and environmental concern in Generations Y and Z.
There is a statistical difference in the relationship between generations and environmental concern in Generations Y and Z.
There is a statistical difference in the relationship between environmental concern and purchase intentions in Generations Y and Z.
There is a statistical difference in the relationship between purchase intentions and buying behaviour in Generations Y and Z.
The hypotheses formulated, as well as the model representation, can be seen in Figure 1.
3. Methods
3.1 Data collection
To examine the relationship among eco-innovation, general pro-social attitude, generativity, environmental concern, purchasing intentions and buying environmentally friendly products and to investigate the differences of the relationship between high and lowemotional loyalty and Generation Y and Z, a questionnaire was administered. Also, a pre-test test was conducted, using 30 samples to scale down the idiomatic and blurry terminologies in the questionnaire. Finally, the data collection was done through an online questionnaire, which was distributed via emails to respondents in India. In total, 332 were returned, and after scrutiny the questionnaire based on its completeness, we selected 314 responses to analyse the data.
We calculated G*Power for a priori and post-hoc power analyses to check the sample size adequacy. To analyse our study, we used 314 samples which is much more than the recommendation and hence justify the adequacy of the sample size. In order to ascertain to which generation the respondents belonged (Generation Y or Z), we asked about their year of birth. Other additional demographic information (gender, age and education) was also requested to understand the diversity of the sample. In total, 57.8% female and 42.2% male respondents participated in the survey. Of the respondents, 47% were post-graduates; 41.5% were under-graduates; 33% were from Generation Y and 64% were from Generation Z.
3.2 Variables
In order to test the hypothesized relationships, several constructs were investigated and adapted for the present research. Thus, the eco-innovation scale was adapted from Severo et al. (2018), the general pro-social attitude scale was based on Osgood and Muraven (2015), generativity construct has been widely used, but we adapted from McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992) scale, purchasing intentions were measured by using Mostafa's (2006) scale and to measure buying behaviour, the ecologically conscious consumer behaviour scale from Straughan and Roberts (1999) was used being also used in other related studies in the past (e.g. Paço et al., 2019). Kim et al.’s (2014) study served as a base for analysing emotional loyalty. In this case, we considered two levels of emotional loyalty “high emotional loyalty” the “low emotional loyalty”. Regarding all these scale items, the individuals were asked to provide their opinion according to a seven-point scale varying from 7 = totally agree to 1 = totally disagree; regarding the buying behaviour, respondents were asked about their level of frequency according to a seven-points scaler (7 = always to 1 = never).
4. Results
The data were analysed using PLS-SEM via SmartPLS (3.3.9 version). PLS-SEM assessed the model in two parts (Hair et al., 2020): the measurement and the structure of the model.
4.1 Measurement model
Initially, to examine the internal consistency and reliability of the model, PLS-SEM assessed the composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha. As per Table 1, all the composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha values are more than 0.70. To determine the convergent validity, PLS-SEM estimated the outer loadings and average variance extracted (AVE). Hair et al. (2017) recommend the outer loadings should be greater than 0.70, and AVE should be greater than 0.50. Table 1 reveals that reliability is good and supports convergent validity.
Also, the discriminant validity among the constructs was assessed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (Table 2).
The present study also assesses the variance inflation factor (VIF) to examine the issues of common method bias (CMB) and multicollinearity. After testing, we concluded that the present study has no trouble related to CMB and multicollinearity.
4.2 Structural model
Prior to studying the moderation impact of high and low emotional loyalty and generation on the model, the proposed fundamental model was tested to verify the relationship among the variables. Also, the predictive classification of the model was assessed through Stone-Geisser's Q2 and R2 (Table 3). According to Table 3, the Q2 values of all the variables are large.
Also, the prediction of the structural model can be made by assessing the R2. In the model, the R2 value of buying behaviour = 0.777 and general pro-social attitude = 0.820, which substantially explain the variance of these constructs in the model. The values of environmental concern, generativity and purchase intentions show the moderate variance explained of these constructs in the model.
The graphic representation of the results is shown in Figure 2.
4.3 Hypothesis testing of the model
Subsequently, hypotheses were tested through the bootstrapping technique, which assesses the sample using the re-sampling procedure of 5,000 sub-samples to determine the path coefficient, t-values standard errors and p-values (Hair et al., 2020) (Table 4).
As posited in H1, the relationship between eco-innovation and general pro-social attitude is positive and significant with β = 0.906, t-value = 60.212, p-value < 0.05 among the consumers; thus, H1 is accepted. Also, H2 displayed a positive relationship with generations, which suggests that through eco-innovation, consumers engage in acts that help in well-being and prosperity of future generation as the results demonstrate the significant relationship between both with β = 0.748, t-value = 25.423, p-value < 0.05 among students. Hence, H2 is accepted. H3 propound that general pro-social attitude leads towards concern for the environment and is accepted as β = 0.489, t-value = 7.529, p-value < 0.05. H4 is also accepted, which infers that generativity begets adaptive shifts to address the environmental issues and creates strong environmental concern as β = 0.388, t-value = 5.966, p-value < 0.05. The results show that H5 is accepted as β = 0.763, t-value = 21.169, p-value < 0.05, which implies that concern for the prevailing environmental issues intends the consumers to purchase eco-friendly products. Lastly, the H6 shows the strong relationship between intentions to purchase leads to buying eco-friendly products as β = 0.882, t-value = 46.158, p-value < 0.05.
4.4 Moderation effects of emotional loyalty and generation
In order to enumerate the relationship in the model, we examined the moderation effects of emotional loyalty and generation (Y and Z) through multi-group analysis (MGA). To examine the contingent impact of emotional loyalty on our model, the data were categorized into two groups', namely high emotional loyalty and lowemotional loyalty. As suggested by Yi and La (2004), the group was created through median split score in our case, and it was 4.00 as the present employed seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Accordingly, the group was divided into high emotional loyalty = 181 and low emotional loyalty = 124. Therefore, to verify the H7 series hypothesis, a new estimation of the model was done. The estimation of MGA model was done using three techniques, namely Henseler's MGA-test, parametric-test and Welch–Satterthwaite approach (Sarstedt et al., 2017). As endorsed in the present study, emotions have great consequences in marketing, and emotional loyalty begets positive feelings towards the products (Härtel and Russell-Bennett, 2010). Hence, to have an insightful illustration of the implication of the proposed model, MGA was conducted using emotional loyalty (Table 5).
Table 5 reveals that H7a, H7b, H7e and H7f are supported as their p < 0.05. However, H7c and H7d are rejected as the significance value is more than 0.05. It implies a significant difference in the model between high and low emotional loyalties among consumers. In addition, the present study examines the moderation effect of generation on the model to exhaustively understand how Generation Y (n = 104) and Z (n = 210) impacts the eco-innovation model. Also, Generations Y and Z shape the future of society, and examining its impact would be vital for the implication. Table 6 reveals that H8a, H8b, H8e and H8f have a significance value of more than 5%, which infers that there is no difference between Generation Y and Z. However, H8c and H8d have significance value less than 0.05, which implies that Generations Y and Z have significant differences. Moreover, it is noteworthy to assert that generativity impacts environmental concern more among Generation Y as compared to Generation Z, whereas general pro-social attitude impacts environmental concern more among Generation Z compared to Generation Y (see Table 6).
5. Discussion
It has been demonstrated that eco-innovation positively influences the current social behaviour and concerns for the future generation, which finally leads to green buying behaviour. Literature has tacitly examined green consumption model using eco-innovation, and latterly scholars have investigated the association of eco-innovation with sustainable consumptions (Severo et al., 2018). However, the direct and detailed relationship between eco-innovation and green buying behaviour is scant in the literature. Hence, the present framework attempts to enrich the literature with new-fangled model of green consumption through eco-innovation and how eco-innovation attributes the environment by testing the relationship among general pro-social attitudes, generations, environmental concern, purchase intentions and buying behaviour. Also, the moderation effect of emotional loyalty and generation (Y and Z) was investigated to understand the eclectic approach of buying behaviour of consumers through eco-innovations.
Based on the norms activation theory, the study initially examines the relationship of eco-innovation with general pro-social attitude and generations, and it was found to be positively significant. It infers that eco-innovation positively influences the attitudes of consumers towards concerning the well-being of others. Hence, innovation with an eco-friendly approach is key to sustainable development, as the present study discloses that through the path of eco-innovation, social consciousness and concern for future generations induce. Albeit both general pro-social attitudes and generations were found to be positive and significant, the relationship between eco-innovation and general pro-social attitude is weighed up than eco-innovation and generations. It is possible that innovation has more impact on present circumstances than in the future. Through eco-innovation, consumers might anticipate social attitude and concern for others more at present as compared to having concern and plan of action for the future as the current environmental situation is extremely perilous and precarious (Coffey, 2021). Hence, it is likely that eco-innovation impacts more current social attitudes than generativity. Also, we examined the relationship by categorizing the sample on the basis of emotional loyalty and generation. It has been recognized that consumers with high emotional loyalty have a high impact of eco-innovation on general pro-social attitudes and generations. It infers those consumers who are emotionally engaged with the environment and innovation-related activities tend to exhibit greater social concern for the present and future as compared to consumers with less emotional loyalty. However, the role generation is indifferent in the relationship as it has been revealed that Generations Y and Z have an insignificant impact. For both generations, it is possible that eco-innovation impacts general pro-social attitudes and generations as both Generations Y and Z acknowledge the importance of eco-innovation, which influences their onus towards society and concern for the future (Severo et al., 2018).
Also, we investigated the relationship of general pro-social attitude and generations on environmental concerns, which resulted in being positive and significant. It infers that both attitude towards the well-being of others and concern for the future influence the anthropocentric perspective of the consumers, which increases the discretion and ministration of the consumers towards the environment as the current environmental circumstances are a threat to others and the future (Coffey, 2021). Also, presently, the environmental situation is extremely hazardous (Sharma and Paço, 2021), which might be the reason for the high impact of general pro-social attitude, which assists in exhibiting the concerns for society and others at present, which leads to caring for the environment, through environmental concern as compared to the influence of generations, and which is a concern for future on environmental concern. However, while assessing the impact of emotional loyalty, it has been found that high and low emotional loyalty has no impact on general pro-social attitude to environmental concern and generations to environmental concern, which indicates that attitude towards others and concern for future which remain the same, irrespective of high or low emotional engagement. It might be owing to the current situation, which is alarming and agitating due to plastic waste (Chau et al., 2020) and other wastes (Gebremariam et al., 2020). However, in the case of generation, the difference is clearly visible as it has been demonstrated that Generation Y's generativity has more impact on environmental concern as compared to Generation Z. Doerwald et al. (2021), in their meta-analysis, affirmed that older age individuals have more sense of generativity, tending to guide the younger generation. Also, Shiel et al. (2020) asserted that generativity among older groups leads to environmental orientation. Among Generation Z, the relationship between general pro-social attitude and environmental concern has more impact than Generation Y. Our results support the meta-analysis of Chen et al. (2019) that Generation Z significantly impacts the pro-social attitudes.
Additionally, the present study examined the relationship between environmental concern and purchase intentions as environmental concern has been considered one of the influential constructs. Past studies have cogently revealed that concern for the environment leads to the intention to buy green products (Goel et al., 2021; Waris and Hameed, 2020). Likewise, the present study demonstrated the homogenous effect and infers that a consumer who acknowledges the environmental issues exhibits the intentions towards green. Correspondingly, this concern is akin in both generations (Y and Z) and among high and low emotionally loyal consumers. It is possible that current environmental challenges galvanized the willingness of consumers to act for the environment's benefit irrespective of age and engagement (Mhatre and Srivatsa, 2019). We also examined the relationship between purchase intentions and buying behaviour, which was found to be positively significant, as in other previous studies (e.g. Sharma et al., 2020). Furthermore, it has been found that the purchase intentions of consumers with high emotional loyalty have more impact on buying behaviour as compared to consumers with low emotional loyalty. It implies that consumers who have more trust, belief and association with the environment would cogently buy green products. This is supported by past studies, in which loyalty moderates the relationship between green buying intentions and behaviour (Shapoval et al., 2018).
5.1 Implications
Theoretically, the present study contributes to the growing literature on sustainability by confirming the significance of eco-innovations on general pro-social attitude and generativity to trigger environmental concern, purchase intentions and buying behaviour towards sustainable products (Li et al., 2021). The research shows that individualistic norms and perceived marketplace influence play a purposeful role in transforming environmental concerns into buying behaviour towards eco-innovation driven products. Thus, marketers may use appealing messages like “go green innovation, feel healthy life”, which focus on individualistic characteristics instead of just emphasizing “go green” or “go eco-innovation” slogans. Additionally, the research added understanding to the importance of differentiating between generational cohorts to drive eco-innovation acceptance, thereby emphasizing the significance of well meticulous approaches when it comes to driving general pro-social attitudes and environmental concerns for eco-innovations in an emerging market, like India. From a policy and management perspective, the results not only imply the importance of continuous performance and environmental improvement but also those policies hindering diffusion and adoption need to be addressed. There is a pressing need for a global action-oriented, aspirational, communicable, integrated and universally acceptable eco-innovation-driven ecosystem for businesses. In the modern market-led emerging market economies, like India, the likelihood of a successful transition toward sustainable consumption depends on the policy framework in terms of renewable energy (Sharma et al., 2021) and consumer attractiveness for eco-innovation oriented products. From the eco-innovation-driven firms' perspective, the present study can provide useful insights for practice in several ways. First, for firms' pursuing eco-innovations, caution should be employed when considering self-reported pro-social attitudes, environmental concerns and buying behaviour, especially if different generation cohorts are not taken into account to estimate market potential. Second, identifying which efficacy-related attitude and purchase intentions are relevant to a particular generation should be a key step for market research as it may function as a barrier or enabler to eco-innovation adoption. Third, for eco-innovation-driven products and services positioned as “sustainable consumption” market opportunities, a blend of norms and perceived marketplace influence would be a panacea to investigate variations in generational target market segment.
6. Conclusion
This study intended to investigate the relationship among eco-innovation, general pro-social attitude, generativity, environmental concern, purchasing intentions and buying environmentally friendly products as well as the differences of the relationship between high and low emotional loyalty and Generation Y and Z. Special attention was given to the moderating effect of emotional loyalty of consumers on the whole model.
Most of the results were in line with previous studies. For example, the relationship between eco-innovation and pro-social attitudes is positive and significant, as well as between eco-innovation and generativity. In turn, pro-social attitudes guide concern for the environment, and a strong sense of generativity increases environmental concern. Concern for environmental issues leads consumers to the intention of purchasing green, and this intention leads to the effective buying of eco-friendly products. Regarding emotional loyalty, there are significant differences in the model between high and low emotional loyalties among consumers, except for relationships between generativity and environmental concern and pro-social attitudes and generativity. Regarding the generations, generativity impacts environmental concern more among Generation Y than Generation Z, whereas pro-social attitudes impact environmental concern more among Generation Z than Generation Y.
Regarding the limitations of this research, as was possible to see, this is a convenience sample lacking some representativeness of the whole population that in India is very dispersed and differentiated in all senses. Although the sample was not completely random, it was not devoid of randomness. A reasonable degree of randomness was assumed because of the absence of a systematic effort in selecting respondents. The convenience bias cannot be ruled out entirely and could adversely affect the generalizability of the results. However, the limitation is acceptable, given the study's exploratory nature. Another risk that we assume is that in this type of survey, individuals occasionally tend to answer accurately. As a suggestion for future research, Generation X could be added to the sample. Additional/substitute constructs (e.g. values and environmental knowledge) could be analysed in this model, focusing on eco-innovation. A comparative study could be of interest by using an occidental sample of consumers.
Figures
Indicators' loading, composite reliability, Cronbach's alpha and AVE
| Items | Outer loadings | Cronbach's alpha | Composite reliability | Average variance extracted (AVE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental concern (EC) | 0.96 | 0.971 | 0.894 | |
| EC1 | 0.937 | |||
| EC2 | 0.939 | |||
| EC3 | 0.958 | |||
| EC4 | 0.947 | |||
| Buying behaviour (BB) | 0.972 | 0.975 | 0.799 | |
| BB1 | 0.903 | |||
| BB2 | 0.864 | |||
| BB3 | 0.884 | |||
| BB4 | 0.892 | |||
| BB5 | 0.904 | |||
| BB6 | 0.913 | |||
| BB7 | 0.86 | |||
| BB8 | 0.89 | |||
| BB9 | 0.912 | |||
| BB10 | 0.914 | |||
| Eco-innovation (EI) | 0.954 | 0.964 | 0.845 | |
| EI1 | 0.932 | |||
| EI2 | 0.939 | |||
| EI3 | 0.888 | |||
| EI4 | 0.934 | |||
| EI5 | 0.901 | |||
| Generativity (GEN) | 0.961 | 0.965 | 0.699 | |
| GEN1 | 0.751 | |||
| GEN2 | 0.839 | |||
| GEN3 | 0.851 | |||
| GEN4 | 0.834 | |||
| GEN5 | 0.89 | |||
| GEN6 | 0.874 | |||
| GEN7 | 0.792 | |||
| GEN8 | 0.871 | |||
| GEN9 | 0.785 | |||
| GEN10 | 0.857 | |||
| GEN11 | 0.869 | |||
| GEN12 | 0.812 | |||
| General pro-social attitudes (GPA) | 0.974 | 0.979 | 0.886 | |
| GPA1 | 0.92 | |||
| GPA2 | 0.932 | |||
| GPA3 | 0.954 | |||
| GPA4 | 0.956 | |||
| GPA5 | 0.947 | |||
| GPA6 | 0.939 | |||
| Purchase intention (PI) | 0.968 | 0.975 | 0.887 | |
| PI1 | 0.937 | |||
| PI2 | 0.947 | |||
| PI3 | 0.929 | |||
| PI4 | 0.95 | |||
| PI5 | 0.946 | |||
Discriminant validity
| Constructs | EC | BB | EI | GEN | GPA | PI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC | 0.945 | |||||
| BB | 0.683 | 0.894 | ||||
| EI | 0.760 | 0.776 | 0.919 | |||
| GEN | 0.745 | 0.757 | 0.748 | 0.836 | ||
| GPA | 0.772 | 0.737 | 0.906 | 0.730 | 0.941 | |
| PI | 0.763 | 0.882 | 0.804 | 0.680 | 0.787 | 0.942 |
Values of R-square, R-squared adjusted and Q2
| Constructs | R-square | R-square adjusted | Q2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| EC | 0.667 | 0.665 | 0.590 |
| BB | 0.777 | 0.777 | 0.611 |
| GEN | 0.559 | 0.558 | 0.372 |
| GPA | 0.820 | 0.819 | 0.719 |
| PI | 0.583 | 0.581 | 0.512 |
| Hypothesis | Relationships | Path coefficient | t-values | p-values | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | EI→GPA | 0.906 | 60.212 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H2 | EI→GEN | 0.748 | 25.423 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H3 | GPA→EC | 0.489 | 7.529 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H4 | GEN→EC | 0.388 | 5.966 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H5 | EC→PI | 0.763 | 21.169 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H6 | PI→BB | 0.882 | 46.158 | 0.000 | Accepted |
Hypothesis testing using high and low emotional loyalty among consumers (H7)
| Hypothesis | Variables | Path coef.-diff (hEL)-(lEL) | t-value | Parametric test | PLS-MGA | Welch–Satterthwaite Test | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H7a | EI→GPA | 0.220 | 3.061 | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H7b | EI→GEN | 0.327 | 3.468 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H7c | GPA→EC | 0.123 | 0.781 | 0.436 | 0.466 | 0.465 | No |
| H7d | GEN→EC | 0.125 | 0.842 | 0.401 | 0.440 | 0.435 | No |
| H7e | EC→PI | 0.360 | 2.826 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H7f | PI→BB | 0.139 | 2.324 | 0.021 | 0.003 | 0.003 | Yes |
Hypothesis testing using Generation Y and Z consumers (H8)
| Hypothesis | Variables | Path coef.-diff (Y)-(Z) | t-value | Parametric test | PLS-MGA | Welch-Satterthwaite test | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H8a | EI→GPA | −0.034 | 0.451 | 0.470 | 0.744 | 0.655 | Rejected |
| H8b | EI→GEN | −0.251 | 1.278 | 0.063 | 0.137 | 0.211 | Rejected |
| H8c | GPA→EC | −0.363 | 2.455 | 0.020 | 0.037 | 0.019 | Accepted |
| H8d | GEN→EC | 0.331 | 2.378 | 0.031 | 0.044 | 0.023 | Accepted |
| H8e | EC→PI | −0.253 | 1.498 | 0.097 | 0.140 | 0.145 | Rejected |
| H8f | PI→BB | −0.069 | 0.965 | 0.238 | 0.359 | 0.342 | Rejected |
References
Akehurst, G., Afonso, C. and Gonçalves, H. (2012), “Re-examining green purchase behaviour and the green consumer profile: new evidences”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 972-988.
Antonides, G. and Van Raaij, F. (1998), Consumer Behaviour: A European Perspective, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Arranz, N., Arroyabe, M.F., Molina-García, A. and de Arroyabe, J.F. (2019), “Incentives and inhibiting factors of eco-innovation in the Spanish firms”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 220, pp. 167-176.
Berenguer, J. (2010), “The effect of empathy in environmental moral reasoning”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 110-134.
Bitencourt, C.C., de Oliveira Santini, F., Zanandrea, G., Froehlich, C. and Ladeira, W.J. (2020), “Empirical generalizations in eco-innovation: a meta-analytic approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 245, p. 118721.
Bossle, M.B., Barcellos, M.D., Vieira, L.M. and Sauvée, L. (2016), “The drivers for adoption of eco-innovation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 113, pp. 861-872.
Brouwer, J. and Engels, M.C. (2021), “The role of prosocial attitudes and academic achievement in peer networks in higher education”, European Journal of Psychology of Education. doi: 10.1007/s10212-020-00526-w.
Chan, R. (2001), “Determinants of Chinese consumers' green purchase behaviour”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 389-413.
Chan, T.S. (2009), Environmental Sustainability as a Generative Concern: An Exploratory Study of the Narrative Identities of Leaders in the Environmental Sustainability Movement, Northwestern University (Doctoral Thesis), Evanston.
Chau, M.Q., Hoang, A.T., Truong, T.T. and Nguyen, X.P. (2020), “Endless Story about the Alarming Reality of Plastic Waste in Vietnam”, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, pp. 1-9.
Chaudhary, R. and Bisai, S. (2018), “Factors influencing green purchase behavior of millennials in India”, Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 798-812.
Chen, M.H., Chen, B.H. and Chi, C.G.Q. (2019), “Socially responsible investment by generation Z: a cross-cultural study of Taiwanese and American investors”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 334-350.
Coffey, B. (2021), “Environmental challenges for public value theory and practice”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 44 No. 10, pp. 818-825.
De Groot, J.I.M. and Steg, L. (2009), “Morality and prosocial behavior: the role of awareness, responsibility and norms in the norm activation model”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 149 No. 9, pp. 425-449.
Ding, Z., Wang, G., Liu, Z. and Long, R. (2017), “Research on differences in the factors influencing the energy-saving behavior of urban and rural residents in China–A case study of Jiangsu Province”, Energy Policy, Vol. 100, pp. 252-259.
Doerwald, F., Zacher, H., Van Yperen, N.W. and Scheibe, S. (2021), “Generativity at work: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 125, p. 103521.
Dwidienawati, D., Abdinagoro, S.B., Gandasari, D. and Tjahjana, D. (2021), “Do Generation Y and Z Really Concern about Environmental Issues?”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 729 No. 1, p. 012137, IOP Publishing.
Erikson, E. (1950), Childhood and Society, Norton, New York.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gebremariam, A.T., Di Maio, F., Vahidi, A. and Rem, P. (2020), “Innovative technologies for recycling End-of-Life concrete waste in the built environment”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 163, p. 104911.
Goel, P., Sharma, N., Mathiyazhagan, K. and Vimal, K.E.K. (2021), “Government is trying but consumers are not buying: a barrier analysis for electric vehicle sales in India”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 28, pp. 71-90.
Groening, C., Sarkis, J. and Zhu, Q. (2018), “Green marketing consumer-level theory review: a compendium of applied theories and further research directions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 1848-1866.
Gurtner, S. and Soyez, K. (2016), “How to catch the generation Y: identifying consumers of ecological innovations among youngsters”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 106, pp. 101-107.
Härtel, C.E. and Russell-Bennett, R. (2010), “Heart versus mind: the functions of emotional and cognitive loyalty”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Mhairodeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Howard, M.C. and Nitzl, C. (2020), “Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 109, pp. 101-110.
Han, H., Kim, Y. and Kim, E.K. (2011), “Cognitive, affective, conative, and action loyalty: testing the impact of inertia”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1008-1019.
Harland, P., Staats, H. and Wilke, H.A.M. (2007), “Situational and personality factors as direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior: questions derived from norm activation theory”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 323-334.
Hartmann, P. and Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. (2012), “Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: the roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 9, pp. 1254-1263.
Hojnik, J., Ruzzier, M. and Manolova, T.S. (2018), “Internationalization and economic performance: the mediating role of eco-innovation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 171, pp. 1312-1323.
Horbach, J. and Rennings, K. (2007), Panel-) Survey Analysis of Eco-Innovation: Possibilities and Propositions: Deliverable 4 and 5 of the MEI (Measuring Eco-Innovation Project), Report edn.
Jain, S. and Kaur, G. (2006), “Role of socio-demographics in segmenting and profiling green consumers”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 107-146.
Jaiswal, D. and Kant, R. (2018), “Green purchasing behaviour: a conceptual framework and empirical investigation of Indian consumers”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 41, pp. 60-69.
Joshi, Y. and Rahman, Z. (2017), “Investigating the determinants of consumers' sustainable purchase behavior”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 10, pp. 110-120.
Kautish, P. and Sharma, R. (2020), “Determinants of pro-environmental behavior and environmentally conscious consumer behavior: an empirical investigation from emerging market”, Business Strategy and Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 112-127.
Kautish, P. and Sharma, R. (2021), “Study on relationships among terminal and instrumental values, environmental consciousness and behavioral intentions for green products”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-29.
Kautish, P., Paul, J. and Sharma, R. (2019), “The moderating influence of environmental consciousness and recycling intentions on green purchase behavior”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 228, pp. 1425-1436.
Kautish, P., Khare, A. and Sharma, R. (2020), “Values, sustainability consciousness and intentions for SDG endorsement”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 921-939.
Kautish, P., Sharma, R., Mangla, S.K., Jabeen, F. and Awan, U. (2021), “Understanding choice behavior towards plastic consumption: an emerging market investigation”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 174, p. 105828.
Kim, M.J., Lee, C.-K., Chung, N. and Kim, W.G. (2014), “Factors affecting online tourism group buying and the moderating role of loyalty”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 380-394.
Laroche, M., Tomiuk, M., Bergeron, J. and Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2002), “Cultural differences in environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of Canadian consumers”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 267-283.
Li, L., Wang, Z., Li, Y. and Liao, A. (2021), “Impacts of consumer innovativeness on the intention to purchase sustainable products”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 27, pp. 774-786.
Liobikiene, G. and Bernatoniene, J. (2017), “Why determinants of green purchase cannotbe treated equally? The case of green cosmetics: literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 162, pp. 109-120.
Long, T.B., Young, W., Webber, P., Gouldson, A. and Harwatt, H. (2015), “The impact of domestic energy efficiency retrofit schemes on householder attitudes and behaviors”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 58 No. 10, pp. 1853-1876.
Leonidou, L., Leonidou, C., Palihawadana, D. and Hultman, M. (2011), “Evaluating the green advertising practices of international firms: a trend analysis”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 6-33.
McAdams, D. and de St Aubin, E. (1992), “A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 1003-1015.
McAdams, D.P., Hart, H.M. and Maruna, S. (1998), “The anatomy of generativity”, in McAdams, D.P. and Aubin, E.de St. (Eds), Generativity and Adult Development, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 7-43.
Mhatre, P. and Srivatsa, H.S. (2019), “Modelling the purchase intention of millennial and Generation X consumers, towards refurbished mobile phones in India”, International Journal of Green Economics, Vol. 13 Nos 3-4, pp. 257-275.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment – trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Mostafa, M.M. (2006), “Antecedents of Egyptian consumers' green purchase intentions: a hierarchical multivariate regression model”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 97-126.
Ofori, D. and Mensah, A.O. (2022), “Sustainable electronic waste management among households: a circular economy perspective from a developing economy”, Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64-85.
Osgood, J.M. and Muraven, M. (2015), “Self-control depletion does not diminish attitudes about being prosocial but does diminish prosocial behaviors”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 68-80.
Pahlevi, M.R. and Suhartanto, D. (2020), “The integrated model of green loyalty: evidence from eco-friendly plastic products”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 257, p. 120844.
Paparoidamis, N.G. and Tran, H.T.T. (2019), “Making the world a better place by making better products: eco-friendly consumer innovativeness and the adoption of eco-innovations”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1546-1584.
Paparoidamis, N.G., Tran, T.T.H., Leonidou, L.C. and Zeriti, A. (2019), “Being innovative while being green: an experimental inquiry into how consumers respond to eco-innovative product designs”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 824-847.
Paço, A., Shiel, C. and Alves, H. (2019), “A new model for testing green consumer behavior”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 207, pp. 998-1006.
Peng, X. and Liu, Y. (2016), “Behind eco-innovation: managerial environmental awareness and external resource acquisition”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 139, pp. 347-360.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York.
Sarabia-Andreu, F., Sarabia-Sanchez, F.J. and Moreno-Albaladejo, P. (2019), “A New attitudinal integral-model to explain green purchase intention”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 22, p. 6290.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Hair, J.F. (2017), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling”, Handbook of Market Research, Springer International Publishing, pp. 1-40.
Schwartz, S.H. (1977), “Normative influence on altruism”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, Vol. 10, pp. 221-279.
Severo, E.A., Guimarães, J.C. and Dorion, E.C. (2018), “Cleaner production, social responsibility and eco-innovation: generations' perception for a sustainable future”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 186, pp. 91-103.
Shapoval, V., Murphy, K.S. and Severt, D. (2018), “Does service quality really matter at Green restaurants for Millennial consumers? The moderating effects of gender between loyalty and satisfaction”, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 591-609.
Sharma, N. and Paço, A. (2021), “Moral disengagement: a guilt free mechanism for non-green buying behavior”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 297, p. 126649.
Sharma, N., Saha, R., Sreedharan, V.R. and Paul, J. (2020), “Relating the role of green self-concepts and identity on green purchasing behaviour: an empirical analysis”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 3203-3219.
Sharma, R., Shahbaz, M., Kautish, P. and Vinh Vo, X. (2021), “Analyzing the impact of export diversification and technological innovation on renewable energy consumption: evidences from BRICS nations”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 178, pp. 1034-1045.
Shiel, C., Paço, A. and Alves, H. (2020), “Generativity, sustainable development and green consumer behaviour”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 245, p. 118865.
Straughan, R. and Roberts, J. (1999), “Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behaviour in the new millennium”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 558-575.
Tang, Y., Zhong, Y., Li, H., Huang, Y., Guo, X., Yang, F. and Wu, Y. (2020), “Contaminants of emerging concern in aquatic environment: occurrence, monitoring, fate, and risk assessment”, Water Environment Research, Vol. 92 No. 10, pp. 1811-1817.
Thøgersen, J. (2009), “The motivational roots of norms for environmentally responsible behavior”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 348-362.
Warburton, J. and Gooch, M. (2007), “Stewardship volunteering by older Australians: the generative response”, Local Environment, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 43-55.
Waris, I. and Hameed, I. (2020), “Promoting environmentally sustainable consumption behavior: an empirical evaluation of purchase intention of energy-efficient appliances”, Energy Efficiency, Vol. 13 No. 8, pp. 1653-1664.
Weinstein, N. and Ryan, R.M. (2010), “When helping helps: autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 222-244.
Wells, V.K., Taheri, B., Gregory-Smith, D. and Manika, D. (2016), “The role of generativity and attitudes on employees home and workplace water and energy saving behaviours”, Tourism Management, Vol. 56, pp. 63-74.
Yadav, R. and Pathak, G.S. (2016), “Young consumers' intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: extending the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 135, pp. 732-739.
Yang, S., Wang, W., Feng, D. and Lu, J. (2022), “Impact of pilot environmental policy on urban eco-innovation”, Journal of Cleaner Production. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130858.
Yi, Y. and La, S. (2004), “What influences the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention? Investigating the effects of adjusted expectations and customer loyalty”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 351-373.
Žabkar, V. and Hosta, M. (2013), “Willingness to act and environmentally conscious consumer behaviour: can prosocial status perceptions help overcome the gap?”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 257-264.
Zhang, Y., Wang, Z. and Zhou, G. (2013), “Antecedents of employee electricity saving behavior in organizations: an empirical study based on norm activation”, Energy Policy, Vol. 62, pp. 1120-1127.
Acknowledgements
This research is financed by national funds through the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under the project UIDB/04630/2020.