Received: 6 March 2019 Revised: 7 June 2019 Accepted: 7 June 2019

DOI: 10.1002/bsd2.82

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Determinants of pro‐environmental behavior and

environmentally conscious consumer behavior: An empirical
investigation from emerging market

Pradeep Kautish | Rajesh Sharma

School of Management Studies, Mody

University of Science and Technology, Abstract
Lakshmangarh, India Given the due importance of environmentally conscious consumer behavior (ECCB)

Correspondence
Pradeep Kautish, Associate Professor—
Marketing Area, School of Management
Studies, Mody University of Science and
Technology, Lakshmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan,
India.
Email: pradeep.kautish@gmail.com
and willingness to be environmentally friendly (WEF), the aim of this paper is to study
the relationships between the determinants of pro‐environmental behavior (e.g., per-
ceived behavioral control, environmental knowledge, environmental concern, and
perceived environmental consequences), with ECCB and WEF. The proposed theo-
retical model is grounded in marketing literature, extends the theory of planned
behavior, and empirically tested in the Indian market. A survey with questionnaire
was administered to gather data from 510 respondents from the state capital of
the country. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses; the
results confirm adequate support for the theory of planned behavior and proposed
theoretical model. In addition, ECCB found to be significantly influenced by the con-
sumers' environmental knowledge, and perceived environmental consequences, and
environmental concern was significantly related to WEF. The study implies that green
marketers should direct their marketing efforts towards integrating these four pro‐
environmental behavior determinants in order to facilitate the ECCB and WEF for
green products. For promoting the ECCB, green marketers should strengthen envi-
ronmental knowledge and perceived environmental consequences to target con-
sumers, and for augmenting the WEF, they should improve the environment
concern among consumers. This study contributes to the mainstream literature by
ascertaining the distinctive impact of the four noteworthy determinants of pro‐
environmental behavior on ECCB and WEF in emerging markets.

K E Y W OR D S

environmental behavior, green consumers, green marketing, India, pro‐environmental, willingness

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N (Smart, 2010; Spangenberg, 2004). The beginning of 19th century,

Over the last few decades, the world witnessed unprecedented
and exponential growth in environmental deterioration (Ehrlich &
Ehrlich, 2012; Mishal, Dubey, Gupta, & Luo, 2017); thus, it is well
momentous to the rising consumer awareness about the devastating
effects of human activities on the natural environment of the planet
the economic activities transformed human life in order to facilitate
industrial and corporate evolved strategically revolutionary environ-
mental marketing practices in order to grow in commercial markets
(Orsato, 2006; Ottman, Stafford, & Hartman, 2006; Straughan &
Roberts, 1999). Marketers envisaged innovative green practices that
increased the modern consumers' cognitive indulgence and intensified

Bus Strat Dev. 2019;1–16. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bsd2 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment 1
2 KAUTISH AND SHARMA
environmentally sensitive information landscape that consumers, in
turn, started sharing concerns, apprehensions, opinions, and experi-
ences about environmental friendly (EF) products and green compa-
nies (Caruana & Crane, 2008; Epstein & Buhovac, 2014; Gronhoj,
2006; Moser, 2015).
Moreover, consumers persistently receive information from the
companies in varied forms, that is, ecolabeling, EF product promotions,
green innovations, and sustainable consumerism (D'Souza, Taghian, &
Khosla, 2007; D'Souza, Taghian, & Lamb, 2006; Moisander & Pesonen,
2002; Tanner & Kast, 2003). Millson (2012) revealed that even
technology‐based products' customers get positively influenced by
publicly available information about environmental sustainability, and
perception gets formed by such information about the products
(Khare, 2015). Owing to the industries supported environmental
movements, consumers are increasingly getting engaged in the EF
decision processes, that is, willingness to be environmentally friendly
(WEF; Laroche, Bergeron, & Forleo, 2001; Lee, 2011; Van Doorn &
Verhoef, 2011; Vlosky, Ozanne, & Fontenot, 1999) and environmen-
tally conscious consumer behavior (ECCB; Brown & Wahlers, 1998;
Follows & Jobber, 2000; Schwepkar & Cornwell, 1991). Many
researchers over the last four decades suggest that ECCB, in
particular, has emerged as a multidimensional phenomenon in green
marketing domain (Anderson & Cunningham, 1972; Antil, 1984;
Jansson, Marell, & Nordlund, 2010; Kinnear, Taylor, & Ahmed, 1974;
Kumar, Manrai, & Manrai, 2017; Murphy, Kangun, & Locander, 1978;
Wagner, 2003).
The present study aims to extend and expand the green marketing
research with pro‐environmental behavioral patterns learned from lit-
erature review and significantly decisive constructs WEF and ECCB.
Precisely, we propose (a) to empirically test the relationships between
four pro‐environmental behavioral patterns, (b) to develop theoretical
explanations and novel operational measures of pro‐environmental
behavior patterns, and (c) to commend and test an integrated theoret-
ical model based on relationships between each of the pro‐
environmental behavioral patterns and the two constructs of the EF
behavior, namely, WEF and ECCB, in the context of the Indian market.
Given the nature and magnitude of our literature's contribution,
the remainder of the current research paper is structured as follows.
We begin by offering the theoretical and conceptual background;
next, we review the perspectives of EF behavior from four diverse
points of views. Subsequently, we present research design and the
measurement procedures of the core constructs identified and chosen
for the present study. The concluding sections comprise results,
discussion on the study, managerial implications, limitations, and direc-
tions for future research.
2 | T HE O R E T I CA L B A CK GR O U N D A N D
H Y P O T H E S E S D E V EL O P M EN T
The EF consumer behavior research broadly falls into few behavioral
streams (Karp, 1996), and hitherto review of the scholarly work on
environmental marketing research confirms that ECCB is immensely
influenced inter alia by descriptive ideas with respect to environmen-
tal knowledge (EK; Mostafa, 2007), environmental concern (EC; Kim
& Choi, 2005; Minton & Rose, 1997; Mostafa, 2007; Roberts &
Bacon, 1997), and psychometrical measures, that is, perceived con-
sumer effectiveness (PCE; Berger & Corbin, 1992; Ellen, Wiener, &
Cobb‐Walgren, 1991; Kim & Choi, 2005), WEF (Abdul‐Muhmin,
2007; Kautish, Paul, & Sharma, 2019; Zabkar & Hosta, 2013), and con-
sumer environment innovativeness (Englis & Phillips, 2013; Florenthal
& Arling, 2011; Stanley & Lasonde, 1996) in the contexts across
diverse demographic segments and countries (D'Souza, Taghian, Lamb,
& Peretiatkos, 2007; Kumar & Ghodeshwar, 2015; Lee, 2008; Sumesh
& Little, 2016).
Theoretical frameworks employed in past research include varied
streams, that is, nonactivation theory (Bamberg & Moser, 2007;
Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1995), theory of planned behavior (TPB;
Ajzen, 1985; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977), sustainability oriented market-
ing (Fuller, 1999), sustainable consumption (Burgess, 2003), and
pro‐environmental orientation (Milfont, Duckitt, & Cameron, 2006).
Many marketing scholars perceive ECCB as a component of planned
pro‐environmental behavior (Fielding, McDonald, & Louis, 2008;
Kalafatis, Pollard, East, & Tsogas, 1999), consequently, often charac-
terize the customer willingness to recommend and purchase EF
products (Trivedi, Patel, & Savalia, 2015), which is a strong measure
of consumer's socially responsible consumption (Webb, Mohr, &
Harris, 2008). Heo and Muralidharan (2017) examined the interrela-
tionships among few major environmental antecedents, such as EK,
PCE, and EC on ECCB. However, there is a dearth of empirical
research to examine the determinants of few other pro‐
environmental behavior such as perceived behavioral control, WEF,
and ECCB.
Marketing scholars (see Assael, 1998; Bhate, 2002) have expressed
the view that for consumer, it is more difficult to use a new product, it
is likely to be less acceptable for them, and such psychological
complexity needs only to be perceived to inhibit the diffusion of the
innovation in the market including a green consumer segment. The lit-
erature on environmental marketing attempted to profile EF consumer
segments using a variety of variables (Jaiswal & Kant, 2018; Kilbourne
& Beckmann, 1998); some of them includes base‐of‐pyramid
consumers (Zhao, Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2016), individualistic issues and
consequences such as demographic, psychographic, environmental
and behavioral criterion (Paço & Raposo, 2009; Paço, Raposo, & Filho,
2010), self‐transcendence, conservation, and self‐enhancement values
(Follows & Jobber, 2000), and economic dimensions, that is, price
effects and consumer responses for green products (Choi & Ng,
2011). Few pro‐environmental factors received visibility in society
such as sustainable food consumption (Vermeire & Verbeke, 2006),
recycling (Bagozzi & Dabholkar, 1994; Kautish et al., 2019), carbon
labeling (Zhao & Zhong, 2015), climate change and environmental
activism (Segun, Pelletier, & Hunsley, 1998), global warming, ozone
layer damage, and environment pollution (Bagozzi, 2006; Coddington,
1993). Thus, in the next sections, we will describe some of the prom-
inent pro‐environmental determinants, which have been operational-
ized in the current study.
KAUTISH AND SHARMA
3 | PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL
(P BC )
The TPB is the most proximal explanation of individual's intentions to
engage in any behavior pattern (Ajzen, 1985, 2002). In turn, behavioral
intentions are predicted by three main components—perceived behav-
ioral control, attitudes, and subjective norms (Nath, Agrawal, Gautam,
& Sharma, 2017; Perugini & Bagozzi, 2004). Typically, attitude refers
to the overall positive or negative evaluation of carrying out any
particular behavior. Subjective norms are based on the individual's
perception and reflection of past experiences and behavior patterns
(Ajzen, 2002; Kalafatis et al., 1999; Kautish & Dash, 2017). Perceived
behavioral control reveals the extent to which individuals perceive
the behavior to be under their volitional control. According to TPB,
individuals who hold positive attitude towards the environment turns
to have normative support for engaging in EF behavior (Liobikienė,
Mandravickaitė, & Bernatonienė, 2016; Mancha & Yoder, 2015),
and because of favorable perception and/or past experiences, they
easily get associated with strong intentions for behavior (Zavali &
Theodoropoulou, 2018).
Many researches have portrayed TPB in different walks of life and
transitions of positive attitude, subjective norms, favorable perception,
and individually controlled experiences conducted on different forms
of environmental issues, that is, sustainable agricultural practices
(Beedell & Rehman, 1999; Carr & Tait, 1991; Fielding, Terry, Masser,
& Hogg, 2008), recycling behavior (Boldero, 1995; Cheung, Chan, &
Wong, 1999; Kautish et al., 2019; McCarthy & Shrum, 1994; Taylor
& Todd, 1995), energy use (Harland, Staats, & Wilkie, 1999),
composting (Taylor & Todd, 1995), and water conservation (Harland
et al., 1999; Kantola, Syme, & Campbell, 1982). In addition to this,
the implications of ecological awareness, which lead to perceived
behavioral control and EK, have been studied with the bottom line
effect of greening from consumer viewpoints as well as marketers in
light of the modern societies (Alwitt & Pitts, 1996; Kautish & Sharma,
2018). Rooted in Ajzen's (1985) conceptualization of the intentions to
act and TPB along with empirical findings of research conducted by so
many researchers such as Fielding, McDonald, and Louis (2008),
Fielding, Terry, et al. (2008), Balderjahn (1988), and Yadav and Pathak
(2016), we posit the following two hypotheses:
H1. PBC has a direct and positive effect on EK.
H4. PBC has a direct and positive effect on ECCB.
4 | E N V I R O N M E N T A L K NO W L ED G E
EK is considered a pertinent and substantial construct that affects
how consumers gather and organize information (Alba & Hutchinson,
1987; Bettman, 1979), how the information get utilized for decision
making (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), and how consumers evaluate EF
products and green firms (Schwepkar & Cornwell, 1991). Many
scholars (Holzer & Schahn, 1990; Synodinos, 1991) expressed appre-
hensions about lack of relevant consumer information or knowledge
3
led to act in concert with environmental attitudes, which is conse-
quent to underlying psychological processes (Kalafatis et al., 1999).
Fryxell and Lo (2003) define EK as the general knowledge of facts,
concepts, and relationships concerning the natural environment and
its major ecosystems (p. 48). This knowledge requires an understand-
ing of environmental issues, concerns, and processes. Consumers with
lower levels of EK may find it difficult to make “good” and “rational”
green choices due to possible confusions during information acquisi-
tion and/or evaluation (Ellen, 1994; Kautish & Dash, 2017; Kautish &
Soni, 2012). According to Frick, Kaiser, and Wilson (2004), EK can be
alienated into three forms: (a) “system knowledge,” (b) “action‐
oriented knowledge,” and (c) “effectiveness knowledge.” Laroche
et al. (2001) has pointed out that the consumer education is seen as
an appropriate method for increasing perceived convenience for
effective targeting the green segments and establishing firms' EF cred-
ibility. Thus, EK involves what people know about the environment
(Rowlands, Daniel, & Parker, 2003), and critical relationships lead to
EF aspects or impacts (Heo & Muralidharan, 2017; Mostafa, 2007).
Notwithstanding, the importance of EK in the success of EF market-
ing, we propose these two hypotheses:
H2. EK has a direct and positive effect on EC.
H5. EK has a direct and positive effect on ECCB.
5 | E N V I RO N M E NT A L C O N C E R N
There is ample empirical evidence that the environmental research
was initially focused towards ecological challenges and concerns
(Bamberg, 2003; Jones & Dunlap, 1992; Kinnear et al., 1974), whereas
now it is in form of EC, which concentrates on consumer decision
making (Hackett, 1992a, 1993a; Zimmer, Stafford, & Stafford, 1994).
Van Liere and Dunlap (1981) provided the first of its kind measures
for EC and behavior. Conventionally, the EC is beholden as unidimen-
sional construct ranging from unconcerned about the environment at
the low end to concern at the high end, as a measure of new environ-
mental paradigm (Widegren, 1998). Furman (1998) and Jones and
Dunlap (1992) argued that EC can have a significant impact on the
degree to which individuals are motivated to change behavior as well
social practices so as to alleviate the environmental problem. Schultz
(2000) proposed that environment concerns have three distinct fac-
tors: concern for self, concern for other people, and concern for the
biosphere. Bodur and Sarigollu (2005) conducted a consumer cluster
analysis based on behaviors towards the environment, and three dis-
tinct segments were identified: actively concerned, passively con-
cerned, and unconcerned. Arnocky, Stroink, and DeCicco (2007)
found that EC mediated the relationship between self‐contrual and
pro‐environmental behavior pattern. Van Doorn and Verhoef (2011)
revealed the consumers' growing attention towards EC and willing-
ness to pay for sustainable products.
In a number of studies, EC has been found to be a major determi-
nant of buying green products (Grunert, 1993; Kim & Choi, 2005).
Hackett (1992b, 1993b) proposed a comprehensive model to
4 KAUTISH AND SHARMA
understand ECs and suggest that individuals perceive different envi-
ronmental issues differently using multiple concurrent dimensions of
environmental evaluation. Sharma and Joshi (2017) posit that depend-
ing on the level of EC, which may be high or low the influence of green
product attributes, for example, perceived relative advantage,
perceived risks, and perceived parity, on the green behavior can be
predicted. Owing to the mounting public environmentally concerned
awareness highlights the prominence of this research linkage with
green behaviors (Hansla, Gamble, Julliusson, & Garling, 2008; Hines,
Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987; Mainieri & Barnett, 1997; Paul, Modi,
& Patel, 2016) so the underlying question marketers' face is to what
extent EC is predictive of ECCB (Ellen et al., 1991). Thus, we propose
these two hypotheses:
H3. EC has a direct and positive effect on PCE.
H6. EC has a direct and positive effect on ECCB.
6 | PERCEIVED CONSUMER
EFFECTIVENESS
The environmentally conscious consumer is internally convinced to
make a difference by challenging the status quo with actions to coun-
ter the environmental deterioration (Follows & Jobber, 2000), and
they believe that really can be done for climate change (Bord,
O'Connor, & Fisher, 2000), low‐carbon emission (Du, Tang, & Song,
2016), environmental commitment (Ling‐Yee, 1997), and sustainability
(Peattie, 2001; Ramirez, Jiménez, & Gau, 2015). Wesley, Lee, and Kim
(2012) examined whether consumers care about social responsibility
by considering the relationship of PCE, motivational attitudes, and
socially responsible purchase behavior.
Berger and Corbin (1992) defined as “perceived consumer effec-
tiveness is the evaluation of the self in the context of the issue,” (p.
80–81), and it is a domain‐specific belief that the determinations of
an individual can make a change in the resolution (Ellen et al., 1991).
Usually, the PCE demarcated as a measure of the subjects' value judg-
ment in an individual capacity to understand the consequence of envi-
ronmental resource problems (Antil, 1984; Schuitema & Judith, 2015)
and is in consonance with the notion of internal locus of control
(Henion & William, 1976; Kinnear et al., 1974). The internal and exter-
nal locus of control concept got origins in the social learning theory
(Rotter, 1954) and in the concept of self‐efficacy and social cognitive
theory, which describes human behavior as a tripartite, vigorous, and
mutual interaction of personal/personality factors, behavior patterns,
and its interface with the environment (Bandura, 1977, 1986). PCE is
conceptualized as unique and separate from the attitude itself, it can
likewise be modeled separately, and it may function as more than just
a direct predictor of behavior (Antil, 1984; Berger & Corbin, 1992).
EK and concern might not simply decipher into pro‐environmental
behaviors directly; however, individual consumers with a strong belief
for change and EF intentions may certainly result in positive mind and
more likely to engage in the movement (Kim & Choi, 2005). PCE deter-
mined by knowledge as well as direct and indirect experiences, which
varies with individuals as their personal knowledge and experiences
vary (Brown & Wahlers, 1998). Past studies have shown that PCE is
a strong predictor of green behavior; thus, the present study devel-
oped a holistic model for the influence of PCE in conjunction with
other variables as well (Bang, Ellinger, Hadjimarcou, & Traichal,
2000). Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:
H7. PCE has a direct and positive effect on ECCB.
7 | E C C B A ND WE F
ECCB and WEF are conceptualized as two forms of EF behavior as
described in the next section.
8 | E N V I RO N M E NT A L LY CO N S C I O U S
CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
Pro‐environmental behavior, such as ECCB, is considered a prerequisite
to solving environmental issues and highlighted by number of studies
(Heo & Muralidharan, 2017; Roberts, 1996; Roberts & Bacon, 1997).
The foundation of ECCB mandate consists of many forms, that is,
socially conscious consumer (Anderson & Cunningham, 1972), socially
responsible consumption behavior (Antil & Bennett, 1979), environ-
mentally significant behavior (Gatersleben, Steg, & Vlek, 2002), environ-
mentally conscious/concern behavior (Ellen et al., 1991; Zimmer et al.,
1994), ecologically concerned consumers (Gill, Crosby, & Taylor, 1986;
Kinnear et al., 1974; Schwepkar & Cornwell, 1991), and responsible
environmental behavior (Hines et al., 1987). Scholars lay distinction
between the “traditional” socially conscious consumer and the environ-
mentally conscious consumer. It theorizes that the environmentally
conscious consumer would possess certain demographic characteris-
tics, and more so, sociopsychological characteristics to a considerably
greater degree than the (traditional) socially conscious consumer
(Kautish, 2015; Roberts & Bacon, 1997; Samdahl & Robertson, 1989).
There is a plethora of research studies conducted on varied demo-
graphic trends to understand ECCB (Chan, 1996; Chan, 1999; Follows
& Jobber, 2000).
Balderjahn (1988) claims that consumers may evolve to EF by
means of all attitudinal phases (viz., cognitive, affective, and behav-
ioral), which are linked to the varied rudiments of the attitude devel-
opment phases; the tricomponent theory of attitude supports this
argument (Gill et al., 1986; Kothandapani, 1971; Ostrom, 1969). The
persistent positive attitudes/feelings or negative attitudes/feelings
towards objects (e.g., EF products) and activities (e.g., purchasing EF
products), henceforth, attitude plays a dominant role in the course
of buying decisions. In the usual advancement of attitude formation
concerning products and/or firms, consumers are supposed to prac-
tice these enduring beliefs based upon information, knowledge, and
consequent judgment about the products, qualities, and usage affec-
tive feelings (positive or negative), which resolve the consumers
would buy or continue to buy products (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975;
Kalafatis et al., 1999).
KAUTISH AND SHARMA
9 | WILLINGNESS TO BE ENVIRONMENTAL
F R I E N DL Y
WEF symbolizes a peculiar form of EF behavior that consumers are
willing or voluntarily engaged in EF ways and means; second, it is con-
ceptualized as consumers' readiness to act (or positive predisposition
to act). For emerging economies like India, where not all conveniences
available to engage in any EF movement, “willingness” has been rec-
ommended as valid research, construct than intent (Abdul‐Muhmin,
2007, p. 238). The researchers contend that WEF contrasts to the
forms of environmental marketing that encompasses promotional
incentives offered to get involved in the environmental programs
(Abdul‐Muhmin, 2007; Laroche et al., 2001; Lee, 2011; Moon &
Balasubramanian, 2003; Sanne, 2002). The TPB interprets ECCB as
an amalgamation of several factors those may not determine behavior
patterns directly but gets mediated by behavioral intentions (Ajzen,
1985, 2002; Kalafatis et al., 1999; Taufique & Vaithianathan, 2018).
The mediating role of behavioral intentions has also been
established in the meta‐analysis of psychosocial antecedents and
determinants of pro‐environmental behavior configurations (Bamberg
& Moser, 2007; Kautish, 2018). Costa Pinto, Nique, Maurer Herter,
and Borges (2016) posit that the WEF is an individual and identity‐
driven phenomena, which encourages people to take part in EF move-
ment, and the salience of personal and social identities may change
the relationship between types of behavioral intentions and green
consumption aspects. Pro‐environmental behavior patterns EK, EC,
and PCE are hypothesized key determinants for WEF. The effect of
WEF can be more considerable when compared with ECCB, as the
consumers willingly participate in EF activities. Numerous theoretical
frameworks have been developed to explain the antecedents of ECCB
(Kautish & Dash, 2017; Kautish & Soni, 2012; Kollmuss & Agyeman,
2002) and witnessed that the connotations of environmentally driven
consumer behavior patterns are drawn from the conception of cogni-
tive progression, where belief determines attitudes, attitudes lead to
intentions, and intentions appraise behaviors (Bang et al., 2000; Moon
& Balasubramanian, 2003). Hence, we suggest these four hypotheses:
H8. PBC has a direct and positive effect on WEF.
H9. EK has a direct and positive effect on WEF.
H10. EC has a direct and positive effect on WEF.
H11. PCE has a direct and positive effect on WEF.
To sum up, we assume that if EF consumers intend to indulge in
the mandate in the form of WEF, they are also expected to participate
in the ECCB activity. There are some traces in the literature, which
advocates that ECCB is prompted at several phases of green or envi-
ronmental marketing (Cleveland, Kalamas, & Laroche, 2005; Fielding,
McDonald, & Louis, 2008). Therefore, in accordance with the concep-
tualization of ECCB propagated by Cornwell and Schwepker (1995)
and Lee and Holden (1999), we hypothesize the underlying relation-
ships, namely, perceived behavioral control may regulate customers'
EK; in sequence, we expect EK to influence EC; then, we assume EC
5
may determine PCE towards green consumerism and EF orientation.
Finally, we assume that each one of the four pro‐environmental
behaviors to influence WEF and ECCB, the hypothesized research
model is presented in the Figure 1.
Hence, we posit the last hypothesis as follows:
H12. WEF will have a direct and positive effect on
ECCB.
10 | RE S EA R C H M E TH O DO LO GY
10.1 | Construct operationalization
To initiate the procedure for identifying, classifying, and adapting
scale items to develop multi‐item measurement scale for the con-
structs, we thoroughly reviewed the relevant literature and analyti-
cally categorize the material to develop the survey instrument. The
causality principle conditions, that is, distinct entities, association,
and temporal precedence were also tested for specifying the nature
and direction of relationships between constructs and measures
(Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000).
The procedure was quite insightful because we brought in the con-
sumers' perspective in adapting, explicitly in generating an initial pool
of items to measure the constructs and confirming with the pro‐
environmental behavioral patterns supplemented by a literature
review. Carmines and Zeller (1979) opined that adding a number of
items indefinitely has a progressively less impact on the reliability of
the scale. At the same time, scales with large number of items could
create problems arising out of demands in terms of time constraint,
respondent fatigue, and response biases (Anastasi, 1976).
The last phase of the process was to present the final measure-
ment scales to colleagues from marketing area, unrelated to the
research domain, but familiar with the research literature on consumer
behavior, for a content validity check on research items and con-
structs. A sample of 25 respondents used for the pilot study, which
revealed satisfactory indication about scale reliability. The final list of
operational items used to measure the constructs are presented in the
Table 2. The sample participants indicated their responses on a Likert‐
type 7‐point rating scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
FIGURE 1 The hypothesized research model
6 KAUTISH AND SHARMA

10.2 | Sampling and data collection
The sample for this research consists of adults (age 20 or over). As ver-
ified in the environmental literature, educated individuals can effort-
lessly appreciate the concern and provide accurate data compared
5‐item scale for EK (Ellen, 1994; Minton & Rose, 1997), 4‐item
scale for EC (Antil, 1984; Kim & Choi, 2005; Minton & Rose, 1997),
4‐item scale for PCE (Abdul‐Muhmin, 2007), 4‐item scale for WEF
TABLE 2 Measurement instrument (questionnaire)

with less educated ones (Alwitt & Pitts, 1996). Therefore, data for Constructs Measurement variables (questions)
our study were collected through personal interviews and online sur-
PBC 1. I usually read the labeling on product packages to
vey instrument among respondents in the state capital, where people check environmental aspects
are from different states of the country; this ensued in state and inter- 2. I usually buy products in refillable containers/
state sample, reducing the nonresponse rate (Kinnear & Taylor, 1996). packages
3. I usually put empty product packages/boxes for other
Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006) recommended that
household uses
the desired sample size should be 15–20 observations per variable 4. I usually try to put efforts to understand recycling
for the study (p. 764). For the study, total 620 questionnaires were phenomenon
administered, out of which 545 were received, and 510 were used, EK 5. I have knowledge about global warming phenomena
with a sample split of 59% males and 41% females. From the demo- 6. I have knowledge about the ozone layer problem
7. I have knowledge about oil spills in oceans
graphic point of view, it can be considered that the sample is well rep-
8. I have knowledge about depleted radioactive
resented in nature (Table 1). The larger sample size provides increased
substances in the environment
likelihood of attaining statistical significance with the help of better 9. I have knowledge about endangered plants and
statistical tools, which result in confidence in research results and animals on earth
inferences (Hoelter, 1983). EC 10. The environment is one of the most important issues
facing the world today
11. The benefits of environmental protection justify the
costs involved
10.3 | Measures and construct operationalization
12. It is very much relevant to protect the environment
for future generations
After a comprehensive literature review, the study used validated 13. There has to be a great worry about the environment
measurement scales adapted from previous studies so the content among common citizens
validity of the final scale found to be satisfactory enough. Some mod- PCE 14. It would mean a lot to me if I could contribute to
ifications were made to the existing scale to make suitable in the con- environmental protection
15. I would feel a sense of achievement if I can teach my
text of the study. A 4‐item, 5‐point Likert type scale was
children to respect the environment
operationalized for perceived behavioral control (Abdul‐Muhmin,
16. I feel capable of helping solve the environmental
2007; Ajzen, 1985, 2002; Kalafatis et al., 1999; Leary et al., 2014), problems
17. I can protect the environment by buying products that
are friendly to the environment
WEF 18. I willingly and wholeheartedly take responsibility to
TABLE 1 Demographic variables (N = 510)
become environmentally friendly
Demographic variable Range Frequency % 19. I am willing to pay higher prices for environmentally
friendly products
Gender Male 301 59.01 20. I will boycott the products damage the environment in
Female 209 40.99 one way or another
Education Graduate 180 35.29 21. I am willing to take steps to control my activities those
Postgraduate 257 50.39 are not good for the environment
Doctorate 73 14.32 ECCB 22. When there is a choice, I always choose the product
Age 20–30 years 58 11.37 that contributes to the least amount of pollution
31–40 years 215 42.15 23. I understand the potential damage to the environment
41–50 years 168 32.94 that some products can cause, I do not purchase
51–60 years 69 13.54 those products
24. I have switched products for ecological reasons
Income INR 20,000–40,000 35 6.86
25. I have convinced some members of my family and
INR 41,000–50,000 116 22.74
friends not to buy some products that are harmful
INR 51,000–60,000 264 51.76
to the environment
INR 61,000 and above 95 18.64
26. When I have a choice between two equal products, I
Occupation Service holder 162 31.76 always prefer the one which is less harmful to other
Business or self‐employed 275 53.92 people and the environment
Homemaker 38 7.45
Retired 35 6.87 Abbreviations: EC, environmental concern; ECCB, environmentally con-
scious consumer behavior; EK, environmental knowledge; PBC, perceived
Marital status Single 142 27.84
behavioral control; PCE, perceived consumer effectiveness; WEF, willing-
Married 368 72.16
ness to be environmentally friendly.
KAUTISH AND SHARMA 7

(Abdul‐Muhmin, 2007; Antil, 1984; Tobler, Visschers, & Siegrist, 2012; TABLE 3 Reliability, factor loadings, and convergent validity
Trivedi et al., 2015), and 5‐item scale for ECCB (Roberts &
Measurement Factor Cronbach's Composite
Bacon, 1997). Table 2 provides the detail of each statement used in Constructs items loadings α reliability AVE
the questionnaire.
PBC PBC1 0.794 .884 0.872 0.615
PBC2 0.853
PBC3 0.812
PBC4 0.785

10.4 | Data analyses EK EK1 0.823 .974 0.862 0.628

EK2 0.834
EK3 0.905
We followed Anderson and Garbing's (1988) recommended two‐step
EK4 0.859
approach in which the estimation of a confirmatory measurement EK5 0.866
model precedes the simultaneous assessment of the structural models.
EC EC1 0.628 .786 0.608 0.617
In the first step, we ascertain the quality and adequacy of measure- EC2 0.845
ment through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by establishing reli- EC3 0.824
ability, convergent, and divergent validity. In the second step, as EC4 0.826

suggested by Robinson, Shaver, and Wrightsman (1991), we used PCE PCE1 0.832 .938 0.875 0.635
structural equation modeling (SEM) to test causal relationships among PCE2 0.924
PCE3 0.954
latent variables. In each of the steps, maximum likelihood estimation
PCE4 0.833
method was employed (Byrne, 2001).
WEF WPE1 0.878 .914 0.798 0.558
WPE2 0.925
WPE3 0.826
WPE4 0.771

10.5 | Measurement model—CFA ECCB ECCB1 0.784 .866 0.680 0.692

In order to confirm that the variables were measuring the constructs in
the model, AMOS 19.0 was utilized to perform CFA. Reliability esti-
mates of the measurement model were examined by computing
Cronbach's alpha coefficient for each of the constructs independently.
We take into account the composite reliability of the constructs as
well because composite reliability is a better measure of scale reliabil-
ity than Cronbach's alpha coefficient (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991).
Table 3 depicts that the Cronbach's alpha coefficient value is greater
than .7 for all the constructs, which is considered to be acceptable
for the constructs to be reliable (Kline, 2005). Additionally, the com-
posite reliability values of all the constructs are greater than 0.6, which
further supports our assessment of constructs reliability (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994; Robinson et al., 1991). On the basis of Jöreskog
and Sörbom (1979) recommendations, we found that all items used
for final model specification were significant (t = 2.58) with factor
loading values (λ > 0.5) rest all were deleted from the measurement
model and again CFA was performed.
The measurement model describes an adequate model fit of the
data (Byrne, 2001; Hu & Bentler, 1995). Assessment of goodness‐of‐
fit was ascertained by multiple fit indices: χ = 921.92, d f = 235,
2
p < .001, χ2/d f = 3.923, CFI = 0.931; TLI = 0.920; IFI = 0.932;
NFI = 0.912, and RMSEA = 0.066. To improve the fit‐statistics and
on the basis of modification indices, we added the paths responsible
for a major decrease in chi‐square value (Chou & Bentler, 1993; Hu
& Bentler, 1999). We established unidimensionality for all the con-
structs through CFI (recommended ≥0.9; Kline, 1998), standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR ≤ 0.08; Hu & Bentler, 1998), and
we found all the constructs were unidimensional (CFI = 0.931;
SRMR = 0.03).
ECCB2 0.835
ECCB3 0.912
ECCB4 0.843
ECCB5 0.926
Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; EC, environmental con-
cern; ECCB, environmentally conscious consumer behavior; EK, environ-
mental knowledge; PBC, perceived behavioral control; PCE, perceived
consumer effectiveness; WEF, willingness to be environmentally friendly.
10.6 | Convergent validity
Convergent validity of a scale implies that the evidences gathered
from different sources in different ways are indicative in the same or
similar meaning of a given construct (Kerlinger, 1992). Convergent
validity was established by computing the average variance extracted
(AVE) along with factor loadings of the measurement scale on individ-
ual constructs in the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 3 confirms
that all the measurement variables had significant loadings with values
ranging between 0.632 and 0.956 on the respective latent constructs
(p < .001). Thus, the AVE for each construct was found equal to or
greater than 0.50, which further support the convergent validity of
the constructs.
10.7 | Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity investigates the degree to which measures of dif-
ferent constructs are distinctive to each other, and their correlation
values are neither 0 nor 1 (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Discriminant
validity was calculated by two ways. First, as Fornell and Larcker
(1981) recommended, by comparing the AVE for each construct with
8 KAUTISH AND SHARMA

the corresponding interconstruct squared correlation estimates.
Table 4 indicates that all the AVE values are greater than the
interconstruct squared correlations, which confirm the discriminant
validity. Second as Bagozzi et al. (1991) recommend, the chi‐square
tests to assess whether the interconstruct correlation was significantly
different from unity.
The chi‐squared difference test was executed by assessing the
measurement model through constraining the interconstruct correla-
tion to unity, and then, the same model was appraised freely, estimat-
ing the interconstruct correlation (Bagozzi et al., 1991). The test
statistic is the variance between the chi‐square values of 15 more
degrees of freedom, and all variations in chi‐square obtained were sig-
nificant at p < .001 level of significance. This specified that the con-
structs in the model are distinct from each other. Conclusively, we
believe that the measurement scales for the constructs are reasonably
reliable and valid.
10.8 | Criterion‐related validity
Criterion‐related validity is the magnitude to which the specific con-
struct is related to predetermined criteria. Criterion‐related validity is
critical in determining whether a scale behaves in the expected man-
ner, in terms of its relationship with other theoretical related variables
and constructs. In the present study, criterion‐related validity was
specified using correlations between the overall scale and other inde-
pendent measure. The Pearson r was found to be 0.678, which is sig-
nificant at 0.01. This denotes strong parallels between these
measures, thereby qualify the criterion‐related validity.
products. The results of t tests indicated no significant differences
among consumer groups. Afterward, the proposed hypotheses
were tested using SEM with AMOS 19.0. The results revealed that
the adequate model fit with chi‐square statistic (χ2 = 1066.85;
d f = 312; χ2/d f = 3.419) was significant, and all the baseline compar-
ison indices (CFI = 0.940; TLI = 0.923; IFI = 0.932; NFI = 0.915, and
RMSEA = 0.063) specified an acceptable fit of the structural model.
Table 5 exhibits the parameter estimates of the structural model.
Results illustrate that the path coefficients between PBC‐EK, EK‐EC,
and EC‐PCE are positive, t values are above acceptable levels and sig-
nificant at p < .001, which accepts H1, H2, and H3. Therefore, the lin-
ear relationships with the four pro‐environmental behavioral patterns
were supported. In recent studies, Yarimoglu and Binboga (2019) find
EC and PCE as the antecedents of ECCB, and Tesla, Sarti, and Frey
(2019) confirm that attitude towards buying organics is positively
affected by consumers' knowledge.
The relationships between PBC and ECCB (β = −0.052; t = 1.430)
and EK and ECCB (β = 1.119; t = 1.632) are nonsignificant at
p < .05; hence, H4 and H5 are not accepted. Whereas relationships
between EC and ECCB (β = .329; t = 4.434; p < .001) and between
PCE and ECCB (β = .224; t = 5.243; p < .001) were significant, which
accepts H6 and H7. The relationships between EC and WEF
(β = −.147; t = 2.324) are not significant; between PBC and WEF
(β = .067; t = 1.687) are also nonsignificant at p < .05, and between
PCE and WEF (β = .056; t = 1.245) are nonsignificant, and therefore,
H8, H10, and H11 are not accepted. However, the path‐link between
EK and WEF (β = .517; t = 4.562; p < .001) is significant, accepting H9.
Finally, the hypothesized link between WEF and ECCB (β = .298;
t = 4.893; p < .001) is also significant, which accepts H12.

11 | ANALYSES AND RESULTS

TABLE 5 Estimated path coefficients

11.1 | The structural model and hypotheses testing Hypothesized Path t p

paths coefficients value value Results
To verify the differences among different consumer group responses, t PBC → EK 0.617* 3.892 .001 H1 (accepted)
tests were performed with respect to demographic factors for EF EK → EC 0.803* 4.237 .001 H2 (accepted)
EC → PCE 0.685* 3.975 .001 H3 (accepted)
TABLE 4 Discriminant validity PBC → ECCB −0.052 1.430 .001 H4 (rejected)

1 2 3 4 5 6 EK → ECCB 0.119 1.632 .001 H5 (rejected)

EC → ECCB 0.329* 4.434 .001 H6 (accepted)
1. PBC 0.61 0.25 0.42 0.16 0.24 0.04
PCE → ECCB 0.224* 5.243 .001 H7 (accepted)
2. EK 0.52 0.62 0.45 0.32 0.41 0.15
PBC → WEF 0.067 1.687 .001 H8 (rejected)
3. EC 0.64 0.66 0.61 0.42 0.45 0.06
EK → WEF 0.517* 4.562 .001 H9 (accepted)
4. PCE 0.45 0.54 0.63 0.63 0.36 0.03
EC → WEF −0.147 2.324 .001 H10 (rejected)
5. WEF 0.44 0.63 0.67 0.55 0.55 0.20
PCE → WEF 0.056 1.245 .001 H11 (rejected)
6. ECCB 0.26 0.65 0.21 0.19 0.46 0.69
WEF → ECCB 0.298* 4.893 .001 H12
Note. The upper triangle has the values of squared interconstruct correla- (accepted)
tions, and the lower triangle has the interconstruct correlations values;
the diagonal elements are the AVE values (bold). Abbreviations: EC, environmental concern; ECCB, environmentally con-
Abbreviations: EC, environmental concern; ECCB, environmentally con- scious consumer behavior; EK, environmental knowledge; PBC, perceived
scious consumer behavior; EK, environmental knowledge; PBC, perceived behavioral control; PCE, perceived consumer effectiveness; WEF, willing-
behavioral control; PCE, perceived consumer effectiveness; WEF, willing- ness to be environmentally friendly.
ness to be environmentally friendly. *Significant at p < .001.
KAUTISH AND SHARMA
12 | FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The aim of the research was twofold: (a) to test the proposed relation-
ships among the four pro‐environmental behavioral patterns and
examine their influence on WEF and ECCB and (b) to thoroughly
develop the construct and adapt the measurement scales for four
pro‐environmental behavioral patterns and the WEF and ECCB con-
structs. There was significant relationships (paths) among all the pro‐
environmental behavior patterns and consistent with other findings
from past empirical researches (Akehurst, Afonso, & Gonçalves,
2012; Bohlen, Schlegelmilch, & Diamantopoulos, 1993; Kautish &
Dash, 2017). The coefficients, for the path coefficients among the
pro‐environmental behavioral patterns, are (i.e., 0.61, 0.82, and 0.68)
significant, and despite pro‐environmental behavioral patterns being
consecutively related, as predicted, the power of the relationship
among them may vary owing to the variations in consumer groups
or the empirical study milieu. Unambiguously, data from the study
support three hypotheses as they relate to the positive relationships
and the paths from PBC to EK (+0.61), from EK to EC (+0.82), and
from the EC to PCE (+0.68). The second contribution of the study
entails successful operationalization of the four pro‐environmental
behavioral patterns. All the measures were empirically tested, which
boost the generalizability of the scale items and usability in future con-
sumer researches on ECCB domain. Advancement of scale items or
measures, consequently, viewed as an imperative extension to the
body of knowledge as well as literature.
The final research contribution is in the EF behavior domain,
namely, WEF and the ECCB. Although earlier research has contributed
much towards improving the understanding of the antecedents of the
ECCB phenomenon (Kautish & Dash, 2017; Roberts & Bacon, 1997;
Stanley & Lasonde, 1996; Zabkar & Hosta, 2013), still it has not been
observed significance with pro‐environmental behavioral patterns.
This study tested the relationships between each of the four pro‐
environmental behavior patterns and specific forms of EF behavior,
namely, WEF and ECCB. We found each of the four pro‐
environmental behavioral pattern exhibits different effects on the
WEF and ECCB. Precisely, the four pro‐environmental behavioral pat-
terns, ECCB is significantly influenced by customers' EC and PCE,
whereas increasing EK is significantly related to WEF. The latent justi-
fication for these research findings may stem from the characteristics
of the pro‐environmental behavioral patterns.
13 | IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR
F U T U R E R E S E A RC H
13.1 | Theoretical implications
Instead of testing the value–attitude–behavior or attitude–intention–
behavior relationship as depicted in TPB model, the present study
examined the constituent pro‐environmental determinants affect
quality assessment and green purchase behavior. The research
findings are convincing and put forth useful insights that pro‐
9
environmental behavior patterns contribute to environmental
consciousness, a willingness paradigm to be EF and influences ECCB.
In order to get better consequences, green marketing companies
should direct their marketing efforts towards synchronization among
the constituents of the pro‐environmental behavior patterns. Integra-
tion and coordination to be achieved to the extent in which the
perceived behavioral control, EK, EC, perceived environmental conse-
quences have been explored and realized and the magnitude to which
they contribute to the synchronized relationships. Moreover, although
we discover direct and indirect effects among the pro‐environmental
behavioral patterns, it is also possible that over the long term, the rela-
tionships among the pro‐environmental behavioral patterns also may
become nonrecursive backdrop, for example, the path arrows point
from perceived environmental consequences to EC, from EC to EK,
and from EK to the PBC (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). In order to
appreciate the nature of synchronous relationships, critical evaluation
of the nonrecursive and other latent paths among the pro‐
environmental behavioral patterns might be desirable.
13.2 | Managerial implications
Aimed at green marketing practitioners and professionals, a logical,
systematic approach is also crucial to understand better the vulnera-
bilities and supporters that might weaken or strengthen the
pro‐environmental behavioral patterns for ECCB; moreover, the inter-
relationships and combined possessions of the pro‐environmental
behavior patterns lead to green purchase behavior (Kautish et al.,
2019). The manipulation of regulatory focus can be imperative to
enhance consumers' pro‐environmental intentions to strengthen
green behavior (Higgins, 2002) as the role of prevention focused con-
dition possibly influence consumer green decision making (Miniero,
Codini, Bonera, Corvi, & Bertoli, 2014). In addition, the role of green
product attributes, trust dimension, satisfaction criteria, product price,
and substitution effect has not been distinguished at different stages
or levels of pro‐environmental behavior among green consumers
(McDonagh & Prothero, 2014). Insights extended out of this research
stream would be helpful in identifying and developing unified green
marketing strategies that need to be pursued to attain the
consistency/congruence among the pro‐environmental behavioral
patterns (McDonald & Oates, 2006). Thus, marketing managers and
advertisers that want to persuade consumers to engage in green
consumption should ensure that their advertisements and campaigns
contain cues that might trigger a prevention‐focus orientation rather
than just promotions (Miniero et al., 2014).
The study is also directed that for improving the WEF for EF prod-
ucts, green marketers need to strengthen EC and perceived environ-
mental consequences landscape and for augmenting the ECCB, they
should more focus on increasing the EK. Explicitly, this should call
for categorizing antecedents unique to each of the three pro‐
environmental behavioral patterns, namely, EK, EC, and perceived
environmental consequences. The current literature suggests that
environmental attitudes and gender differences are important
10
variables for improving EK and concern (Mostafa, 2007), whereas con-
ceiving effective prosocial status perception building programs is likely
to strengthen customer willingness to act EF (Zabkar & Hosta, 2013).
It is quite insightful to appraise the nature or types of variables that
would make the customers' EF experience as stimulating, fulfilling,
pleasant, and accomplishing, to fully actualize the customers' potential
for engaging in ECCB and WEF (Smith & Brower, 2012).
Lastly, the dearth of research endeavor to establish the direct rela-
tionships among the pro‐environmental behavior and the two decisive
behavior patterns (i.e., ECCB and WEF) appear to be surprising.
Though literature advocates the socioeconomic, political, ecological,
ethical, health, technological, and biophysical variables of green mar-
keting (Prashant, 2016), inter alia, the relevant demographic and psy-
chographic factors for green consumer behavior (Paço et al., 2010;
Paço, Alves, Shiel, & Filho, 2013) in refining and supporting ECCB.
Exploration of the operative determinants may enrich the green
consumer trajectory in years to come, and it will play a critical role in
directly influencing the customers' green tendencies in which key con-
structs indirectly influencing EK, concern, and perceived conse-
quences (Kautish & Sharma, 2018). These environmental facets are
crucial stages, which affect the green customers' intentions, actions,
and behaviors, namely, WEF and ECCB. Thus, this consecutive effect
among pro‐environmental behavior highlights the prominence and
implication of the sequential nature of the green consumer behavior
continuum that requires consistency across green behavioral dimen-
sions, and operationalized by several scholars, but not in an integrated
manner (Cheah & Phau, 2011; Cornelissen, Pandelaere, Warlop, &
Dewitte, 2007; Kautish & Dash, 2017; Kim & Choi, 2005).
13.3 | Limitations and future research directions
Although every possible effort has been made to ensure methodolog-
ical rigorousness in the study. Still, there are a few limitations of this
study, which needs to be discussed beforehand while construing the
research findings. First, some consumers may act differently towards
green products by receiving either positive or negative information
from other sources, that is, ecolabels. The consequence is that ECCB
can be an outcome of and/or a cause of environmental movements
going on different levels of the society (Nguyen, Lobo, & Nguyen,
2018). The present research does not offer any control on it in order
to nullify the influence. Future researches might investigate the recip-
rocal effects on relationship among green products, green consumers,
and ECCB. Second, the research constructs and scales used for the
study were measured using self‐report measures, which may end in
common method variance. Third, the study was undertaken in one
metropolitan city in India. Although residents in the city are objec-
tively representatives of green consumers in the country, generaliza-
tion of the findings may be limited. Forth, the hypothesized model
may be investigated how the proposed relationships among the vari-
ables determines the behavioral intentions, which may or may not lead
to actual green purchase behavior (Miniero et al., 2014). This lacuna
might lead to the overestimation or aggression of the hypothesized
KAUTISH AND SHARMA
relationships and might have material bearing on the results of the
study (Lindell & Whitney, 2001).
ORCID
Pradeep Kautish https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2908-6720
Rajesh Sharma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5422-7126
RE FE RE NC ES
Abdul‐Muhmin, A. G. (2007). Explaining consumers' willingness to be envi-
ronmentally friendly. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(3),
237–247.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior.
In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behav-
ior. Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐642‐69746‐
3_2
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self‐efficacy, locus of control
and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 32(4), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559‐1816.2002.
tb00236.x
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude‐behavior relations: A theoretical
analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5),
888–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.84.5.888
Akehurst, G., Afonso, C., & Gonçalves, H. M. (2012). Re‐examining green
purchase behaviour and the green consumer profile: New evidences.
Management Decision, 50(5), 872–988.
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454.
Alwitt, L. F., & Pitts, R. E. (1996). Predicting purchase intention for an envi-
ronmentally sensitive product. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(1),
49–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0501_03
Anastasi, A. (1976). Psychological testing (4th ed.). NY: Macmillan.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in
practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103(3), 411–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.103.
3.411
Anderson, W. T. Jr., & Cunningham, W. H. C. (1972). The socially conscious
consumer. Journal of Marketing, 36(3), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224297203600305
Antil, J. H. (1984). Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications
for public policy. Journal of Macro Marketing, 4(2), 18–39.
Antil, J. H., & Bennett, P. D. (1979). Construction and validation of a scale
to measure socially responsible consumption behavior. In K. E. Henion,
& T. C. Kinnera (Eds.), The Consumer Society (pp. 51–68). Chicago:
American Marketing Association.
Arnocky, S., Stroink, M., & DeCicco, T. (2007). Self‐construal predicts envi-
ronmental concern, cooperations and cooperation. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2007.06.005
Assael, H. (1998). Consumer behavior and marketing action. Cincinnati, OH:
South‐Western College Publishing.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2006). Consumer action: Automaticity, purposiveness, and
self‐regulation. In N. K. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research
(Vol. 2) (pp. 3–42). Armonk, NY: Sharpe. https://doi.org/10.1108/
S1548‐6435(2005)0000002005
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dabholkar, P. (1994). Consumer recycling goals and their
effect on decisions to recycling: A means‐end chain analysis. Psychol-
ogy and Marketing, 11(4), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/
mar.4220110403
KAUTISH AND SHARMA
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in
organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3),
421–458. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393203
Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality variables and environmental attitudes as
predictors of ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal
of Business Research, 17(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148‐
2963(88)90022‐7
Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific
environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 21–32. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0272‐4944(02)00078‐6
Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford,
and Tomera: A new meta‐analysis of psycho‐social determinants of
pro‐environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
27(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cogni-
tive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bang, H. K., Ellinger, A. E., Hadjimarcou, J., & Traichal, P. A. (2000). Con-
sumer concern, knowledge, belief and attitude toward renewal
energy: An application of the reasoned action. Psychology and Market-
ing, 17(6), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520‐6793
(200006)17:6<449::AID‐MAR2>3.0.CO;2‐8
Beedell, J. D. C., & Rehman, T. (1999). Explaining farmers' conservation
behavior: Why do farmers behave the way they do? Journal of Environ-
mental Management, 57(3), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jema.1999.0296
Berger, I. E., & Corbin, R. M. (1992). Perceived consumer effectiveness and
faith in others as moderators of environmentally responsible behavior.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11(2), 79–100. https://doi.org/
10.1177/074391569201100208
Bettman, J. R. (1979). An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice,
Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley Company.
Bhate, S. (2002). One world, one environment, one vision: Are we close to
achieving this? An exploratory study of consumer environmental
behavior across three countries. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 2(2),
169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.98
Bodur, M., & Sarigollu, E. (2005). Environmental sensitivity in a developing
country: Consumer classification and implications. Environment
and Behavior, 37(1), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391650
4269666
Bohlen, G. M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1993). Measur-
ing ecological concern: A multi‐construct perspective. Journal of
Marketing Management, 19(4), 415–430.
Boldero, J. (1995). The prediction of household recycling of newspapers:
The role of attitudes, intentions, and situational factors. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 25(5), 440–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1559‐1816.1995.tb01598.x
Bord, R. J., O'Connor, R. E., & Fisher, A. (2000). In what sense does the
public need to understand global climate change? Public Understanding
of Science, 9(3), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963‐6625/9/3/
301
Brown, J. D., & Wahlers, R. G. (1998). The environmentally concerned con-
sumer: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
6(2), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.1998.11501794
Burgess, J. (2003). Sustainable consumption: Is it really achievable? Con-
sumer Policy Review, 13(3), 78–84.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic con-
cepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant valida-
tion by the multitrait‐multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(1),
81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment.
Beverly Hill: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985642
Carr, S., & Tait, J. (1991). Differences in the attitudes of farmers and con-
servationist and their implications. Journal of Environmental
Management, 32(3), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301‐
4797(05)80058‐1
Caruana, R., & Crane, A. (2008). Constructing consumer responsibility:
Exploring the role of corporate communications. Organization Studies,
29(12), 1495–1519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607096387
Chan, R. Y. K. (1999). Environmental attitudes and behavior of consumers in
China: Survey findings and implications. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 11(4), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v11n04_03
Chan, T. S. (1996). Concerns for environmental issues and consumer pur-
chase preferences: A two‐country study. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 9(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J046v09n01_04
Cheah, I., & Phau, I. (2011). Attitude towards environment friendly prod-
ucts: The influence of ecoliteracy, interpersonal influence and value
orientation. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 29(5), 452–472. https://
doi.org/10.1108/02634501111153674
Cheung, S. F., Chan, D. K. S., & Wong, Z. S. Y. (1999). Reexamining the the-
ory of planned behavior in understanding wastepaper recycling.
Environment and Behavior, 31(7), 587–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00139169921972254
Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sus-
tainability and price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business
Ethics, 104(2), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐011‐0908‐8
Chou, C. P., & Bentler, P. M. (1993). Invariant standardized estimated
parameter change for model modification in covariance structural anal-
ysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15327906mbr2801_6
Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M., & Laroche, M. (2005). Shades of green: Linking
environmental locus of control and pro‐environmental behaviors. Jour-
nal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4/5), 198–213. https://doi.org/
10.1108/07363760510605317
Coddington, W. (1993). Environmental marketing: Positive strategies for
reaching the green consumer. NY: McGraw Hill.
Cornelissen, G., Pandelaere, M., Warlop, L., & Dewitte, S. (2007). Positive
cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common
environmental behaviors as environmental. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 25(1), 46–55.
Cornwell, B. T., & Schwepker, C. H. (1995). Ecologically concerned consumers
and their purchase behavior, environmental marketing (pp. 119–153). NY:
The Haworth Press Inc.
Costa Pinto, D., Nique, W. M., Maurer Herter, M., & Borges, A. (2016).
Green consumers and their identities: How identities change the moti-
vation for green consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
40(6), 742–753.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. NY: John Wiley
and Sons.
D'Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Khosla, R. (2007). Examination of environmen-
tal beliefs and its impact on the influence of price, quality and
demographic characteristics with respect to green purchase intention.
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15(2),
69–78. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5750039
D'Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Lamb, P. (2006). An empirical study on the
influence of environmental labels on consumers. Corporate
12
Communications: An International Journal, 11(2), 162–173. https://doi.
org/10.1108/13563280610661697
D'Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., & Peretiatkos, R. (2007). Green deci-
sions: Demographics and consumer understanding of environmental
labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(4), 371–376.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470‐6431.2006.00567.x
Du, S., Tang, W., & Song, M. (2016). Low‐carbon production with low‐
carbon premium in cap‐and‐trade regulation. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion, 134, 652–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.012
Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of rela-
tionships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods,
5(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082‐989X.5.2.155
Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (2012). Solving the human predicament. Inter-
national Journal of Environmental Studies, 69(4), 557–565. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00207233.2012.693281
Ellen, P. S. (1994). Do we know what we need to know? Objective and sub-
jective knowledge effects on pro‐ecological behaviors. Journal of
Business Research, 30(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148‐
2963(94)90067‐1
Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., & Cobb‐Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived
consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious
behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 102–117.
https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569101000206
Englis, B. G., & Phillips, D. M. (2013). Does innovativeness drive environ-
mentally conscious consumer behavior? Psychology and Marketing,
30(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20595
Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work (2nd ed.).
Greenleaf, San Francisco: Berrett‐Koehler Publishers Inc.
Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Theory of planned
behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(4), 318–326. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.03.003
Fielding, K. S., Terry, D. J., Masser, B., & Hogg, M. A. (2008). Integrating
social identity theory and the theory of planned behavior to explain
decisions to engage in sustainable agricultural practices. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 47(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1348/
014466607X206792
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, A. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior.
Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley.
Florenthal, B., & Arling, P. A. (2011). Do green lifestyle consumers appreci-
ate low involvement green products? Marketing Management Journal,
21(2), 35–45.
Follows, S. B., & Jobber, D. (2000). Environmentally responsible purchase
behaviour: A test of a consumer model. European Journal of Marketing,
34(5/6), 723–746.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Market-
ing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437810
1800104
Frick, J., Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Environmental knowledge and
conservation behavior: Exploring prevalence and structure in a repre-
sentative sample. Personalty and Individual Differences, 37(8),
1597–1613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015
Fryxell, G. E., & Lo, C. W. H. (2003). The influence of environmental knowl-
edge and values on managerial behaviors on behalf of the environment:
an empirical examination of managers in China. Journal of Business
Ethics, 46(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024773012398
Fuller, D. (1999). Sustainable marketing: Managerial ecological issues. CA:
Sage, Thousand Oaks.
KAUTISH AND SHARMA
Furman, A. (1998). A note on environmental concern in a developing coun-
try: Results from an Istanbul survey. Environment and Behavior, 30(4),
520–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000406
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and determinants
of environmentally significant behavior. Environment and Behavior,
34(3), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034003004
Gill, J. D., Crosby, L. A., & Taylor, J. R. (1986). Ecological concern, attitudes
and social norms in voting behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(4),
537–554. https://doi.org/10.1086/269002
Gronhoj, A. (2006). Communication about consumption: A family process
perspective on “Green” consumer practices. Journal of Consumer Behav-
ior, 5(6), 491–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.198
Grunert, S. (1993). Everybody seems concerned about the environment
but is this concern reflected in (Danish) consumers' food choice?
European Advances in Consumer Research, 1, 428–433.
Hackett, P. M. W. (1992a). Conservation and the consumer: The measure-
ment of environmental concern. London: Routledge.
Hackett, P. M. W. (1992b). The understanding of environmental concern.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 20(3),
143–148. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1992.20.3.143
Hackett, P. M. W. (1993a). Consumers' environmental concern values:
Understanding the structure of contemporary green worldviews. In
W. F. V. Raaij, & G. J. Bamossy (Eds.), E‐European Advances in Consumer
Research (Vol. 1) (pp. 416–427). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research.
Hackett, P. M. W. (1993b). Modelling environmental concern: Theory and
application. Environmentalist, 13(2), 117–120. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF01905668
Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.
(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson
Education.
Hansla, A., Gamble, A., Julliusson, A., & Garling, T. (2008). The relationships
between awareness of consequences, environmental concern and
value orientations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.004
Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilkie, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining pro‐
environmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the the-
ory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12),
2505–2528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559‐1816.1999.tb00123.x
Henion, K. E. II, & William, H. W. (1976). The ecologically concerned con-
sumer and locus of control. In K. Henion, & T. Kinnear (Eds.),
Ecological Marketing (pp. 131–144). Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Association.
Heo, J., & Muralidharan, S. (2017). What triggers young Millennials to pur-
chase eco‐friendly products?: The interrelationships among knowledge,
perceived consumer effectiveness, and environmental concern. Journal
of Marketing Communications, 25(4), 421–437.
Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self‐regulation creates distinct values: The
role of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 12(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663
JCP1203_01
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and syn-
thesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta‐
analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness‐of‐
fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(3), 325–344. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0049124183011003003
KAUTISH AND SHARMA
Holzer, E., & Schahn, J. (1990). Studies of individual environmental con-
cern: the role of knowledge, gender, and background variables.
Environment and Behavior, 22(6), 767–786.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.),
Structural equation modeling: Concept, issues, and applications (pp.
76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling:
Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychologi-
cal Methods, 3(4), 424–453.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indices in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jaiswal, D., & Kant, R. (2018). Green purchasing behaviour: A conceptual
framework and empirical investigation of Indian consumers. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2017.11.008
Jansson, J., Marell, A., & Nordlund, A. (2010). Green consumer behavior:
Determinants of curtailment and eco innovation adoption. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 27(4), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/
07363761011052396
Jones, R. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental con-
cern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology, 57(1), 28–47.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1979). Advances in factor analysis and struc-
tural equation models. NY: University Press of America.
Kalafatis, S. P., Pollard, M., East, R., & Tsogas, M. H. (1999). Green market-
ing and Ajzen's theory of planned behavior: A cross‐market
examination. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 16(5),
441–460. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769910289550
Kantola, S. J., Syme, G. J., & Campbell, N. A. (1982). The role of individual
differences and external variables in a test of the sufficiency of
Fishbein's model to explain behavioral intentions to conserve water.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1559‐1816.1982.tb00850.x
Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro‐environmental behavior.
Environment and Behaviour, 28(1), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916596281006
Kautish, P. (2015). Empirical study on understanding of consumer behav-
ioral factors for marketing of environmental friendly products. IMR
Management Speak, 8(2), 1–12.
Kautish, P. (2018). Environmentally conscious consumer behavior and
green marketing: An analytical study of the Indian market. In R. S.
Malyan, & P. Duhan (Eds.), Green consumerism: Perspectives, sustainabil-
ity, and behavior (pp. 119–142). Taylor & Francis Group, USA: CRC
Press.
Kautish, P., & Dash, G. (2017). Environmentally concerned consumer
behavior: Evidence from consumers in Rajasthan. Journal of Modelling
in Management, 12(4), 712–738. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2‐05‐
2015‐0021
Kautish, P., Paul, J., & Sharma, R. (2019). The moderating influence of envi-
ronmental consciousness and recycling intentions on green purchase
behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 1425–1436. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.389
Kautish, P., & Sharma, R. (2018). Study on relationships among terminal and
instrumental values, environmental consciousness and behavioral
intentions for green products. Journal of Indian Business Research.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR‐01‐2018‐0013 (in press)
Kautish, P., & Soni, S. (2012). The determinants of consumer willingness to
search for environmental‐friendly products: A survey. International
Journal of Management, 29(2), 696–711.
13
Kerlinger, F. N. (1992). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). NY:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Khare, A. (2015). Antecedents to green buying behaviour: A study on con-
sumers in an emerging economy. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
33(3), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP‐05‐2014‐0083
Kilbourne, W. E., & Beckmann, S. C. (1998). Review and critical assessment
of research on marketing and the environment. Journal of Marketing
Management, 14(6), 513–532. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725798
784867716
Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An
examination of collectivism, environmental concern and PCE. Advances
in Consumer Research, 32(1), 592–599.
Kinnear, T. C., & Taylor, J. R. (1996). Marketing research: An applied
approach. NY: McGraw Hill.
Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. R., & Ahmed, S. A. (1974). Ecologically concerned
consumers: Who are they? Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 20–24.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice
of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY, US: Guilford
Press.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice
of structural equation modeling. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act envi-
ronmentally and what are the barriers to pro‐environmental behavior?
Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13504620220145401
Kothandapani, V. (1971). Validation of feeling, belief, and intention to act
as three components of attitude and their contribution to prediction
of contraceptive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
19(3), 321–333.
Kumar, B., Manrai, A. K., & Manrai, L. A. (2017). Purchasing behaviour for
environmentally sustainable products: A conceptual framework and
empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.09.004
Kumar, P., & Ghodeshwar, B. M. (2015). Factors affecting consumers' green
product purchase decisions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(3),
330–347. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP‐03‐2014‐0068
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Forleo, G. B. (2001). Targeting consumers who
are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503–520.
Leary, R. B., Vann, R. J., Mittelstaedt, J. D., Murphy, P. E., & Sherry, J. F. Jr.
(2014). Changing the marketplace one behavior at a time: Perceived
marketplace influence and sustainable consumption. Journal of Business
Research, 67, 1953–1958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.
11.004
Lee, J. A., & Holden, S. J. S. (1999). Understanding the determinants of
environmentally conscious behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 16(5),
373–392.
Lee, K. (2008). Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers. Mar-
keting Intelligence & Planning, 26(6), 573–586. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02634500810902839
Lee, S. (2011). Consumers' values, environmental consciousness, and
willingness to pay more toward green‐apparel products. Journal of
Global Fashion Marketing, 2(3), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/
20932685.2011.10593094
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method
variance in cross‐sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 86(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.86.1.114
Ling‐Yee, L. (1997). Effect of collectivist orientation and ecological
attitude on actual environmental commitment: The moderating role
of consumer demographics and product involvement. Journal of
14
International Consumer Marketing, 9(4), 31–53. https://doi.org/
10.1300/J046v09n04_03
Liobikienė, G., Mandravickaitė, J., & Bernatonienė, J. (2016). Theory of
planned behavior approach to understand the green purchasing behav-
ior in the EU: A cross‐cultural study. Ecological Economics, 125, 38–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.008
Mainieri, T., & Barnett, E. G. (1997). Green buying: The influence of environ-
mental concern on consumer behavior. Journal of Social Psychology,
137(2), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595430
Mancha, R. M., & Yoder, C. Y. (2015). Cultural antecedents of green behav-
ioural intent: An environmental theory of planned behaviour. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 43, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2015.06.005
McCarthy, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes: Per-
sonal values, value orientations, and attitudes about recycling as
antecedents of recycling behavior. Journal of Business Research, 30(1),
53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148‐2963(94)90068‐X
McDonagh, P., & Prothero, A. (2014). Sustainability marketing research:
Past, present and future. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(11/
12), 1186–1219. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2014.943263
McDonald, S., & Oates, C. J. (2006). Sustainability: Consumer perceptions
and marketing strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(3),
157–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.524
Milfont, T. L., Duckitt, J., & Cameron, L. D. (2006). A cross‐cultural study of
environmental motive concerns and their implications for pro‐
environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 745–767.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505285933
Millson, M. R. (2012). How does environmental information impact prod-
uct purchase intent? International Journal of Technology Marketing,
7(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2012.046912
Miniero, G., Codini, A., Bonera, M., Corvi, E., & Bertoli, G. (2014). Being
green: From attitude to actual consumption. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 38(5), 521–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12128
Minton, A. P., & Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern
on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study.
Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 37–48.
Mishal, A., Dubey, R., Gupta, O. K., & Luo, Z. (2017). Dynamics of environ-
mental consciousness and green purchase behaviour: An empirical
study. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Manage-
ment, 9(5), 682–706. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM‐11‐2016‐0168
Moisander, J., & Pesonen, S. (2002). Narratives of sustainable ways of liv-
ing: Constructing the self and the other as a green consumer.
Management Decision, 40(4), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00251740210426321
Moon, W., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (2003). Willingness to pay for non‐
biotech foods in the US and UK. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37,
317–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐6606.2003.tb00456.x
Moser, A. K. (2015). Thinking green, buying green: Drivers of pro‐
environmental purchasing behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
32(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM‐10‐2014‐1179
Mostafa, M. M. (2007). Gender differences in Egyptian consumers' green
purchase behavior: The effects of environmental knowledge, concern
and attitude. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(3),
220–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470‐6431.2006.00523.x
Murphy, P. E., Kangun, N., & Locander, W. B. (1978). Environmentally
concerned consumers–racial variations. Journal of Marketing, 42(4),
61–66.
Nath, V., Agrawal, R., Gautam, A., & Sharma, V. (2017). Antecedents of green
purchase intentions: A review and testing of hypothesis on Indian
KAUTISH AND SHARMA
consumers. International Journal of Environment & Sustainable Develop-
ment, 16(3), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2017.085071
Nguyen, T. N., Lobo, A., & Nguyen, B. K. (2018). Young consumers' green
purchase behaviour in an emerging market. Journal of Strategic Market-
ing, 26(7), 1–18.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). NY:
McGraw Hill.
Orsato, R. J. (2006). Competitive environmental strategies: When does it
pay to be green? California Management Review, 48(2), 127–144.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41166341
Ostrom, T. M. (1969). The relationship between the affective, behavioral and
cognitive components of attitude. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, 5(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022‐1031(69)90003‐1
Ottman, J. A., Stafford, E. R., & Hartman, C. L. (2006). Avoiding green mar-
keting myopia: Ways to improve consumer appeal for environmentally
preferable products. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
Development, 48(5), 21–36.
Paço, A. M. F., Alves, H., Shiel, C., & Filho, W. L. (2013). Development of a
green consumer behavior model. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 37(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12009
Paço, A. M. F., & Raposo, M. L. B. (2009). Green segmentation: an applica-
tion to the Portuguese consumer market. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 27(3), 364–379.
Paço, A. M. F., & Raposo, M. L. B. (2010). Green consumer market segmen-
tation: Empirical findings from Portugal. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 34(4), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470‐
6431.2010.00869.x
Paul, J., Modi, A., & Patel, J. (2016). Predicting green product consumption
using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. Journal of Retail-
ing and Consumer Services, 29, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2015.11.006
Peattie, K. (2001). Toward sustainability: The third age of green marketing.
The Marketing Review, 2(2), 129–146.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). The distinction between desire and
intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 69–84.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.186
Prashant, K. (2016). State of green marketing research over 25 years
(1990‐2014). Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 34(1), 137–158.
Ramirez, E., Jiménez, F. R., & Gau, R. (2015). Concrete and abstract goals
associated with the consumption of environmentally sustainable prod-
ucts. European Journal of Marketing, 49(9/10), 1645–1665. https://doi.
org/10.1108/EJM‐08‐2012‐0483
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implica-
tions for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36(3), 217–231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0148‐2963(95)00150‐6
Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships
between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer
behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0148‐2963(96)00280‐9
Robinson, N. M., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale
selection and evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S.
Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological atti-
tudes (pp. 1–16). CA: Academic Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. NY: Prentice Hall.
https://doi.org/10.1037/10788‐000
Rowlands, H. I., Daniel, S., & Parker, P. (2003). Consumers and green elec-
tricity: Profiling potential purchasers. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 12(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.346
KAUTISH AND SHARMA
Samdahl, D., & Robertson, R. (1989). Social determinants of environmental
concern: Specification and test of the model. Environment and Behavior,
21(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916589211004
Sanne, C. (2002). Willing consumers—or locked‐in? Policies for sustainable
consumption. Ecological Economics, 43(2/3), 127–140.
Schuitema, G., & Judith, G. R. (2015). Green consumerism: The influence of
product attributes and values on purchasing intentions. Journal of Con-
sumer Behavior, 14(1), 57–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1501
Schultz, W. P. (2000). Emphasizing with nature: The effects of perspective
taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues,
56(3), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022‐4537.00174
Schwepkar, C. H. Jr., & Cornwell, T. B. (1991). An examination of ecologi-
cally concerned consumers and their intentions to purchase
ecologically packaged products. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
10(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569101000205
Segun, C., Pelletier, L. G., & Hunsley, J. (1998). Towards a model of envi-
ronmental activism. Environment and Behaviour, 30(5), 628–652.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000503
Sharma, A., & Joshi, S. (2017). Green consumerism: Overview and further
research directions. International Journal of Process Management and
Benchmarking, 7(2), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPMB.2017.
083106
Smart, B. (2010). Consumer society: Critical issues and environmental conse-
quences. NY: Sage Publications.
Smith, K. T., & Brower, T. R. (2012). Longitudinal study of green strategies
the influence millennials. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(6), 535–551.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2012.711345
Spangenberg, J. H. (2004). The society, its products and the environmental
role of consumption. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845423568.00010
Stanley, L. R., & Lasonde, K. M. (1996). The relationship between envi-
ronmental issue involvement and environmentally conscious
behavior: An exploratory study. Advances in Consumer Research,
23(1), 183–188.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological para-
digm in social‐psychological context. Environment and Behaviour, 27(5),
723–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276001
Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation
alternatives: A look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(6), 558–575. https://doi.org/
10.1108/07363769910297506
Sumesh, R. N., & Little, J. V. (2016). Context, culture and green consump-
tion: A new framework. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
28(3), 1–16.
Synodinos, N. E. (1991). Environmental attitudes and knowledge: A com-
parison of marketing and business students with other groups.
Journal of Business Research, 20(2), 161–170.
Tanner, C., & Kast, S. (2003). Promoting sustainable consumption: Deter-
minants of green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychology and
Marketing, 20(10), 883–902. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10101
Taufique, K. M. R., & Vaithianathan, S. (2018). A fresh look at under-
standing Green consumer behavior among young urban Indian
consumers through the lens of Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 183, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.02.097
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). An integrated model of waste management
behavior: A test of household recycling and composting intentions.
Environment and Behavior, 27(5), 603–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916595275001
15
Tesla, F., Sarti, S., & Frey, M. (2019). Are green consumers really green?
Exploring the factors behind the actual consumption of green food
products. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 327–338.
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Addressing climate
change: Determinants of consumers' willingness to act and to support
policy measures. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(3), 197–207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.02.001
Trivedi, R. H., Patel, J. D., & Savalia, J. R. (2015). Pro‐environmental behav-
iour, locus of control and willingness to pay for environmental friendly
products. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(1), 67–89. https://doi.
org/10.1108/MIP‐03‐2012‐0028
Van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2011). Willingness to pay for organic prod-
ucts: Differences between virtue and vice foods. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 28(3), 167–180.
Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental concern: Does it
make a difference how it's measured? Environment and Behavior,
13(6), 651–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916581136001
Vermeire, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Explor-
ing the consumer attitude behavioral intention gap. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(1), 169–194. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10806‐005‐5485‐3
Vlosky, R., Ozanne, L., & Fontenot, R. (1999). A conceptual model of US
consumer willingness‐to‐pay for environmental certified wood prod-
ucts. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(2), 122–140. https://doi.org/
10.1108/07363769910260498
Wagner, S. (2003). Understanding green consumer behavior: A qualitative
cognitive approach. London: Routledge.
Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A., & Harris, K. E. (2008). A re‐examination of socially
responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of Business
Research, 61(2), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.05.007
Wesley, S. C., Lee, M. Y., & Kim, E. Y. (2012). The role of perceived con-
sumer effectiveness and motivational attitude on socially responsible
purchasing behavior in South Korea. Journal of Global Marketing,
25(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2012.697383
Widegren, O. (1998). The new environmental paradigm and personal
norms. Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0013916598301004
Yadav, R., & Pathak, G. S. (2016). Young consumers' intention towards buy-
ing green products in a developing nation: Extending the theory of
planned behaviour. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 732–739.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.120
Yarimoglu, E., & Binboga, G. (2019). Understanding sustainable consump-
tion in an emerging country: The antecedents and consequences of
the ecologically conscious consumer behavior model. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 28(4), 642–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.2270
Zabkar, V., & Hosta, M. (2013). Willingness to act and environmentally
conscious consumer behavior: Can prosocial status perceptions help
overcome the gap? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(3),
257–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470‐6431.2012.01134.x
Zavali, M., & Theodoropoulou, H. (2018). Investigating determinants of
green consumption: Evidence from Greece. Social Responsibility Journal,
14(4), 719–736. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ‐03‐2017‐0042
Zhao, G., Cavusgil, E., & Zhao, Y. (2016). A protection motivation explana-
tion of base‐of‐pyramid consumers' environmental sustainability.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 116–126. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.12.003
Zhao, R., & Zhong, S. (2015). Carbon labelling influences on consumers'
behaviour: A system dynamics approach. Ecological Indicators, 51(1),
98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.030
16
Zimmer, M. R., Stafford, T. F., & Stafford, M. R. (1994). Green issues dimen-
sions of environmental concern. Journal of Business Research, 30(1),
63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148‐2963(94)90069‐8
AU THOR BIOG RAPH IES
Pradeep Kautish is an associate professor in Marketing Area at
School of Management Studies, Mody University of Science and
Technology, Lakshmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan. He is M.B.A. and
Ph.D. from Department of Management Studies, Maharishi
Dayanand Saraswati University, Rajasthan, India. His academic
satchel is brimming with laurels such as National Eligibility Test
(NET) qualification for Lectureship in Management conducted by
University Grants Commission, New Delhi and prestigious
Accredited Management Teacher (AMT) certification in Marketing
by All India Management Association, New Delhi. He is a manu-
script reviewer for many publication houses, McGraw Hill, Prentice
Hall of India, and Macmillan to name a few. Dr. Kautish has a num-
ber of publications to his credit in ABDC rank research journals,
articles, technical papers, conference papers, and edited book
chapters.
KAUTISH AND SHARMA
Rajesh Sharma is an assistant professor in Economics Area at
School of Management Studies, Mody University of Science and
Technology, Lakshmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan. He is M.A. and M.
Phil. from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Ph.D. from
Department of Economics, Mody University of Science and Tech-
nology, Lakshmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan, India. His academic
satchel is brimming with laurels such as National Eligibility Test
(NET) qualification for Lectureship in Economics conducted by
University Grants Commission, New Delhi.
How to cite this article: Kautish P, Sharma R. Determinants
of pro‐environmental behavior and environmentally conscious
consumer behavior: An empirical investigation from emerging
market. Bus Strat Dev. 2019;1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bsd2.82