The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-8021.htm

Navigating the
Navigating the green maze: green maze
insights for businesses on
consumer decision-making and
the mediating role of their 861

environmental concerns Received 19 July 2023

Revised 20 October 2023
12 December 2023
João M. Lopes 3 January 2024
Department of Management and Economics, NECE-UBI – Research Unit in Accepted 4 January 2024

Business Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal and

Department of Management, Miguel Torga Institute of Higher Education,
Coimbra, Portugal
Sofia Gomes
Department of Management and Economics, Research on Economics,
Management and Information Technologies, REMIT, Portucalense University,
Porto, Portugal, and
Tiago Trancoso
Department of Economics, Finance and Accounting, proMetheus,
Instituto Politecnico de Viana do Castelo (IPVC), Viana do Castelo, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – Green consumption is fundamental to sustainable development, as it involves adopting practices
and technologies that reduce the environmental impact of human activities. This study aims to analyze the
influence of consumers’ green orientation on their environmental concerns and green purchase decisions.
Furthermore, the study investigates the mediating role of consumers’ environmental concerns in the
relationship between pro-sustainable orientation and green purchase decisions.
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses a quantitative methodology, applying the partial
least squares method to a sample of 927 Portuguese consumers of green products. The sample was collected
through an online survey.
Findings – Perceived benefits and perceived quality of products play a positive and significant role in
influencing green behavior, especially when consumers are endowed with greater environmental concerns. In
addition, consumers’ awareness of the prices of green products and their expectations regarding the future

© João M. Lopes, Sofia Gomes and Tiago Trancoso. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This
article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may
reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and
non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full
terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Sustainability Accounting,
Institutional review board statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study Management and Policy Journal
Vol. 15 No. 4, 2024
because of Portuguese law and guidelines from the Foundation for Science and Technology. pp. 861-883
NECE-UBI, Research Centre for Business Sciences, Research Centre and this work are funded by Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8021
FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, IP, project UIDB/04630/2020. DOI 10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2023-0492
SAMPJ benefits of sustainable consumption positively impact green consumption behavior, further intensifying their
environmental concerns.
15,4 Practical implications – According to the present findings, companies should adopt a holistic and
integrated approach to promote green consumption. This means creating premium eco-friendly products,
communicating their benefits, addressing the cost factor, emphasizing the future impact of eco-friendly
options and raising consumers’ environmental awareness.
Social implications – It is critical that environmental education is a priority in schools and that there are
862 political incentives for green behaviors. In addition, media campaigns can be an important tool to raise
awareness in society.
Originality/value – The results of this study provide important insights for companies on consumer
engagement in the circular economy. Deepening knowledge of the antecedents of consumers’ environmental
concerns contributes to a deeper understanding of green purchasing decision behavior, allowing companies to
support new business strategies.
Keywords Sustainable consumer behavior, Environmental concerns, Green purchase decision,
Green consumer orientation, Sustainable development goals
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The growing concern about environmental protection and compliance with the 2030 Agenda
significantly influences consumer behavior (Toukabri and Mohamed Youssef, 2023). In this
context, sustainable consumption is a practice that aims to reduce the negative
environmental and social impacts generated by consumption (Lopes et al., 2023). Green
consumers consider environmental issues in their purchasing decisions, looking for
products and brands that minimize damage to the environment and society (Nogueira et al.,
2023; Gomes et al., 2023). Currently, consumers are also starting to signal their orientation
toward sustainability through their green consumption decisions, which, in turn, forces
companies to be guided by sustainability principles (Dabija et al., 2020; Legere and Kang,
2020). One of the main examples is retail, namely, the fashion industry (Legere and Kang,
2020; Musova et al., 2021; Papadopoulou et al., 2022) and the food industry (Kumar et al.,
2021; Su et al., 2019). Younger consumers in developed regions, especially Generation Z, are
the ones who most reflect their environmental concerns in their consumption decisions
(Djafarova and Foots, 2022; Liang et al., 2022; Ling et al., 2023; Ribeiro et al., 2023).
Despite evidence that consumers have demonstrated positive attitudes toward green
purchasing decisions, often motivated by more significant environmental concerns
(Wiederhold and Martinez, 2018; Wang et al., 2021), these attitudes do not always translate,
contributing to the green attitude-behavior gap (Chekima et al., 2017). Portuguese Generation Z
consumers are no exception, as they try to translate their sustainability orientation into their
daily habits and purchasing decisions, despite this behavior often not being assertive (Gomes
et al., 2023). This decision by consumers is motivated by their greater environmental
awareness, which imposes new daily habits on consumers but also directs their consumption
behavior toward other types of products (Saleem et al., 2018). According to these authors, the
materialization of the greatest environmental concerns translates into selecting products with
sustainable product modes, ecological and environmentally friendly products, high-quality
products and products beneficial to health and the environment. In response to green
consumption decisions, companies have come to value their sustainable practices as they
directly impact the environment and consumer choices (Habib et al., 2021). Several studies have
shown that, despite greater environmental awareness and consumers’ willingness to adopt
more sustainable lifestyles, they are still very reluctant to buy green products (Echegaray and
Hansstein, 2017; Al Mamun et al., 2018; Boivin et al., 2016; Johnstone and Tan, 2015), indicating
a disconnect between consumer attitudes toward the environment and their actual adoption of Navigating the
green behavior. Wei et al. (2017) emphasize that consumer concern and behavior do not green maze
converge, noting that environmental concern does not always translate into green purchasing
behavior. Furthermore, Chauhan (2020) reinforces that consumers are willing to support green
products but do not translate this into actual purchases. It, therefore, becomes important to
explore the factors that drive the decision to buy green by consumers so that companies can
guide their offer of products and services toward their desires and needs. 863
Despite the proliferation of studies in the past few years on the promotion of green
purchasing decisions, there is still room for more research (Sharma, 2021; Joshi and
Rahman, 2015; Nekmahmud and Fekete-Farkas, 2020; Zhuang et al., 2021; Hazaea
et al., 2022). Many studies focus on business strategies and the transformation of
sustainability-oriented business models. Thus, more research is needed to understand
the factors influencing consumers’ green purchasing behavior (Sharma et al., 2023).
We believe that only with a deeper understanding of consumers’ green purchasing
behaviors can companies orient themselves in the age of sustainability. Thus, two
important research questions arise:

RQ1. What factors influence consumers’ greater environmental awareness?

RQ2. How can greater environmental awareness influence consumers’ green purchasing
decisions?
The present study aims to explore the influence of determinants of consumers’ green
orientation on their environmental concerns and their green purchasing decisions. The
mediating role of consumers’ environmental concerns in the relationship between these
determinants and the green purchase decision was also explored. The green consumer
orientation determinants considered in this study were the green perceived benefits (GPBs),
the green perceived quality (GPQ), the green awareness price (GAP) and the green future
estimation (GFE). This paper is also written from the perspective of rational choice theory.
According to the rational choice theory, ecological consumers act in a calculated and rational
way to achieve their personal goals, taking into account the environmental impact of their
decisions (Liebe and Preisendörfer, 2010; Cox, 1999). This theory is based on methodological
individualism, which analyzes collective phenomena based on individual decision-making
assumptions (Liebe and Preisendörfer, 2010). Rational choice theory makes it possible to
predict social outcomes by showing how individuals choose concerning sustainability
(Turaga et al., 2010; Liebe and Preisendörfer, 2010). This understanding can help companies
adapt their strategies to consumer behavior.
Considering the research questions and studys’ objectives, this study uses a quantitative
methodology, applying the partial least squares method to a sample of 927 Portuguese
consumers of green products. The results reveal that the consumers’ green orientation
determinants in this study positively influence their environmental concerns, especially the
GFE and the GAP. Furthermore, these two factors (GFE and GAP) positively influence the
green purchase decision, and GPQ and GPB do not explain the green purchase decision.
There is also a positive and very expressive influence of consumers’ environmental concerns
on the decision to buy green. There is a positive influence between consumers’ green
orientation determinants and their purchase decisions when mediated by their environmental
concerns. These results demonstrate the central role that consumers’ environmental concerns
play in the green purchase decision, either directly or as the mediator of the relationship
between consumers’ green orientation determinants and the green purchase decision.
SAMPJ This study contributes to the extension of rational choice theory to green purchasing
15,4 decision-making. Consumer behavior oriented toward sustainability results from individual
preferences that imply opportunity costs that make them choose green products instead of
conventional products (Amin and Tarun, 2021; Berger, 2019; Feil et al., 2020). These cost
preferences can be shaped by the consumers’ green orientation determinants used in this
study and can transform how companies operate (Groening et al., 2018). Understanding the
864 motivations for green purchasing decisions can predict companies’ sustainable
performance. As shown, most studies on the circular economy focus on the role of
companies rather than consumers (Sharma et al., 2023) and studies on the consumer side use
linear models, and the green purchase decision is not, as proven by previous studies, a
simple and direct relationship (Wasaya et al., 2021). This study’s research model includes
the mediated effects of consumers’ environmental concerns between GPBs and green
consumer’s decisions, GPQ and green consumers’ decisions, green awareness price and
green consumers’ decision, GFE and green consumers’ decision, unlike the studies by
Mahmoud et al. (2022), Nekmahmud and Fekete-Farkas (2020), Gomes et al. (2023) and
Mishra and Kulshreshtha (2023), which only present research models with the direct effects
between different variables. Our study also demonstrates the essential role of environmental
concerns as mediators of the relationship between consumers’ green orientation
determinants and their purchase decisions. In addition, environmental concerns have
commonly been used as antecedents of the green purchase decision (Hosta and Zabkar, 2021;
Todaro et al., 2019), not exploring the motivations and determinants that awaken consumers
to greater green awareness, as happens in our study. This study demonstrates that
consumers’ environmental concerns may be a consequence of determinants of consumers’
green orientation.

2. Literature review
2.1 Rational choice theory
Sustainability-oriented consumer behavior is the result of individual preferences that entail
opportunity costs. These opportunity costs lead consumers to choose green products over
conventional products. Opportunity cost preferences can be shaped by consumers’ green
orientation determinants, which can transform how firms operate. Rational choice theory
serves as a valuable framework for understanding green purchasing decisions. This theory
suggests that individuals make calculated, rational choices to achieve outcomes that align
with their personal preferences and objectives (Liebe and Preisendörfer, 2010; Cox, 1999). It
is rooted in methodological individualism, which explains collective phenomena based on
individual decision-making assumptions (Liebe and Preisendörfer, 2010). When applied to
green purchasing, this theory implies that individuals consider the environmental impact of
their choices and make decisions grounded in rational thought. Rational choice theory aids
in predicting social outcomes by illustrating decision-making processes (Jervis, 1978). That
said, the selection of rational choice theory as the basis for this study was for four reasons:
First, its versatility in various domains affecting human populations, including economics,
business and social interactions, makes it a suitable approach. Second, rational choice theory
operates under the assumption that individuals are rational and make choices based on their
interests (Dean and Croft, 2009), allowing for a comprehensive understanding of individual
purchasing behavior and pro-environmental purchasing behavior (O’Rourke and Ringer,
2016). Third, determining the disconnect between stated preferences and actual purchases is
a significant obstacle to achieving sustainability goals, which rational choice theory can be
instrumental in helping to identify (O’Rourke and Ringer, 2016). Finally, rational choice
theory can be used to analyze why consumers make their decisions and how values,
attitudes and knowledge about sustainability issues influence purchasing behavior (Koenig- Navigating the
Lewis et al., 2014). By comprehending how individuals make choices concerning green maze
sustainability, businesses can gain a deeper understanding of consumer behavior and tailor
their strategies accordingly.
Green purchasing behavior is a complex and socially responsible form of decision-
making (Joshi and Rahman, 2015). Consumers generally have positive attitudes toward eco-
friendly products and are willing to buy them (Chen et al., 2021). However, there is often a
gap between attitudes and actual behavior, creating a paradox for companies that offer 865
sustainable products (Joshi and Rahman, 2015; Park and Lin, 2020). Using rational choice
theory to analyze green purchasing decisions, companies can better understand the factors
influencing consumers’ preferences and design strategies matching their rational
evaluations. Factors such as product knowledge, rating and value assessment affect green
purchase intentions (Chen and Deng, 2016; Wang et al., 2022).
One factor that affects the sustainability of businesses is consumers’ choice of products or
services that have environmental benefits. To understand how consumers make such choices,
rational choice theory offers a useful framework that explains the decision-making processes
behind green purchasing behavior (Liebe and Preisendörfer, 2010). Several personal factors,
such as beliefs, previous sustainable actions and social and cultural influences, can affect the
likelihood of engaging in future sustainable actions (Joshi and Rahman, 2015). Businesses that
can identify and use these factors can design strategies that motivate and support green
purchasing behavior. By matching their products or services with the consumer’s preferences
and values, businesses can improve their image, earn consumer loyalty and contribute to the
sustainability of the business and society (Yang et al., 2019; Gelderman et al., 2021). Therefore,
businesses need to consider rational choices concerning green purchasing decision-making to
enhance their sustainability and foster a greener future.

2.2 Green perceived benefits

GPBs refer to the positive attributes and advantages consumers associate with
environmentally friendly products. These benefits include psychological and practical
aspects (Barbu et al., 2022). The concept of GPBs is important for understanding consumer
behavior and attitudes toward sustainable consumption. The concept reflects the idea that
consumers perceive a sense of improvement in their lives through green products (Barbu
et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2017). Therefore, understanding the relationship between GPBs and
consumers’ environmental concerns is crucial for companies and policymakers promoting
sustainable consumption.
The literature indicates that GPBs positively influence consumers’ environmental
concerns (Gomes et al., 2023; Chen and Chang, 2012). A study by Gomes et al. (2023) found
that GPBs have a significant impact on consumers’ environmental concerns and future green
vision. This suggests that when consumers perceive the benefits of green products, they are
more likely to develop a strong sense of environmental responsibility and concern. Similarly,
Chen and Chang (2012) and Zhuang et al. (2021) found that GPBs positively influence
consumers’ purchase intentions, perceived value and trust in green products. These findings
highlight the importance of promoting and communicating the benefits of green products to
increase consumers’ environmental concerns and encourage sustainable consumption.
In addition to what was previously indicated, GPBs also positively influence the decision-
making process of green consumers. Studies have shown that perceived green value and
environmental image are positively associated with consumers’ attitudes toward green products
(Liao et al., 2020). The more consumers perceive the value and benefits of green products,
the more likely they are to make environmentally conscious decisions (Tian et al., 2022).
SAMPJ This indicates that consumers’ awareness of green products can impact their decision-making
15,4 process and contribute to a more positive view toward sustainable consumption (Ansu-Mensah,
2021). As consumers accumulate more environmental knowledge, their attention toward
purchasing green products increases (Zhuang et al., 2021). Thus, understanding and promoting
the GPBs can be crucial in influencing consumers’ decisions toward sustainable consumption.
Moreover, companies understanding of consumers’ GPBs can result in formulating more
866 effective strategies, increasing their performance in the market.
That said, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H1. Green perceived benefits positively influence consumers’ environmental concerns.

H1a. Green perceived benefits positively influence green consumers’ decisions.
H1b. The perceived green benefits positively influence green consumers’ decisions
when mediated by consumers’ environmental concerns.

2.3 Green perceived quality

GPQ refers to consumers’ overall judgment of a products’ environmental superiority or
excellence (Riva et al., 2022). It is a relevant concept in sustainable consumption as it
significantly impacts environmental concerns and consumer decision-making (Gil and
Jacob, 2018). Some studies have highlighted GPQ in influencing consumers’ attitudes and
behaviors toward environmentally friendly products (Zhang et al., 2023; Ansu-Mensah,
2021). For example, Ansu-Mensah (2021) found that GPQ had a significant positive impact
on university students’ green purchase intentions. This suggests that consumers are more
likely to choose products that they consider environmentally superior or excellent.
The relationship between GPQ and consumers’ environmental concerns has also been
studied (Gil and Jacob, 2018; Chen and Chang, 2013; Gil and Jacob, 2018), which showed that
GPQ positively influences consumers’ environmental concerns. When consumers perceive a
product as environmentally superior or excellent, it triggers positive feelings and increases
their trust and purchase intention toward environmentally friendly products (Gil and Jacob,
2018). This indicates that GPQ plays a crucial role in shaping consumers’ attitudes toward
sustainability and their willingness to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors (Chen
and Chang, 2013).
Furthermore, the literature points out that GPQ positively influences consumers’
decision-making process (Fraccascia et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2015), showing
that consumers’ perception of a product’s environmental superiority or excellence affects
their satisfaction and trust in the brand. This, in turn, influences their purchase intentions
and willingness to pay a premium price for green products (Fraccascia et al., 2023). For
example, Fraccascia et al. (2023) found that consumers’ perceived efficacy positively affects
purchase intention and willingness to pay a premium price for green products. These
findings highlight the importance of GPQ in shaping consumers’ decision-making processes
and emphasize the need for companies to prioritize environmental sustainability in their
product offerings and marketing strategies.
That said, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H2. Green perceived quality positively influences consumers’ environmental concerns.

H2a. Green perceived quality positively influences green consumers’ decisions.
H2b. The green perceived quality positively influences green consumers’ decisions
when mediated by consumers’ environmental concerns.
2.4 Green awareness price Navigating the
The concept of green awareness price refers to the extent to which consumers are willing to green maze
pay a premium for environmentally friendly or sustainable products (Ansu-Mensah, 2021;
Goriparthi and Tallapally, 2017). The concept further considers consumers’ perceptions of
the value and benefits associated with purchasing environmentally friendly products and
how these perceptions influence their decision-making process (Hong et al., 2019). In other
words, it explores the relationship between consumers’ willingness to pay more for green
products and their environmental concerns (Gomes et al., 2023). 867
In this context, when consumers perceive that a product is environmentally friendly and
are willing to pay a higher price, they show a higher level of concern for the environment
(Gomes et al., 2023). This relationship between the price of green consciousness and
environmental concerns is crucial to understanding consumers’ motivations to engage in
sustainable consumption behaviors (Ansu-Mensah, 2021). Higher prices associated with
green products can also signal to consumers that the product is of higher quality and more
sustainable (Chen et al., 2018).
Conversely, consumers who are more aware of the environmental impact of their
purchasing decisions and are willing to pay a premium for green products are more likely to
choose environmentally friendly options (Suki, 2013; Goriparthi and Tallapally, 2017). The
perceived value associated with the price of green awareness may outweigh the higher cost,
as consumers believe their purchase contributes to a positive environmental impact (Ansu-
Mensah, 2021). However, it is important to note that the perceived cost of green products can
also have an inhibitory effect on green consumption behavior, especially when the price
premium is relatively high (Shen and Wang, 2022). Thus, understanding the dynamics
between the price of green consciousness, environmental concerns and the consumer
decision-making process is critical for companies aiming to meet the growing consumer
demand for sustainable products.
That said, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H3. The green awareness price positively influences consumers’ environmental

concerns.
H3a. The green awareness price positively influences green consumers’ decisions.
H3b. The green awareness price positively influences green consumers’ decisions when
mediated by consumers’ environmental concerns.

2.5 Green future estimation

GFE is crucial to shaping consumers’ environmental concerns and decision-making processes.
GFE refers to how consumers assess and predict the effect of a product or service on the
environment and long-term sustainability (Gomes et al., 2023). Future demand for green
products is related to consumers’ current preference for environmentally friendly products or
services (Nekmahmud and Fekete-Farkas, 2020). If consumers value green products, this
demand is likely to grow. The valuation of green products depends on factors such as the
environmental impact and consumer benefits, such as health and well-being. In addition,
previous purchase experience influences consumers’ affective, cognitive and emotional
reactions (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2015). This experience can occur at different moments of the
purchase process (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016; Penz and Hogg, 2011). Gomes et al. (2023) found
that environmental concerns, GFE and GPQ are interrelated concepts. The study highlights
that consumers who engage in GFE tend to have higher environmental concerns as they are
more aware of the long-term environmental consequences of their actions. Therefore, this
SAMPJ finding indicates that GFE can act as a catalyst to increase consumers’ environmental concerns
15,4 and promote a more sustainable mindset (Gomes et al., 2023).
Furthermore, the literature points to GFE significantly positively influencing consumers’
green purchasing decisions. Some studies have shown that consumers who engage in GFE
are more likely to make environmentally conscious choices and opt for sustainable products
(Nekmahmud and Fekete-Farkas, 2020; Barbu et al., 2022; Zhang and Dong, 2020).
868 Nekmahmud and Fekete-Farkas (2020) found that estimating the green future of a product
has a significant positive impact on green purchasing decisions, particularly among young
and educated consumers. This suggests that by considering the long-term environmental
implications of their choices, consumers are more inclined to make sustainable purchasing
decisions, contributing to a greener future.
That said, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H4. Green future estimation positively influences consumers’ environmental concerns.

H4a. Green future estimation positively influences green consumers’ decisions.
H4b. The green future estimation positively influences green consumers’ decisions
when mediated by consumers’ environmental concerns.

2.6 Consumers’ environmental concerns

Consumers’ environmental concerns play an important role in shaping their decision-
making process, especially regarding green consumerism. Environmental concerns can be
defined as the level of awareness and importance that individuals attach to the
environmental impact of their consumption choices (Datta, 2011). These concerns cover
various aspects, including natural resource depletion, pollution, climate change and the
overall sustainability of products and services (Majeed et al., 2022). Chen et al. (2022) have
shown that consumers’ environmental concerns positively impact their green purchasing
behavior. In other words, when consumers are more aware and concerned about the
environment, they are more likely to make green choices in their purchasing decisions (Chen
et al., 2022). In addition, Lin and Syrgabayeva (2016) found that consumers’ environmental
concern positively influences their willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly
products. This suggests that consumers who prioritize environmental concerns are willing
to invest in products and services that align with their values and contribute to
environmental sustainability (Prakash et al., 2023).
Given the importance of consumers’ environmental concerns, marketers and
policymakers have a critical role to play in shaping and influencing these concerns (Parker
et al., 2023). Marketers can effectively reach and engage environmentally conscious
consumers by promoting environmental awareness and highlighting the positive
environmental impacts of products and services (Chen et al., 2022). Furthermore, Suki (2013)
has shown that consumers’ environmental concerns are influenced by factors such as green
product awareness, price and brand image (Suki, 2013). Understanding these factors can
help companies adapt their marketing strategies to attract environmentally conscious
consumers and promote green consumer choices and sustainable consumption patterns
(Chen et al., 2022):

H5. Environmental concerns positively influence green consumers’ decisions.

Figure 1 shows the research model of this study.
 GREEN CONSUMER Navigating the
ORIENTATION green maze
H1a
Green Perceived Benefits
H1b

H1 H2a GREEN
Green Perceived Quality ENVIRONMENTAL H1b CONSUMER
H2
CONCERNS H5 DECISION 869
H3a
Green Awareness Price
H3b

H3
H4
Green Future Estimation H4a

H4b

Notes:  direct effects; indirect effects Figure 1.

Research model
Source: Authors’ own creation

3. Methodology
3.1 Data collection
The sample for this study was collected through an online questionnaire built on Google
Forms, available from October to December 2021. The questionnaire link was published on
the authors’ social networks (Facebook and LinkedIn) and their contacts. Thus, it was a
convenience sample, not a probabilistic one.
The target audience for the questionnaire was Portuguese consumers of green products
aged over 18. The purpose of the study was explained to all participants, and the concept of
a green product was explained. To ensure that the respondents of the questionnaire
corresponded to the defined target audience, the questionnaire contained a first question
about the habit of consuming green products: (“Do you have the habit of consuming green
products?” – yes or no). If respondents selected the “no” option, their participation would
end. The initial sample contained 1,255 responses, of which 927 (73.9%) were considered
valid as they fulfilled the conditions defined for the target audience. The questionnaire was
anonymous, and voluntary participation and written informed consent were obtained from
all participants.
A pre-test was also carried out with 20 participants with different social characteristics
regarding gender, age, education and income. The pre-test aimed to assess the participants’
understanding of the concepts and questions and their response time. The pre-test results
demonstrated that all participants understood the content of the questions, had no doubts
when choosing their answers and that the average response time was around 5 min.

3.2 Data measurement

The questions that make up the questionnaire were adapted from the study by Nekmahmud
and Fekete-Farkas (2020), which, in turn, was adapted from other authors and a focus group
discussion such as Khare (2015), Ha and Janda (2012), Coleman et al. (2011), Mostafa (2006),
Islam and Zabin (2013), Mishal et al. (2017), Sharma and Bansal (2013) and Schlegelmilch
et al. (1996) (see details in Appendix 1). The questionnaire contained five sections (available in
Appendix 1). The first section concerned informed consent and the consumption of green
products. The second section referred to the socio-demographic and economic data of the
SAMPJ participants. The third section contained questions about the determinants of consumers’
15,4 green orientation: GPB with three questions; GPQ with two questions; and GFE with four
questions and GAP with three questions. In the fourth section, there were four questions
related to environmental concerns, and in the last section, there were four questions related to
the green purchase decision. The questions from the previous three groups were measured on
a five-point Likert agreement scale, from 1 – Strongly disagree to 5 – Strongly agree.
870
3.3 Methodological procedures
Given the study’s objective and proposed research model, a quantitative methodology was
used. Initially, we carried out a statistical analysis in SPSS v.25 software of the participants’
characteristics, the constructs contained in the research model and the items that measure
them. Then, we performed a factor analysis consisting of an exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) to divide the items by factors and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the
reflective nature of the proposed model.
Afterwards, we applied the PLS method to the research model using the Smart PLS 3.0
software (Hair et al., 2016). This method allows factorial analysis and the estimation of
simple relationships between constructs through the ordinary least squares method (Hair
et al., 2019). It does not have as a requirement the normality of the data, a situation that
commonly exists when data are collected through questionnaires. In addition, it is a method
widely used to study sustainability topics, namely, in studies that use the variables of
environmental concerns and sustainable consumer behavior (Antonetti and Maklan, 2014;
Saari et al., 2021). The model obtained after applying the PLS method was evaluated in
terms of convergence, reliability and discriminant validity using the measures proposed by
Hair et al. (2019):

Cronbach’s alpha measurements (Ca  0.70);

composite reliability (CRa  0.70);

average variance extracted (AVE  0.50); and

discriminant validity tested by the Fornell–Larcker criterion.

This model was also evaluated regarding the coefficient of determination (R2) and predictive
relevance using the Stone–Geisser measure (Q2). Then, a bootstrapping analysis was
performed to estimate the relationships established in the research model.

4. Results
4.1 Descriptive analysis
The sample consists of 927 Portuguese consumers of green products. Statistics on their socio-
demographic and economic characterization are shown in Table 1. Most respondents are
women (62.7%). The majority of participants are aged between 18 and 26 years old (73%),
that is, young people belonging to Generation Z (born from 1997 to 2013). A total of 11.1% of
participants are aged between 27 and 42 years old (Generation Y) and 10.6% between 43 and
58 years old (Generation X). Most have completed secondary education (53.8%) and are
students (53.4%). Regarding net monthly income, most respondents earn less than e1,000.
The mean and standard deviation of the constructs and the items that measure them are
shown in Table 2. Regarding the determinants of consumers’ green orientation, the participants
generally agreed with the items that measure the constructs, with the GPB generating greater
agreement (M ¼ 4.20). Respondents agree on average with the items of measure environmental
concerns (M ¼ 4.25) and to decide to consume green products (M ¼ 3.99).
 Frequency (%)
Navigating the
green maze
Gender
Male 37.3
Female 62.7
Age
18–26 years 73.0
27–42 years 11.1
871
43–58 years 10.6
>59 years 5.3
Education
Complete secondary education 53.8
Graduation 36.6
Master’s degree 8.6
PhD 1.0
Professional occupation
Students 53.4
Employees 39.9
Self-employed 4.4
Other 2.3
Monthly net income Table 1.
<e1,000 76.6
e1,001–e1,500 14.5
Socio-demographic
>e1,500 8.9 and economic profile
statistics of
Source: Authors’ own creation respondents

4.2 Factor analysis

Appendix 2 shows the results of the implementation of EFA and CFA. Concerning the EFA,
the 20 initial items were divided into six factors corresponding to each of the constructs in
the research model. No items were removed, and the cumulative variance of the three factors
is 60.8, with none of the factors individually explaining more than 50% of the variance. All
items have commonalities higher than 0.70. The CFA results demonstrate that all items have
high confirmatory factor loads (> 0.70), confirming the reflective nature of the model.

4.3 Assessment of the measurement model

Table 3 shows the model evaluation results obtained after applying the PLS method according to
the measures proposed by Hair et al. (2019). Once the results obtained for the Cronbach’s alpha,
CR and AVE are superior to the reference values, the model is convergent and reliable. In
addition, the results of the Fornell–Larcker criterion (in italics on the diagonal of Table 3) reveal
the model has discriminant validity. The quality of the model’s fit was also evaluated: Chi-square
(p ¼ 0.091), goodness-of-fit (0.91), comparative fit index (0.93) and standard root mean square
residual (0.097). Fulfilling the reference values, the estimated PLS model presents a good fit.

4.4 Explanatory analysis

The coefficient of determination R2 of the endogenous variables environmental concerns and
green consumer decisions and the predictive relevance (Stone–Geisser Q2) based on the
cross-validated redundancy approach were also evaluated (Table 4). According to Cohen
(1988), the environmental concerns and green consumer decisions constructs have a
SAMPJ
Mean Std. Deviation
15,4
Environmental concerns (EC) 4.25 0.816
EC1 4.51 0.718
EC2 4.32 0.819
EC3 4.12 0.909
EC4 4.03 0.818
872
Green perceived benefits (GPB) 4.20 0.847
GPB1 4.46 0.729
GPB2 3.89 1.044
GPB3 4.24 0.768
Green perceived quality (GPQ) 4.07 0.834
GPQ1 4.23 0.748
GPQ2 3.90 0.919
Green awareness price (GAP) 4.19 0.861
GAP1 4.55 0.708
GAP2 4.53 0.768
GAP3 3.50 1.108
Green future estimation (GFE) 4.19 0.826
GFE1 4.44 0.738
GFE2 4.00 0.935
GFE3 4.08 0.871
GFE4 4.27 0.758
Green consumer decision (GCD) 3.99 0.936
GCD1 4.04 0.924
GCD2 4.42 0.743
GCD3 3.53 1.085
Table 2. GCD4 3.96 0.991
Constructs and items
statistics Source: Authors’ own creation

Ca CR AVE EC GPB GPQ GAP GFE GCD

Environmental concerns (EC) 0.797 0.868 0.623 0.789

Green perceived benefits (GPB) 0.709 0.787 0.562 0.581 0.750
Green perceived quality (GPQ) 0.771 0.858 0.752 0.561 0.694 0.867
Green awareness price (GAP) 0.733 0.761 0.516 0.568 0.576 0.545 0.718
Green future estimation (GFE) 0.821 0.882 0.651 0.568 0.573 0.554 0.576 0.807
Green consumer decision (GCD) 0.801 0.871 0.628 0.632 0.544 0.539 0.626 0.654 0.793
Table 3.
Measurement model Note: AVE square root is in italics
evaluation results Source: Authors’ own creation

“substantial effect” (R2 of the environmental concerns ¼ 0.472; R2 of the green consumer
decision ¼ 0.574). Also, the obtained model is relevant for predicting the dependent
variables environmental concerns and green consumer decision because Q2 is greater than
zero (Q2 of the environmental concerns ¼ 0.290; Q2 of the green consumer decision ¼ 0.353).
Table 4 shows the results of estimating the direct relationships in the research model.
 Confidence interval
Navigating the
Path (b) t-values p-values 2.5% 97.5% Support green maze
H1: Green perceived benefits ! 0.206 5.024 0.000 0.129 0.285 Yes
Environmental concerns
H1a: Green perceived benefits ! 0.029 0.841 0.401 0.034 0.096 No
Green consumer decision
H2: Green perceived quality ! 0.168 4.260 0.000 0.096 0.244 Yes 873
Environmental concerns
H2a: Green perceived quality ! 0.065 1.908 0.077 0.004 0.135 No
Green consumer decision
H3: Green awareness price ! 0.231 6.158 0.000 0.160 0.309 Yes
Environmental concerns
H3a: Green awareness price ! 0.246 7.502 0.000 0.183 0.312 Yes
Green consumer decision
H4: Green future estimation ! 0.224 5.683 0.000 0.143 0.299 Yes
Environmental concerns
H4a: Green future estimation ! 0.311 9.061 0.000 0.235 0.376 Yes
Green consumer decision
H5: Environmental concerns ! 0.263 8.211 0.000 0.199 0.328 Yes
Green consumer decision Table 4.
Estimation of direct
Source: Authors’ own creation effects

The results reveal that green orientation determinants positively influence environmental
concerns, confirming H1, H2, H3 and H4. However, the intensity of their influence is not
similar. Green awareness price is the green orientation determinant that has the greatest
influence on environmental concerns (b ¼ 0.231), followed by GFE (b ¼ 0.224), GPBs (b ¼
0.206) and, finally, GPQ (b ¼ 0.168). Furthermore, environmental concerns positively
influence green consumer decisions (b ¼ 0.263), confirming H5. Regarding the relationship
between green orientation determinants and environmental concerns, GPBs and GPQ were
not statistically significant to influence environmental concerns, rejecting H1a and H2a.
However, green awareness price (b ¼ 0.246) and GFE (b ¼ 0.311) positively and
significantly influence green consumer decisions, confirming H3a and H4a.
Table 5 shows the results of the mediating effects of environmental concerns on the
relationship between the determinants of consumers’ green orientation and the green
consumer decision.
The results show that green orientation determinants, when mediated by environmental
concerns, positively influence green consumer decisions, confirming H1b, H2b, H3b and
H4b. However, the intensity of this influence is residual (b < 0.10).

5. Discussion, implications and limitations

5.1 Discussion
The research discussed here highlights the role of environmental concerns in influencing
green consumers’ decisions to purchase green products. It stresses the importance of green
consumers’ environmental consciousness when selecting eco-options, which aligns with
previous research findings (Saari et al., 2021).
Interestingly, the study found that the GPBs and quality of products alone do not directly
impact consumers’ green purchasing decisions. This finding suggests that the perceived
benefits and quality of green products are not sufficient on their own to drive green
SAMPJ Confidence interval
15,4 Path (b) t-values p-values 2.5% 97.5% Support

H1b: Green perceived benefits ! 0.054 4.169 0.000 0.029 0.079 Yes
Environment concerns !
Green consumer decision
H2b: Green perceived quality ! 0.044 3.973 0.000 0.023 0.067 Yes
874 Environment concerns !
Green consumer decision
H3b: Green awareness price ! 0.061 4.985 0.000 0.037 0.085 Yes
Environment concerns !
Table 5. Green consumer decision
H4b: Green future estimation ! 0.059 4.471 0.000 0.036 0.086 Yes
Estimation of the Environment concerns !
mediating effects of Green consumer decision
environmental
concerns Source: Authors’ own creation

consumer behavior, in apparent contradiction with some earlier studies (Ansu-Mensah,

2021; Chen and Chang, 2012; Zhuang et al., 2021), but resonating with Nekmahmud and
Fekete-Farkas (2020) concerning the lack of support for the perceived quality latent variable.
However, when environmental concerns are considered as a mediator, there is a significant
effect of GPBs and GPQ on green consumer decisions. As a result, environmental
consciousness amplifies the effect of perceived benefits and quality on green purchasing
decisions. Green awareness price and GFE directly have a direct impact on environmental
concerns and consumer decisions toward green choices. These constructs mirror consumers’
awareness of green product pricing and their projection of the future benefits of green
consumption, respectively. These factors have a direct impact on green consumer behavior,
according to prior research (Ansu-Mensah, 2021; Nekmahmud and Fekete-Farkas, 2020).
The critical point here is that the influence of the price of green consciousness and the
estimation of the green future on green consumer behavior is reinforced when these factors
simultaneously increase the level of green consumers’ environmental concerns. This does
not mean these factors are only significant when environmental concerns are heightened.
Rather, their influence is more pronounced in that scenario. In other words, consumers’
awareness of green product pricing and their anticipation of the future benefits of green
consumption not only directly sway their green behavior but also indirectly encourage green
consumption by amplifying green consumers’ environmental concerns. This complexity
adds depth to our understanding of how various factors shape green consumer behavior.

5.2 Theoretical implications

Rational choice theory posits that individuals evaluate various alternatives to optimize their
utility. But how does this estimated utility reach a level compelling enough for a consumer
to opt for a green product? Our findings suggest that mere tangible or technical benefits may
not suffice to trigger the decision. While GPBs and GPQ are necessary, they do not directly
result in green consumer decision-making. Instead, they enhance environmental concerns,
substantially influencing green consumer decision-making. Environment concerns
encompass values, beliefs and knowledge regarding environmental benefits and risks. Our
results suggest that the decision process is mainly affected by the degree of environmental
concerns experienced by the consumer. From this observation, we extract insights of both
theoretical and methodological significance. A central topic in the literature on green Navigating the
consumption behavior has been the identification of its key determinants. These are usually green maze
modeled as exogenous variables or as latent constructs, with minimal interactions amongst
them. This approach is recurrent, with examples manifesting in studies such as
Nekmahmud and Fekete-Farkas (2020), Gomes et al. (2023) and Mahmoud et al. (2022).
This study challenges this insulated perspective by going further and suggesting that a
complex, integrated, latent process may better explain how a green consumption decision is
formed. Consumers’ decisions to acquire green products seem to be influenced by a complex 875
mix of rational evaluations, psychological aspects and future-oriented thinking. In our
model, the whole is complex by design and overweighs the sum of its individual parts, as
green latent factors load positively on environmental concerns, impacting green purchase
decisions. As a result, factors may significantly influence green behavior by indirectly
contributing to the latent complex process, even if no empirical support for its individual
and direct influence is found. This is the main finding implied by our results. This
observation may help reconcile theory with apparent contradictory empirical results in the
literature, such as those previously mentioned regarding the effect of GPQ.
Methodologically, we anticipate such a complex framework could be further enhanced by
developing models with higher order constructs, which allow for a higher abstract
dimension while simultaneously assessing more concrete subdimensions, in the fashion of
Sarstedt et al. (2019). An alternative approach could entail devising models that
accommodate more extensive interactions between latent constructs, contingent upon
managing the resulting increase in degrees of freedom.

5.3 Practical and social implications

The main practical takeaway from this study is that businesses should target and contribute
to elevating environmental awareness. The substantial mediating function of environmental
concerns in green consumer decisions highlights the relevance of strategies that promote
awareness and magnify the value of environment-friendly behaviors. This can involve
releasing educational campaigns, partnering with ecological organizations or using
marketing methods that underscore the environmental advantages of green products. Our
results suggest businesses should embrace a holistic and integrated strategy to promote
green consumption. This strategy includes creating premium, beneficial eco-friendly
products, properly communicating these benefits, dealing with the cost factor, stressing the
future impact of eco-friendly options and also nurturing environmental awareness amongst
consumers. Such a comprehensive strategy can add to a firm’s sustainable growth and
sustain the wider global agenda of environmental sustainability.
A granular view of our study highlights the important role environmental concerns play
in green consumer decision-making as a direct influencer and a mediator in the connection
between the perceived benefits and quality of green products and consumer decisions. This
finding suggests that the responsibility of companies extends beyond merely providing
green products, as firms need to support an environmentally aware consumer base
proactively. The perceived quality of green products, along with the perceived benefits of
these products, was revealed to substantially impact environmental concerns and, indirectly,
green consumer decisions. Therefore, businesses should guarantee that their green products
satisfy high-quality standards and offer clear and concrete advantages that surpass those of
non-green alternatives. These benefits should be successfully communicated to customers,
stressing the direct link between using green products and promoting environmental
well-being. The pricing of green products likewise plays a considerable function, as our
results highlight the value of green awareness prices. Its impact on both environmental
SAMPJ concerns and green consumer decisions reveals that pricing strategies should be sensitive to
15,4 the perceived cost–benefit analysis of consumers. Businesses should justify the premium
pricing by explaining the long-term environmental benefits and the reasons behind the cost,
such as ethical sourcing and higher manufacturing standards. In addition, this study points
to the value of GFE. Businesses should emphasize the future sustainability effects of using
their products, underscoring exactly how selecting their green products adds to broader
876 environmental sustainability. This might entail using future-oriented marketing messages,
hence appealing to customers’ long-term environmental consciousness.
The practical implications of this study also extend to a considerable social dimension
that is worthy of note. The solid impact of environmental concerns on green consumer
decision-making highlights the demand for broader social shifts in environmental
awareness. Through environmental education in schools, policy incentives for environment-
friendly behaviors and media campaigns, society at large can support an environmentally
conscious citizenry inclined toward green consumption. Additionally, the finding that
perceived benefits and perceived quality of green products substantially affect
environmental concerns highlights the value of consumer education. This is not just about
the environmental advantages of eco-friendly products but also their personal benefits, such
as health and wellness improvements or cost savings in the long term.
Moreover, the role of GFE in influencing both environmental concerns and green
consumer decision-making is a call to action for society. To highlight the lasting
sustainability impacts of our consumption choices, there is a demand for a social discourse
that is future-oriented and, as such, focused on the sustainability of our planet. Lastly, our
results on the impact of green awareness prices on environmental concerns and green
consumer decisions have implications for social equity. If environment-friendly products are
regarded as costly and unattainable by lower income segments of society, this can
potentially aggravate social inequalities. Therefore, policy interventions may be needed to
make eco-friendly products more affordable, such as subsidies for green products or
taxation on non-green alternatives, to ensure that sustainable consumption is within
everyone’s reach.

5.4 Limitations and future research

While enlightening, this research study presents certain limitations that provide direction
for future research. Our sample demographic displayed a skew toward women, younger
people and individuals with lower incomes. These characteristics may condition the
accessibility of acquiring green products because of numerous factors, such as income
restraints and generational mindsets toward environment-friendly consumption. Although
some studies point in this direction, there is still no consensus in the literature. As an
example, Witek and Kuzniar (2021) found that green purchase behavior is not associated
with specific education or age levels. Consequently, future research may explore how results
respond to diversified samples regarding gender, age and income levels.
Furthermore, the sample reveals a concentration of responses from participants between
age 18 and 22 (60.4%) and students (53.8%). As such, the participants are mostly young
people from Generation Z, and the results obtained in this study can reflect the green
consumption behaviors of this generation. Based on the existing literature on generational
cohorts, it can be acknowledged that consumer actions differ across generations. In this
research study, we did not consider sociodemographic variables that could mediate the
connection between environmental concerns and green consumer decision-making. It would
be interesting to examine this model across various generational cohorts (e.g. Generation X,
Millennials and Generation Z) to contrast green orientations, environmental concerns and Navigating the
green consumer decisions. green maze
On the other hand, our research study focused on consumers who already have a habit of
consuming green products. Future studies might likewise explore the actions of consumers
who do not presently consume green products to identify their tendency to select environment-
friendly consumption options. This would undoubtedly expand our understanding of the
elements that could potentially convert non-green consumers into green consumers.
Despite being comprehensive and sustained by literature, the determinants we have 877
adopted in this research study do not exhaust the possible influences on green consumer
orientation. Variables such as willingness to pay more for green products, information-
gathering behaviors concerning sustainability, consumers’ understanding of greenwashing,
everyday sustainable practices, as well as various other elements such as collectivism and
sustainable citizenship, might be taken into consideration. Including these variables may
potentially generate new, perhaps more complex, insights into green consumer behavior.
As a final observation, this study’s cross-sectional nature provides us with a snapshot in
time, leaving the evolution of these dynamics uncharted. Future research may also consider
developing a longitudinal study to comprehend the patterns and adjustments in green
consumer behavior over time.

6. Conclusion
This research study provides informed perspectives on the complexities of green consumer
behavior. The connections uncovered – between diverse green orientation determinants,
consumers’ environmental concerns and their eventual green consumer decisions – offer
insights into the intricate mechanisms of sustainable consumption. On the one hand, perceived
benefits and quality significantly influence consumers’ green behavior when they enhance
environmental concerns. On the other hand, consumers’ awareness of green product pricing
and their expectancy of the future benefits of environment-friendly consumption not only
directly persuade their green behavior but also indirectly motivate green consumption by
intensifying consumers’ environmental concerns. The clear spotlight on environmental
concerns as a significant mediator enriches our understanding of green consumer actions by
showing how environmental awareness links with perceived benefits, perceived quality, price
awareness and future estimations to form environment-friendly decisions.
From a practical point of view, these findings light up several courses that businesses
and policymakers can take to successfully promote eco-friendly consumer decisions. By
highlighting the centrality of environmental concerns in green consumer decision-making,
the outcomes of this study underscore the need for strategies to support environmental
consciousness amongst consumers. For businesses, specifically those in industries with a
considerable ecological footprint, these findings suggest the need to express the ecological
advantages of their products more clearly, ensure the quality of green products, justify the
pricing and also project the future sustainability ramifications of their usage. This can entail
considerable changes in product design, pricing strategies, marketing communication and
global business strategy, emphasizing the comprehensive implications of our research
study. For policymakers, the substantial mediating function of environmental concerns
highlights the relevance of policies and programs to elevate environmental awareness. From
school curricula incorporating environmental education to public projects concerning the
effect of consumption choices on the environment, there is a clear mandate for policy
interventions to improve ecological awareness.
Our research study stresses that promoting green consumer decisions calls for a
multi-pronged strategy, emphasizing the essential mediating role of environmental
SAMPJ concerns alongside the direct determinants of such decisions. This insight is very
15,4 useful for designing far-reaching and effective strategies to encourage sustainable
consumption. This way, our research study adds to the academic discussion on green
customer behavior and the practical initiatives required to effectively promote
sustainable consumption.

878 References
Al Mamun, A., Mohamad, M.R., Yaacob, M.R.B. and Mohiuddin, M. (2018), “Intention and behavior
towards green consumption among low-income households”, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 227, pp. 73-86.
Amin, S. and Tarun, M.T. (2021), “Effect of consumption values on customers’ green purchase intention:
a mediating role of green trust”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 1320-1336.
Ansu-Mensah, P. (2021), “Green product awareness effect on green purchase intentions of university
students’: an emerging market’s perspective”, Future Business Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 48.
Antonetti, P. and Maklan, S. (2014), “Feelings that make a difference: how guilt and pride convince
consumers of the effectiveness of sustainable consumption choices”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 117-134.
Barbu, A., Catana, S, -A., Deselnicu, D.C., Cioca, L.-I. and Ioanid, A. (2022), “Factors influencing
consumer behavior toward green products: a systematic literature review”, International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 19 No. 24, p. 16568.
Berger, J. (2019), “Signaling can increase consumers’ willingness to pay for green products. Theoretical
model and experimental evidence”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 233-246.
Boivin, C., Fabien, D., Lova, R. and Francine, R. (2016), “Understanding green consumption: is perceived
consumer effectiveness a predictor of green behaviour?”, Cham, pp. 27-31.
Chauhan, V.Z. (2020), “Value-Action gap towards green consumer behavior: a theoretical review and
analysis”, International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT), Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
Chekima, B., Oswald, A.I., Wafa, S.A.W.S.K. and Chekima, K. (2017), “Narrowing the gap: factors
driving organic food consumption”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 166, pp. 1438-1447.
Chen, Y.S. and Chang, C.H. (2012), “Enhance green purchase intentions”, Management Decision, Vol. 50
No. 3, pp. 502-520.
Chen, Y.S. and Chang, C.H. (2013), “Towards green trust”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 63-82.
Chen, K. and Deng, T. (2016), “Research on the green purchase intentions from the perspective of
product knowledge”, Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 9, p. 943.
Chen, C.-C., Chen, C.-W. and Tung, Y.-C. (2018), “Exploring the consumer behavior of intention to
purchase green products in belt and road countries: an empirical analysis”, Sustainability, Vol. 10
No. 3, p. 854.
Chen, L., Wu, Q. and Jiang, L. (2022), “Impact of environmental concern on ecological purchasing
behavior: the moderating effect of prosociality”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 5, p. 3004.
Chen, S., Qiu, H., Xiao, H., He, W., Mou, J. and Siponen, M. (2021), “Consumption behavior of eco-friendly
products and applications of ICT innovation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 287, p. 125436.
Chen, Y.-S., Lin, C.-Y. and Weng, C.-S. (2015), “The influence of environmental friendliness on green
trust: the mediation effects of green satisfaction and green perceived quality”, Sustainability,
Vol. 7 No. 8, pp. 10135-10152.
Coleman, L.J., Bahnan, N., Kelkar, M. and Curry, N. (2011), “Walking the walk: how the theory of
reasoned action explains adult and student intentions to go green”, Journal of Applied Business
Research (JABR), Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 107-116.
Cox, G.W. (1999), “The empirical content of rational choice theory: a reply to green and Shapiro”, Navigating the
Journal of Theoretical Politics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 147-169.
green maze
Dabija, D.-C., Bejan, B.M. and Pus, cas, , C. (2020), “A qualitative approach to the sustainable orientation
of generation Z in retail: the case of Romania”, Journal of Risk and Financial Management,
Vol. 13 No. 7, p. 152.
Datta, S.K. (2011), “Pro-environmental concern influencing green buying: a study on indian
consumers”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 6, p. 124.
Dean, D. and Croft, R. (2009), “Reason and choice: a conceptual study of consumer decision making and
879
electoral behavior”, Journal of Political Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 130-146.
Djafarova, E. and Foots, S. (2022), “Exploring ethical consumption of generation Z: theory of planned
behaviour”, Young Consumers, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 413-431.
Echegaray, F. and Hansstein, F.V. (2017), “Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic waste
recycling: the case of Brazil”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142, pp. 180-190.
Feil, A.A., Cyrne, C.C.D S., Sindelar, F.C.W., Barden, J.E. and Dalmoro, M. (2020), “Profiles of
sustainable food consumption: consumer behavior toward organic food in Southern region of
Brazil”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 258, p. 120690.
Fraccascia, L., Ceccarelli, G. and Dangelico, R.M. (2023), “Green products from industrial symbiosis: Are
consumers ready for them?”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 189, p. 122395.
Gelderman, C.J., Schijns, J., Lambrechts, W. and Vijgen, S. (2021), “Green marketing as an
environmental practice: the impact on green satisfaction and green loyalty in a business-to-
business context”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 2061-2076.
Gil, M.T. and Jacob, J. (2018), “The relationship between green perceived quality and green purchase
intention: a three-path mediation approach using green satisfaction and green trust”, International
Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, p. 301.
Gomes, S., Lopes, J.M. and Nogueira, S. (2023), “Willingness to pay more for green products: a critical
challenge for gen Z”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 390, p. 136092.
Goriparthi, R.K. and Tallapally, M. (2017), “Consumers’ attitude in green purchasing”, FIIB Business
Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 34-44.
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.
Ha, H.Y. and Janda, S. (2012), “Predicting consumer intentions to purchase energy-efficient products”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 461-469.
Habib, R., White, K., Hardisty, D.J. and Zhao, J. (2021), “Shifting consumer behavior to address climate
change”, Current Opinion in Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 108-113.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Hair, J.J.F., Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L.M. and Ringle, C.M. (2016), “Identifying and treating unobserved
heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I – method”, European Business Review, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 63-76.
Hazaea, S.A., Al-Matari, E.M., Zedan, K., Khatib, S.F.A., Zhu, J. and Al Amosh, H. (2022), “Green
purchasing: past, present and future”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 9, p. 5008.
Hong, Z., Wang, H. and Gong, Y. (2019), “Green product design considering functional-product reference”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 210, pp. 155-168.
Hosta, M. and Zabkar, V. (2021), “Antecedents of environmentally and socially responsible sustainable
consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 171 No. 2, pp. 273-293.
Islam, M.S. and Zabin, I. (2013), “Consumer’s attitude towards purchasing green food”, Eur. J. Bus.
Manag, Vol. 5, pp. 35-43.
SAMPJ Jervis, R.L. (1978), “Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment, by
Irving Janis and Leon mann”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 134-135.
15,4
Johnstone, M.-L. and Tan, L.P. (2015), “Exploring the gap between consumers’ green rhetoric and
purchasing behaviour”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 132 No. 2, pp. 311-328.
Joshi, Y. and Rahman, Z. (2015), “Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research
directions”, International Strategic Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 1-2, pp. 128-143.
880 Khare, A. (2015), “Antecedents to green buying behaviour: a study on consumers in an emerging
economy”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 309-329.
Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A., Dermody, J. and Urbye, A. (2014), “Consumers’ evaluations of ecological
packaging – rational and emotional approaches”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 37,
pp. 94-105.
Kumar, A., Prakash, G. and Kumar, G. (2021), “Does environmentally responsible purchase intention
matter for consumers? A predictive sustainable model developed through an empirical study”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 58, p. 102270.
Legere, A. and Kang, J. (2020), “The role of self-concept in shaping sustainable consumption: a model of
slow fashion”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 258, p. 120699.
Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C. (2016), “Understanding customer experience throughout the customer
journey”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. 69-96.
Liang, J., Li, J. and Lei, Q. (2022), “Exploring the influence of environmental values on green
consumption behavior of apparel: a chain multiple mediation model among chinese generation
Z”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 19, p. 12850.
Liao, Y.-K., Wu, W.-Y. and Pham, T.-T. (2020), “Examining the moderating effects of green marketing
and green psychological benefits on customers’ green attitude, value and purchase intention”,
Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 18, p. 7461.
Liebe, U. and Preisendörfer, P. (2010), “Rational choice theory and the environment: variants, applications,
and new trends”, in Gross, M. and Heinrichs, H. (Eds), Environmental Sociology: European
Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Challenges, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 141-157.
Lin, C.-Y. and Syrgabayeva, D. (2016), “Mechanism of environmental concern on intention to pay more
for renewable energy: application to a developing country”, Asia Pacific Management Review,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 125-134.
Lin, J., Lobo, A. and Leckie, C. (2017), “The role of benefits and transparency in shaping consumers’
green perceived value, self-brand connection and brand loyalty”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 35, pp. 133-141.
Ling, P.-S., Chin, C.-H., Yi, J. and Wong, W.P.M. (2023), “Green consumption behaviour among generation Z
college students in China: the moderating role of government support”, Young Consumers.
Lopes, J.M., Pinho, M. and Gomes, S. (2023), “Green to gold: consumer circular choices may boost
circular business models”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, pp. 1-29.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Gustafsson, A., Jaakkola, E., Klaus, P., Radnor, Z.J., Perks, H. and Friman, M.
(2015), “Fresh perspectives on customer experience”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29
Nos 6/7, pp. 430-435.
Mahmoud, M.A., Tsetse, E.K.K., Tulasi, E.E. and Muddey, D.K. (2022), “Green packaging,
environmental awareness, willingness to pay and consumers’ purchase decisions”, Sustainability,
Vol. 14 No. 23, p. 16091.
Majeed, A., Ahmed, I. and Rasheed, A. (2022), “Investigating influencing factors on consumers’ choice
behavior and their environmental concerns while purchasing green products in Pakistan”,
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 1110-1134.
Mishal, A., Dubey, R., Gupta, O.K. and Luo, Z. (2017), “Dynamics of environmental consciousness and
green purchase behaviour: an empirical study”, International Journal of Climate Change
Strategies and Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 682-706.
Mishra, V. and Kulshreshtha, K. (2023), “Green product purchase decision: a conceptual model of Navigating the
factors influencing the decision of Indian consumers”, British Food Journal, Vol. 125 No. 9,
pp. 3160-3174.
green maze
Mostafa, M.M. (2006), “Antecedents of Egyptian consumers’ green purchase intentions”, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 97-126.
Musova, Z., Musa, H., Drugdova, J., Lazaroiu, G. and Alayasa, J. (2021), “Consumer attitudes towards
new circular models in the fashion industry”, Journal of Competitiveness, Vol. 13 No. 3, p. 111.
Nekmahmud, M. and Fekete-Farkas, M. (2020), “Why not green marketing? Determinates of consumers’
881
intention to green purchase decision in a new developing nation”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 19,
p. 7880.
Nogueira, E., Gomes, S. and Lopes, J.M. (2023), “A meta-regression analysis of environmental
sustainability practices and firm performance”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 426, p. 139048.
O’Rourke, D. and Ringer, A. (2016), “The impact of sustainability information on consumer decision
making”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 882-892.
Papadopoulou, M., Papasolomou, I. and Thrassou, A. (2022), “Exploring the level of sustainability
awareness among consumers within the fast-fashion clothing industry: a dual business and
consumer perspective”, Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 350-375.
Park, H.J. and Lin, L.M. (2020), “Exploring attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption:
comparison of recycled and upcycled fashion products”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 117,
pp. 623-628.
Parker, H., Bhatti, W.A., Chwialkowska, A. and Marais, T. (2023), “Factors influencing green purchases:
an emerging market perspective”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 865-876.
Penz, E. and Hogg, M.K. (2011), “The role of mixed emotions in consumer behaviour”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 45 Nos 1/2, pp. 104-132.
Prakash, G., Singh, P.K., Ahmad, A. and Kumar, G. (2023), “Trust, convenience and environmental
concern in consumer purchase intention for organic food”, Spanish Journal of Marketing – ESIC,
Vol. 27 No. 3.
Ribeiro, M.A., Seyfi, S., Elhoushy, S., Woosnam, K.M. and Patwardhan, V. (2023), “Determinants of
generation Z pro-environmental travel behaviour: the moderating role of green consumption
values”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, pp. 1-21.
Riva, F., Magrizos, S., Rubel, M.R.B. and Rizomyliotis, I. (2022), “Green consumerism, green perceived
value, and restaurant revisit intention: Millennials’ sustainable consumption with moderating
effect of green perceived quality”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 31 No. 7,
pp. 2807-2819.
Saari, U.A., Damberg, S., Frömbling, L. and Ringle, C.M. (2021), “Sustainable consumption behavior of
Europeans: the influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental
concern and behavioral intention”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 189, p. 107155.
Saleem, M.A., Eagle, L. and Low, D. (2018), “Market segmentation based on eco-socially conscious
consumers’ behavioral intentions: evidence from an emerging economy”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 193, pp. 14-27.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Cheah, J.-H., Becker, J.-M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “How to specify, estimate, and
validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 197-211.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Bohlen, G.M. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996), “The link between green purchasing
decisions and measures of environmental consciousness”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 35-55.
Sharma, A.P. (2021), “Consumers’ purchase behaviour and green marketing: a synthesis, review and
agenda”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1217-1238.
SAMPJ Sharma, K. and Bansal, M. (2013), “Environmental consciousness, its antecedents and behavioural
outcomes”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 198-214.
15,4
Sharma, K., Aswal, C. and Paul, J. (2023), “Factors affecting green purchase behavior: a systematic
literature review”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 2078-2092.
Shen, M. and Wang, J. (2022), “The impact of pro-environmental awareness components on green
consumption behavior: the moderation effect of consumer perceived cost, policy incentives, and
face culture”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 1-13.
882
Su, C.-H., Tsai, C.-H., Chen, M.-H. and Lv, W.Q. (2019), “U.S. Sustainable food market generation Z
consumer segments”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 13, p. 3607.
Suki, N.M. (2013), “Green awareness effects on consumers’ purchasing decision: some insights from
Malaysia”, International Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 49-63.
Tian, Z., Sun, X., Wang, J., Su, W. and Li, G. (2022), “Factors affecting green purchase intention: a
perspective of ethical decision making”, International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, Vol. 19 No. 18, p. 11151.
Todaro, N.M., Testa, F., Daddi, T. and Iraldo, F. (2019), “Antecedents of environmental management system
internalization: assessing managerial interpretations and cognitive framings of sustainability issues”,
Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 247, pp. 804-815.
Turaga, R.M.R., Howarth, R.B. and Borsuk, M.E. (2010), “Pro-environmental behavior”, Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1185 No. 1, pp. 211-224.
Wang, J., Shen, M. and Chu, M. (2021), “Why is green consumption easier said than done? Exploring the
green consumption attitude-intention gap in China with behavioral reasoning theory”, Cleaner
and Responsible Consumption, Vol. 2, p. 100015.
Wang, J., Yang, X., He, Z., Wang, J., Bao, J. and Gao, J. (2022), “The impact of positive emotional appeals
on the green purchase behavior”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 1-16.
Wasaya, A., Saleem, M.A., Ahmad, J., Nazam, M., Khan, M.M.A. and Ishfaq, M. (2021), “Impact of green
trust and green perceived quality on green purchase intentions: a moderation study”,
Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 13418-13435.
Wei, C.-F., Chiang, C.-T., Kou, T.-C. and Lee, B.C.Y. (2017), “Toward sustainable livelihoods:
investigating the drivers of purchase behavior for green products”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 626-639.
Wiederhold, M. and Martinez, L.F. (2018), “Ethical consumer behaviour in Germany: the attitude-
behaviour gap in the green apparel industry”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 42
No. 4, pp. 419-429.
Witek, L. and Kuzniar, W. (2021), “Green purchase behavior: the effectiveness of sociodemographic
variables for explaining green purchases in emerging market”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 1, p. 209.
Yang, S., Su, Y., Wang, W. and Hua, K. (2019), “Research on developers’ green procurement behavior
based on the theory of planned behavior”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 10, p. 2949.
Zhang, X. and Dong, F. (2020), “Why do consumers make green purchase decisions? Insights from a systematic
review”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 18, p. 6607.
Zhang, N., Guo, M., Bu, X. and Jin, C. (2023), “Understanding green loyalty: a literature review based on
bibliometric-content analysis”, Heliyon, Vol. 9 No. 7, p. e18029.
Zhuang, W., Luo, X. and Riaz, M.U. (2021), “On the factors influencing green purchase intention: a meta-
analysis approach”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 1-15.
Appendix 1. Questionnaire available at https://shorturl.at/hjwZ3 Navigating the
green maze
Appendix 2

Varimax-rotated loading factor (F)

Confirmatory 883
factor load F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 Communality

Environmental concerns
EC1 0.736 0.720 0.705
EC2 0.832 0.762 0.741
EC3 0.827 0.726 0.759
EC4 0.758 0.728 0.769
Green perceived benefits
GPB1 0.825 0.708 0.702
GPB2 0.726 0.763 0.800
GPB3 0.854 0.705 0.729
Green perceived quality
GPQ1 0.705 0.775
GPQ2 0.764 0.721
Green awareness price
GAP1 0.758 0.763 0.739
GAP2 0.747 0.762 0.759
GAP3 0.745 0.725 0.745
Green future estimation
GFE1 0.790 0.798 0.731
GFE2 0.789 0.769 0.724
GFE3 0.838 0.708 0.786
GFE4 0.810 0.700 0.731
Green consumer decision
GCD1 0.847 0.882 0.896
GCD2 0.751 0.824 0.811
GCD3 0.728 0.792 0.723
Table A1.
GCD4 0.837 0.738 0.733 Results of factor
analysis (EFA and
Source: Authors’ own creation CFA)

Corresponding author
João M. Lopes can be contacted at: joao.lopes.1987@hotmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com