Received: 22 February 2020 Revised: 29 May 2020 Accepted: 15 June 2020

DOI: 10.1002/bse.2567

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Relating the role of green self-concepts and identity on green

purchasing behaviour: An empirical analysis

Nitika Sharma1 | Raiswa Saha2 | V. Raja Sreedharan3 | Justin Paul4

1
School of Commerce, Christ (Deemed to be)
University—NCR Campus, Ghaziabad, India Abstract
2
School of Management, IILM University, At present, consumers in emerging economies are becoming more conscious about
Gurugram, Haryana, India
environmental well-being. Therefore, organizations compete to make their products
3
Rabat Business School, Université
Internationale de Rabat, Rabat, Morocco and practices more eco-friendly. Several studies have tried to explain the relationship
4
Graduate School of Business Administration, between green consumerism and an individual's buying behaviour using traditional
University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto
theories. However, there is quite a challenge in understanding the influence of green
Rico, USA
self-concept (GSC) and green self-identity (GSI) in predicting the green purchase
Correspondence
intention (GPI) of consumers. Therefore, the authors developed six hypotheses to
Raiswa Saha, School of Management, IILM
University, Gurugram, Haryana, India. assess the relation between self-concept and the GPI. The survey was conducted,
Email: raiswasaha5@gmail.com
and the responses were evaluated through the partial least square (PLS) method. The
Nitika Sharma, School of Commerce, Christ authors analysed the measurement model results (n = 717) and the direct and indirect
(Deemed to be) University—NCR Campus,
mediating effect of the latent variable contributing to GPI. The measurement model
Ghaziabad, India.
Email: nitikasharma28@gmail.com results show that a significant relationship exists in the proposed model, namely,
GSCs ! green purchasing intentions, product self-concept (PSC) ! green purchasing
intentions and GSI ! green purchasing intentions. Further, the GSI acted as a media-
tor for the measurement model. The implications of the study can be used to under-
stand the green consumer behavior in developing new strategies and policies for the
organizational practice in emerging economies.

KEYWORDS

emerging economies, green purchasing behaviour, green purchasing intentions, green self-
concept, product self-concept, self-identity

1 | I N T RO D UC TI O N
Currently, environmental issues and their related challenges have
driven people to adopt eco-friendly/green products. Moreover, con-
sumers have started avoiding harmful products, and their focus
towards green products has increased in the past years (Michaud &
Llerena, 2011). As far as developed countries are concerned, their
environmental woes have turned out to be communal anxiety. In
developing nations, consumers have started becoming more eco-
friendly (Kautish, Paul, & Sharma, 2019; Sadiq, Paul, & Bharti, 2020).
In an emerging country like India, the people's awareness towards
green products and their consumption have increased significantly
over time (Prakash, 2002; Sharma & Sharma, 2013; Wang, Li, &
Gao, 2014). Besides, the Kyoto protocol and the media reporting on
greenhouse gas emission increased people's awareness of green prac-
tices. They changed people's perception of the business process and
product portfolio relating to greenhouse gas issues (Downie &
Stubbs, 2012). Moreover, companies have started noticing the con-
sumer's perception of the environment and started modifying their
operations to support eco-friendly practices. As the need for environ-
mental well-being has become more and more insisted by the differ-
ent stakeholders and consumers, the businesses moved beyond the
environmental regulations (Mir, 2008). They started introducing prod-
ucts and services based on green and eco-friendly practices
(Sprengel & Busch, 2011). Further, the market focused on green pack-
ing, green practice and supporting/promoting green initiatives.

Bus Strat Env. 2020;1–17. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bse © 2020 ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
2 SHARMA ET AL.
Nevertheless, such an offering made it difficult for companies
to understand green consumption. In addition, predicting the con-
sumers' reaction to green products is a daunting task (Patel,
Modi, & Paul, 2017). Such scenarios created problems for the com-
panies in segmenting and strategizing the green product develop-
ment for the consumers. It was hard to recognize the purchase
intention of green products and their characters with other issues,
like product branding, pricing and measuring the products' green-
ness (Annandale, Morrison-Saunders, & Bouma, 2004; Sharma &
Lal, 2020; Sharma, Saha, & Rameshwar, 2019). Moreover, different
factors like product selection, self-perception and identity influence
the green purchase intention (GPI) of the consumer. Taking this as
motivation, the researchers have developed a theoretical model
and investigated the intention purchases of eco-friendly or green
products and how it affects the green purchase behaviour (GPB)
(Temminck, Mearns, & Fruhen, 2015). Many studies have tried to
address the consumers' buying intention towards green products
through the packaging process, strategies, type of materials used,
environmental impact and corporate contributions. Unlike other
studies, the present one focuses on evaluating the self-concept,
self-behaviour and purchase behaviour's role in purchase intention
(Chamorro, Rubio, & Miranda, 2009). The paper is structured as
follows: Section 1 describes the introduction followed by Section 2,
the theoretical construction and development of hypotheses and
the conceptual framework. The research methodology is further
discussed in Section 3, which highlights the data-gathering process.
The results are presented in Section 4, followed by the discussion
and conclusion. Later, the theoretical and managerial implications
are discussed subsequently, followed by the limitations and future
scope of the research.
2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 | The theory of reasoned action and the theory
of planned behaviour
The current study utilizes the well-known theory of planned behav-
iour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005), an extension
of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) propounded by Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975). Theoretically, both TRA and TPB examine the factors,
which determine the explicit behaviour of individuals and commonly
applied to examine attitude and behaviour relationships (Leone,
Perugini, & Ercolani, 1999). In addition, owing to being simple, easy to
use and conveniently applicable to investigate the full range of behav-
ioural occurrences, both theories were widely operationalized. How-
ever, due to the clause of optional control, the assumption of TRA
became too restrictive, and to remove this restriction, Ajzen and Mad-
den (1986) developed TPB by adding one more construct in the
model, that is, perceived behavioural control.
Subjective norm shows that the perceived community demands
to engage in the behaviour whereas the attitude is commonly referred
to as the individual's positive/negative appraisal of a particular behav-
iour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and perceived behavioural control
(i.e., ease with which a specific behaviour is performed or carried out).
In addition, it is said to occur due to a combination of people's view-
point about behavioural consequences and their outcome evaluations
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1972), whereas behaviour is shaped by seeing the
consumer's behavioural intentions towards a product. Indeed, TPB is
the one the prevalent theoretical model applied to examine behav-
ioural intention of consumers, and to owe to the element of perceived
control behaviour, the direct relationship of intentions and behaviour
is subjective.
In the present research study, the TPB approach was adopted
(Ajzen, 1991) to conceptualize the variables to explain and understand
the influence of green self-concept (GSC) and green self-identity (GSI)
in predicting the GPI and how it influences the purchase behaviour.
According to the above-mentioned theory, we can postulate that an
individual's specific behaviour is determined by a person's goal to per-
form a task. Further, the theory supports the addition of new vari-
ables, such as self-identity, to explore the TPB (Shaw, Shiu, &
Clarke, 2000). Taking this clue, the present work tries to examine such
variables as GSC and product self-concept (PSC) as its contribution
towards the GPI. Therefore, the TPB approach was used to derive the
required variables for the study. Further, the authors conducted a
detailed literature review to identify the work related to the proposed
variable and explore its influence towards the GPI.
2.2 | Self-concept
The construct self-concept can be referred to as ‘the totality of an
individual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an
object’ (Rosenberg, 1979, p. 7). Self-concept determines the individ-
uals' definition of themselves as well as with others (Dogan &
Yaprak, 2017; Nakata & Sivakumar, 2001). In earlier times, several
theories concerning self-concept have been observed, such as the
self-perception theory (Bem, 1972), attitude and value creation theo-
ries (Rokeach, 1973) and the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). By
taking into account the mutual agreement among scholars, it is
observed that self-concept is not a stationary element but, somewhat,
a lively multifaceted component surrounding the public as well as the
private selves, which changes with time (Swann, Chang-Schneider, &
Larsen McClarty, 2007). As White, Habib, and Hardisty (2019) projec-
ted, the factors that are related to the individual self can have an influ-
ential influence on consumption behaviours. The idea of self-concept
is of concern to consumer-oriented researchers who use the brand-
related aspects in the way of delivering their self-concept properties
(Ahuvia, 2005; Harmon-Kizer, Kumar, Ortinau, & Stock, 2013). As
self-concept influences individuals' attitude, it affects their day-to-day
buying behaviour. Hence, the self-concepts of consumers alter their
buying intentions, as well. Therefore, marketers considered the cus-
tomers' buying behaviour and decision to position their products in
consumers' minds.
SHARMA ET AL.
2.3 | Green self-identity
Self-identity can be defined as ‘the salient part of an actor's self,
which relates to a particular behaviour’ (Conner & Armitage, 1998,
p. 1444). Self-identity creates a strong relationship with the behav-
ioural intention among the researchers studying sociology and psy-
chology (Conner & Armitage, 1998; Sparks & Guthrie, 1998). As per
the behaviour towards the environment pieces of literature, self-
identity is associated with the purchase intention for ecologically
friendly (EF) products (Van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2014). The idea
of self-identity is related to the theory of identity, which shows the
way of the individual's outlook regarding the role-appropriate actions
can be put into effect his/her position in the society (Callero, 1985;
Charng, Piliavin, & Callero, 1988). In the present research, we pur-
posely defined the self-identity measure within the context of the
green consumers, related to the individuals' sensitivity of being associ-
ated with the ‘green issues’ (Carfora, Caso, Sparks, & Conner, 2017).
With these ideas in play, the researchers of this study expected that a
consumer with a higher self-concept of individuality would have high
GSI. Environmentally attentive consumers indulge in green purchase
actions (Akehurst, Afonso, & Goncalves, 2012). To recognize the con-
sumers' inclination to purchase organic food, Sparks and Shep-
herd (1992) used the theory of self-identity, reasoned action theory
and previous consumption behaviour. Perceived GSI predicts pur-
chase intentions of green products among the respondents, which is a
significant forecaster of buying behaviour. Perceived consumer GSI
relates to consumers' attitudes and beliefs towards their own identity
relative to the product. Furthermore, green consumer's self-identity
predicts intentions of consumers, constant with the previous research
(Bartels & Hoogendam, 2011; Hustvedt & Dickson, 2009;
Michaelidou & Hassan, 2008). With previously identified theories of
identity, it is highly evident that there exists a necessary connection
among the consumption of products and services and individuals' self-
identities. Belk (1988), in his extended self-theory, assured that, inten-
tionally or unintentionally, consumers consider their possessions as
part of their selves. Consequently, products and services help people
to correspond with their self-identities.
3 | T H E O R E T I C A L M O D E L D E V E LO P M E N T
3.1 | Influence of attributes of self-concept on GSI
In literature, self-concepts and self-identity have been used inter-
changeably. However, these concepts are different. Self-concepts are
related to the cognitive, physical and social qualities individuals per-
ceive in themselves (Bailey, 2003), for example, if an individual feels
he/she is handsome/pretty, cool or good, whereas self-identity desig-
nates tags individuals use to describe themselves (Biddle, Bank, &
Slavings, 1987), for example, if an individual is a father/mother or
manager/clerk, or environmentalist/nonenvironmentalist. Self-identity
not only asserts the structural role but also differentiates that role
from counter roles (Lindesmith & Strauss, 1956). In addition, self-
3
identity is a multifaceted concept, which articulates, ‘Who I am?’
(Bernstein, Alison, Roy, & Srull, 1994), which individuals construct
from who they are in the present, what they were in the past and
what they want to be in the future. At the cognitive level, self-identity
is reflection and awareness of self (Leary & Tangney, 2003). On the
basis of the TPB, authors identified variables relevant to the evalua-
tion of GPB. Then, Section 3 deals with the development of the rele-
vant hypotheses and constructs the theoretical model for the
objective of the study.
Academically, the significance of the concept of self-identify
gained prominence from the ‘identity theory’, which described self as
a dependent entity, which is contingent on societal norms and behav-
iour of an individual. Burke (1991a) explained behaviour as intentional
and purposive in identity theory as it has a sociology perspective
where an individual's behaviour is not only based on his/her choice
but also on social structures. Hence, individuals have to manifest their
behaviour according to the social network of relationships and the
roles that they have to perform in the social structure (Stryker &
Burke, 2000). Sparks and Shepherd (1992) extended the TPB towards
identity theory, as identity theory is more extensive than attitude the-
ory. Burke (1991b) argued against introducing self, in theory, to show-
case individuals' positive side as when they perceive positive
regarding themselves, they behave positively. However, Burke (2003)
claimed that in a given situation, identity guides an individual's behav-
iour as status and gives a set of meaning connected to self, which
serves as a standard or reference. Thus, the present study considers
the relationship between the role of GSC and GSI and posits the idea
that consumers with a stronger self-concept would have higher green
self-identity.
H1. There is a positive and significant impact of GSC on GSI.
H2. There is a positive and significant impact of PSC on GSI.
3.2 | Influence of attributes of self-concepts on GPI
Consumers' decision-making process is complex and involves multi-
faceted constructs. In the current situation where consumers are
observing environmental deterioration and severe pollution around
them, they intend to adopt a green lifestyle (Boztepe, 2012;
Datta, 2011; Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Sharma & Kesherwani, 2015). In
the green products buying decision, scholars have mentioned the con-
cepts of self-concept values, the perspective of self-concept
(Bertrandias & Elgaaied-Gambier, 2014), self-concept via self-image
(Dagher & Itani, 2014) and GSI (Khare, 2015). However, very little
research has been piloted explicitly to inspect the notion of self-
concept and green buying behaviour of consumers.
In addition, the theory of self-concept is nascent in green market-
ing literature. Therefore, it is imperative to recognize the role of self-
concept in green buying intentions and behaviour. Consumers'
decision-making process is complex and involves multifaceted con-
structs, and in the current situation where consumers are observing
4 SHARMA ET AL.
environmental deterioration and severe pollution around them, they
intend to adopt a green lifestyle (Boztepe, 2012; Datta, 2011; Gupta &
Ogden, 2009; Sharma & Kesherwani, 2015). The main contribution of
the current study is to extend the perspective of self-concept into
GSC. In addition, the study links the PSC and examines its relationship
with GSI to understand the attributes of self-concepts on how they
affect the green buying decisions of consumers.
Similarly, PSCs measure the consumers' perception regarding the
product decision they make. The past studies classified the products
based on exploration, understanding and credibility (Animesh, Ram-
achandran, & Viswanathan, 2005; Ford, Smith, & Swasy, 1988;
Girard & Dion, 2010). However, when consumers are witnessing dras-
tic environmental deterioration, the static taxonomies of the product
are very little to be considered by the consumers (Sammer &
Wüstenhagen, 2006). Hence, consumers look at the environmental
aspects of the products while buying a product. In addition, it is possi-
ble to imply that when consumers perceive themselves to be green or
have a positive attitude, they prefer buying green products.
H3. There is a positive and significant impact of GSC on GPI.
H4. There is a positive and significant impact of PSC on GPI.
3.3 | Influence of GSI on GPI
Numerous researchers have tried to explore the significance of micro-
level or individual-level factors that influence consumers' GPI and
environment-friendly buying behavioural practices (Chan, Wong, &
Leung, 2008; Mostafa, 2009). The well-known TPB framework has
applied the self-identity construct to recognize and understand the
consumer's behavioural pattern. Identity theory explains consumer's
behaviour in ‘terms of the reciprocal relation between self and society’
(Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995, p. 256). It talks about the function of
symbolic interactions of self with society as a whole, which facilitates
identity construction. Hence, we can say that the self-construct is not
independent but is flexible and dependent on the individual's role in
the society as well as taking care of the societal regulations. Few
researchers have also performed their preliminary investigations relat-
ing to the position of self-identity in green buying practices of con-
sumers (Cheah & Phau, 2011; Leonidou, Leonidou, & Kvasova, 2010;
Tilikidou, 2013). Sparks and Shepherd (1992) utilized self-identity, the
TRA and past consumption behaviour to comprehend consumers' lik-
ing to buy organic food materials. Our paper links the self-identity
theory in terms of the green consumers, which is supported by prior
studies, which states that GSI is a definite antecedent of consumers'
intention to buy green products (Whitmarsh & O'Neill, 2010). GSI can
also be reflected as an individual's self-perception regarding pro-
environmental factors such as environmental values and social norms.
Stets and Biga (2003) examined the effect of consumers' self-identity
on GPI. In one of the studies, GSI has also been considered as one of
the critical predictors of eco-friendly apparel consumption (Tung,
Koenig, & Chen, 2017). There is a range of research efforts that
emphasize the identity-behaviour link (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993;
Stets & Biga, 2003). Consumption intentions and acceptance of new
products are connected to the identity aspect (Cook, Kerr, &
Moore, 2002; Grewal, Mehta, & Kardes, 2000). In past studies, self-
identity has been linked with consumer behaviour (Sparks &
Shepherd, 1992; Sparks, Shepherd, & Frewer, 1995; Terry, Hogg, &
White, 1999; Fekadu & Kraft, 2001).
In the environmental context, literature has evolved the concept
of GSI and defined it as a view of the self as a person who performs
pro-environmentally (Van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2014). In addi-
tion, GSI describes the individual's perception, commitment and deter-
mination towards the environment (Khare & Pandey, 2017; Khare,
2015). In addition, many scholars examined the importance of GSI on
green buying decisions (Barbarossa, De Pelsmacker, & Moons, 2017;
Costa Pinto, Herter, Rossi, & Borges, 2014; Van der Werff, Steg, &
Keizer, 2013; Whitmarsh & O'Neill, 2010). Also, it has been observed
that environmentally attentive consumers indulge in green purchase
actions (Akehurst et al., 2012). To recognize the consumers' prefer-
ence to buy organic food, Sparks and Shepherd (1992) used the self-
identity theory, the TRA and past consumption behaviour. Perceived
GSI predicts GPI among the respondents, which is an essential predic-
tor of purchase behaviour. Perceived consumer GSI relates to con-
sumers' attitudes and beliefs towards their own identity towards the
product. Furthermore, green consumer's self-identity predicts con-
sumers' intentions, consistent with earlier studies (Bartels &
Hoogendam, 2011; Hustvedt & Dickson, 2009; Michaelidou &
Hassan, 2008). This finding highlighted the need to promote in Indian
consumer's identification with green consumerism as a significant fea-
ture of his/her identity through an ecology-based education. We thus
propose the following hypothesis:
H5. There is a positive and significant impact of GSI on GPI.
3.4 | Influence of GPI on GPB
The intention is referred to as an individual's willingness to execute a
given behaviour (Yadav & Pathak, 2017). Consumers' plans towards
green purchasing are usually assessed with respect to their readiness
or objective to buy green products eventually changed to the pur-
chase decisions for those products to be caring for environmentally
sustainable goals (Joshi & Rahman, 2015). Global warming, pollution
and waste generation are some of the severe environmental sustain-
ability issues that force the people to transform their traditional con-
sumption ways and buying intentions towards the quest of long-term
ecological goals (Jaiswal & Kant, 2018). According to the TPB, when
the behaviour is voluntary, intentions are the result. Various environ-
mental consumption expressions have been used with time immemo-
rial defining the behaviour, which has a positive effect on the
surroundings (Antonetti & Maklan, 2014; Lee, Kim, Kim, &
Choi, 2014). With the effort of explaining about the green consump-
tion behaviour, some group of research efforts laid stress on deter-
mining the features of so-called green consumers (Kinnear, James, &
SHARMA ET AL.
Sadrudin, 1974; Laroche, Bergeron, & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001; Lu,
Chang, & Chang, 2015; Roberts, 1996; Webster & Frederick, 1975).
Meanwhile, authors such as Roberts (1996); Minton and Rose (1997);
Roberts and Bacon (1997); Laroche et al. (2001); Diamantopoulos,
Schlegelmilch, Sinkovics, and Bohlen (2003); and Lu et al. (2015)
explored the consumers' knowledge towards the environment and
their concern towards the environment. In addition, the attitude
towards environmental awareness was identified as the major driver
for green purchase. Therefore, the authors propose the following
hypothesis:
H6. There is a positive and significant impact of GPI on GPB.
The authors constructed a theoretical model and proposed
hypotheses for evaluation, as shown in Figure 1. Further, the authors
have considered the GSI as the mediating variable in the proposed
model and how it influences the GPI leading to the GPB.
4 | MODEL EVALUATION
4.1 | Background of the data
The questionnaire was administered and distributed via online and
offline methods to verify the purported hypothesis and constructed
model. Initially, content validity was tested via a pilot study by apply-
ing the questionnaire to subject experts; the experts were academic
researchers and practitioners in sustainable marketing practices
(Rejikumar, Sreedharan, & Saha, 2019). The survey was shared with
the 12 academicians and seven practitioners in green marketing.
Based on their responses to the questionnaire, modifications were
made to ensure clarity in the items. The target population for the
study was members of a green movement in India, with potential
knowledge and awareness on green consumerism. The questionnaire
was distributed via email using total Dillman's approach (Sreedharan,
Gopikumar, Nair, Chakraborty, & Antony, 2018). Through convenient
sampling, the respondents posing the intention for green purchases
and basic knowledge on green practice were chosen as respondents
F I G U R E 1 Constructed model connecting the
green self-concept (GSC), product self-concept to
green purchase intention (GPI) and green
purchase behaviour (GPB)
5
for the study. This was to understand people's consciousness towards
buying green products. After the pretest, 315 respondents from off-
line mode and 827 respondents from online mode were solicited, out
of which questionnaires of 297 respondents from offline mode and
466 respondents from online mode were usable. In total, 763 potential
responses were prescreened for the study, and 717 suitable
responses that were complete and usable were selected. The respon-
dent's profile is shown in Table 1.
4.2 | Measures
The questionnaire was administered by referring to the literature and
related works. Each item was measured on a 7-point Likert scale,
ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. The previous studies
hardly investigated the explicit impact of GSC and PSCs via green
self-identify on green buying intentions and behaviour. Hence, con-
structs had been developed by adapting the items from different stud-
ies (Chan & Wong, 2012; Fielding, Terry, Masser, & Hogg, 2008;
Lee, 2010; Ramirez, McDonough, & Jin, 2017; Roe & Bruwer, 2017;
Van der Werff et al., 2013). Based on the extant review, 25 items
were identified and subjected to substantive validity. Here, the role of
the item for the present study is evaluated. Based on the expert opin-
ion, an item is rated essential or non-essential as shown in Equation 1.
CSV = ðnc −n0 Þ=N, ð1Þ
where nc is the number of respondents indicating an item as essential,
n0 the number of respondents indicating the item as non-essential
and N the total number of respondents.
Based on Equation 1, CSV is calculated for each item. If the item
has a value (<0.5), it is omitted, and it is retained if the value is (>0.5).
This ensures that the items represent the precise information about
the constructs and readability. The authors ended with 19 items that
were used for the final questionnaire for the survey (refer to
Appendix A).
Further, the study analysed the data using partial least squares
structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to verify the hypothesis and
6 SHARMA ET AL.

TABLE 1 Respondent's profile for the study outcome of the data analysis for the measurement model is elaborated

Sample in Section 4.3.

Variables Classification (n = 717) Percentage
Gender Male 378 52.72
Female 339 47.28 4.3 | Measurement model evaluation
Age (in years) 18–23 311 43.38
Because the study consists of a latent variable, which is formative in
24–29 133 18.55
nature, we measure the factor loadings for all the constructs for model
30–35 111 15.48
evaluation. The factor loading is observed to more than 0.7 for all the
36–41 57 7.95
latent variables. The Cronbach alpha value demonstrates acceptable
42 and above 105 14.64
values, except the item GPB3 (0.697). Further, the composite reliabil-
Education Doctorate 31 4.32 ity lies more than the preferred value (0.7) for all the values, and the
Graduation 321 44.77 average variance extracted (AVE) through the Fornell and
Postgraduation 330 46.03 Larcker (1981) is well within in the acceptable range. The discriminant
Professional 35 4.88 validity for the latent variables reveals that the square root of AVE is
course higher than the intercorrelation values. This proves that the constructs
Occupation Business 96 13.39 pose discriminant validity. The variation inflation (inner and outer) of
Government 56 7.81 factors has been found to be within acceptable level for the model.
job Further, the path coefficient of the model is evaluated and found to
Homemaker 48 6.67 be influencing the latent variables (0.111), (0.605) and (0.354). The R2
Others 1 0.14 measure and the adjusted R2 measure for the GSI, GPB and GPI show
Private job 166 23.15 that the model is valid and within accepted range. The detail analysis
Professional 44 6.14 of the measurement models is explained as follows:
work
Student/fresher 306 42.68
Income (family 10,000–30,000 94 13.11 4.3.1 | Reliability analysis
income/month) 30,001–50,000 129 17.99
50,001–70,000 178 24.83 To establish the reliability of the constructs, Hair, Ringle, and

70,001–90,000 117 16.32
90,001 and 199 27.75
above
predict the constructed model. The PLS-SEM version 3.2.6 via
SmartPLS software was used to determine the results. To test the pro-
posed theoretical model in the present study, PLS-SEM is the most
suitable technique as the nature of the current study is exploratory
and objective to predict the model. Similarly, the estimation objective
of PLS-SEM is predictive modelling. In addition, PLS-SEM functions on
the complex model (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017), and in our
proposed model, it has got two constructs in first order and one in
second and the other in third order. Indeed, PLS-SEM accommodates
large models with several constructs and many indicators (Sarstedt,
Ringle, & Hair, 2017). PLS-SEM involves two-stage evaluation proce-
dures. In Stage 1, the measurement of the model is done by examining
the indicator reliability, internal consistency reliability, convergent
validity and discriminant validity. In Stage 2 studies, the structural
model involves hypothesis testing and establishing the relationship
among the variables. In addition, the resampling procedure is done via
bootstrapping using 5,000 subsamples to obtain t values and to exam-
ine the level of significance of each reflective item in a construct. The
Sarstedt (2011) suggested that the values of Cronbach's alpha and
composite reliability should be more than 0.7. All constructs in this
study have the values of Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.895 to
0.947, and composite reliability is 0.896–0.946, which is over and
above the threshold recommended by Hair et al. Hence, it certifies
the strong reliability among the constructs.
4.3.2 | Convergent validity
As recommended in the literature, the standardized outer loadings of
the items, which should be more than 0.7 and AVE, should be greater
than 0.5 to establish convergent validity among the constructs
(Rahman, Doroodian, Kamarulzaman, & Muhamad, 2015; Hair
et al., 2011). Bootstrapping was done to estimate the outer loading
and level of significance, and it has been found that all the outer load-
ings are more than 0.7 (except GPB3, which is 0.697) and significant
at P < 0.001. As per Fornell and Larcker (1981), the values of AVE
should be more than 0.5, which explains that beyond 50% of the vari-
ance of respective constructs as compared with the errors explained.
In case of GPB3 where the loading is 0.697 (which is less than .7), the
AVE is greater than 0.5; so therefore, it is acceptable. Hence, the
values in Table 2 confirm the convergent validity among the
constructs.
SHARMA ET AL. 7

TABLE 2 Reliability and validity measures of the measurement model

Constructs Indicators Mean Standard deviation Loadings α Composite reliability Cronbach's alpha Average variance extracted
PSC PSC1 4.873 1.691 0.903 0.905 0.905 0.705
PSC2 4.656 1.762 0.736
PSC3 4.643 1.750 0.827
PSC4 5.039 1.711 0.883
GSI GSI1 4.417 1.787 0.857 0.913 0.912 0.777
GSI2 4.456 1.774 0.897
GSI3 4.584 1.755 0.889
GSC GSC1 5.031 1.781 0.919 0.946 0.947 0.747
GSC2 4.756 1.698 0.861
GSC3 4.809 1.725 0.879
GSC4 4.731 1.694 0.836
GSC5 4.702 1.735 0.852
GSC6 4.678 1.721 0.834
GPI GPI1 4.671 1.807 0.816 0.896 0.895 0.746
GPI2 4.918 1.777 0.887
GPI3 5.022 1.804 0.889
GPB GPB1 4.499 1.902 1.005 0.908 0.906 0.770
GPB2 4.280 1.912 0.903
GPB3 4.160 1.984 0.697

Abbreviations: GPB, green purchase behaviour; GPI, purchase intention; GSC, green self-concept; GSI, green self-identity; PSC, product self-concept.

4.3.3 | Discriminant validity 4.3.4 | Multicollinearity issues

Discriminant validity can be checked using the Fornell–Larcker crite-
rion (Hair et al., 2011). According to the Fornell–Larcker measure, ‘the
AVE of each latent construct should be higher than the construct's
highest squared correlation with any other latent construct’, and in
cross loading criteria, ‘an indicator's loadings should be higher than all
of its cross-loadings’ represented in Table 3. Based on the diagonal
elements (a), discriminant validity is established.
To check the issue of multicollinearity, the variance inflation factor
(VIF) among constructs was examined. The outer VIF values show
the collinearity among the items in constructs and inner VIF shows
the collinearity among the latent variable. Hair et al. (2011)
suggested that the value of VIF should be less than five. Table 4
shows the collinearity statistics of all the constructs (inner VIF) and
all the values of VIF are less than five. Similarly, for outer VIF,
refer to Table 5. This implies that there are no collinearity prob-
lems existing among the constructs.

TABLE 3 Discriminant validity

Intercorrelation matrix
TABLE 4 Inner VIF values
GPB GPI GSC GSI PSC
Inner VIF values GPB GPI GSC GSI PSC
GPB 0.878a
GPI 0.333 0.865a GPB

GSC 0.352 0.747 0.864 a GPI 1.000

GSI 0.344 0.539 0.587 0.881a GSC 3.936 3.652

PSC 0.349 0.738 0.852 0.551 0.840 a GSI 1.547

PSC 3.706 3.652
Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; GPB, green purchase
behaviour; GPI, purchase intention; GSC, green self-concept; GSI, green Abbreviations: GPB, green purchase behaviour; GPI, purchase intention;
self-identity; PSC, product self-concept. GSC, green self-concept; GSI, green self-identity; PSC, product
a
Square root of AVE. self-concept; VIF, variance inflation factor.
8 SHARMA ET AL.

TABLE 5 Outer VIF values the self and green buying decision of consumers that might implicitly

Items VIF address the issue of CMB. To check the CMB, the study employed
two methods to assess CMB via Harman's single factor test and corre-
GPB1 2.984
lation matrix process. The total variance explained by single is
GPB2 3.249
35.63%, which is less than 50% and confirms the absence of a CMB.
GPB3 2.691
In addition, by using the correlation matrix procedure, the study
GPI1 2.683
determines CMB. Bagozzi, Yi, and Phillips (1991) proposed that a cor-
GPI2 3.526
relation of more than 0.9 depicts the presence of CMB. As per the
GPI3 2.589 table values (refer to Table A2), all the values are less than 0.9. Hence,
GSC1 2.808 it is confirmed that there is no existence of CMB.
GSC2 3.874
GSC3 4.770
GSC4 4.264 4.4 | Structural model
GSC5 4.406
GSC6 3.723 After checking the compatibility of the measurement model, the struc-
tural model (refer to Figure 2) is analysed to verify the proposed
GSI1 3.045
hypothesis and predict the model. In PLS-SEM, the model can be
GSI2 3.315
predicted by estimating R2 and Q2. R2 is accurately predicting the vari-
GSI3 3.021
ance explained by the construct, and Q2 proposes predictive relevance
PSC1 2.975
by using the sample reusing method where part of the data matrix is
PSC2 2.645
being omitted and results are used to predict the omitted part. Hair,
PSC3 2.438
Sarstedt, Hopkins, and Kuppelwieser (2014) stated that the higher the
PSC4 2.609 R2 (ranging from 0 to 1), the higher the predictive accuracy would
Abbreviations: GPB, green purchase behaviour; GPI, purchase intention; be. As per the past studies done, the values of R2 as 0.75 are consid-
GSC, green self-concept; GSI, green self-identity; PSC, product ered to be good, 0.50 as moderate and 0.25 as weak predictive accu-
self-concept; VIF, variance inflation factor. racy values. The R2 of exogenous variables (GPI) is 0.605, which is
higher than 10% as recommended by Falk and Miller (1992) and con-
sidered to be good, as suggested by Hair et al. (2014). Hence, it sig-
4.3.5 | Common method bias nifies a robust explanatory power of the model, which infers that all
the independent variables contribute 60.5% of the total variance in
In PLS-SEM context, the common method bias (CMB) occurs because GPI. However, the R2 exogenous variable (GPB) is 0.111, which is less
of the errors in the measurement model rather than the cause and and is considered as being low. It shows that only intentions to buy
effect in the structural model (Kock, 2017). For example, the variation green does not significantly contribute to green buying behaviour. In
occurred because of items developed or the instruction given in the addition, R2 of GSI is 0.354, which infers that PSC and GSC have only
survey, which might influence the responses of the participants. In 35.4% of total variance in GSI.
addition, the desirable way of answering a particular question may To verify the predictive orientation of the model, the Stone–
cause CMB. In the present study, the authors attempt to understand Geisser's Q2 is used (Hair et al., 2011, 2014). The assessment of Q2

F I G U R E 2 Partial least square (PLS)

structural model (drawn in Smart-PLS
software version 3.2.6). GPB, green
purchase behaviour; GPI, purchase
intention; GSC, green self-concept; GSI,
green self-identity; PSC, product self-
concept [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
SHARMA ET AL.
proposes predictive relevance by using sample reusing method where
part of the data matrix is being omitted and results are used to predict
the omitted part. Hence, this blindfolding technique assesses the
model's predictive accuracy. The higher value of Q2 implies less devia-
tion in estimated and original values. Hence, Q2 should be more signif-
icant than 0 (refer to Table 6).
The predictive orientation of the model can be determined by
assessing Q2. Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2016) recommended
2
that the values of Q , that is, the predictive indices 0.02, 0.15, and
0.35, are regarded as small, medium and large effects, respectively.
Here, Q2 value of GPB is 0.027; it infers that GPI has low effect in
predicting the variance in consumers' behaviour towards green prod-
ucts. In the case of GPI, the Q2 effect is large with value of 0.413, and
GSI has medium effect.
4.4.1 | f2 Effects
The inclusion and exclusion of predictive construct substantially affect
the values of R2 of the endogenous construct (refer to Table 7).
Hence, to estimate the effect size, researchers calculate the f2 to
examine the change in the values of R2.
2 R2included − R2excluded
f = :
1− R2included
f2 is calculated to estimate the effect size. Sarstedt et al. (2017)
suggested that the values of f2 as 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 are considered
to have small, medium and large effects, respectively. As shown in this
table, all the variables are less than 0.15, which means that effect size
is small.
To verify the postulated hypothesis and check the relationship
among the constructs, the path coefficients are calculated by using
the bootstrapping, t values and P values. From Table 8, it is revealed
that the bootstrapping results of resampling technique (5,000 subsam-
ples) examine the influence of GSC and PSC on GPI. In addition, the
relationship has been investigated via GSI. Table 8 depicts the path
coefficients, t values and P values of proposed hypothesis.
H1, postulating the positive relationship between GSC and GSI, is
significant as β = 0.428, t value = 5.758, P value < 0.05. Hence, it sup-
ports H1. It implies that consumers who believe themselves as
environmentally conscious towards eco-friendly products
TABLE 6 2
Q values
Variables Q2 Effect size
GPB 0.072 Low
GPI 0.413 Large
GSI 0.250 Medium
Abbreviations: GPB, green purchase behaviour; GPI, purchase intention;
GSI, green self-identity.
9
TABLE 7 f2 Effects
f2 GPB GPI GSC GSI PSC
GPB
GPI 0.125
GSC 0.091 0.078
GSI 0.026
PSC 0.082 0.015
Abbreviations: GPB, green purchase behaviour; GPI, purchase intention;
GSC, green self-concept; GSI, green self-identity; PSC, product
self-concept; VIF, variance inflation factor.
environmental issues individualize themselves as a person who is
green and performs green activities. Likewise, H2 conjectured that
PSC positively affects the GSI and it is supported as β = 0.187,
t value = 2.501, P value < 0.05, which infers that kind of products indi-
viduals buy and defines the individualization of the consumers. How-
ever, as compared with GSC, PSC has less impact on GSI of
consumers.
Similarly, the study supports H3 and H4 as the path coefficients
among constructs are positive, t values are more than 1.96 and
P values are less than 0.05, and the beta coefficients are as follows:
GSC ! GPI is β = 0.377 and PSC ! GPI is β = 0.347. It implies that
consumers' self-perception towards their knowledge and understand-
ing towards environment, environmental issues and products they
prefer to buy influences green buying intentions. Also, the relationship
between GSI and GPI is supported, and H5 is accepted as β = 0.126,
t value = 2.964, P value < 0.05. Finally, the cascading effect also
reveals the linear relationship between green buying intentions and
green buying behaviour among consumers. In the recent study of
Emekci (2019), it has been also affirmed that green buying intentions
positively influence the green buying behaviour of consumers. Hence,
the entire conjectured hypotheses are supported.
5 | MEDIATION ANALYSIS
The study also proposed the mediating relationship between GSC and
green purchasing intentions via GSI and PSC and green purchasing
intentions via GSI. Table 9 illustrates the total, direct and indirect rela-
tionship among the constructs, which shows that GSCs affect green
and purchasing intentions more than PSC as the total effect of GSCs is
0.431. It infers that one-unit change in GSC would influence green
purchasing intentions of consumers by 0.431. It implies that having
green orientation influences the green identity of consumers; they
perceive themselves as a person who is doing something for the envi-
ronment, and eventually, they intend to buy green products. How-
ever, the relationship between PSC and GPI via GSI is insignificant. It
infers that consumers do not always find the products as per the
green taxonomies and perceive that products do not align with GSI.
Hence, the same ultimately do not lead to green buying intentions
and demonstrate no mediation effects.
10 SHARMA ET AL.

TABLE 8 Standardized structural estimates and tests of the main hypotheses

Hypothesis Path Path coefficients (β) t value P values Results

H1 GSC ! GSI 0.428 5.758 0.000 Supported
H2 PSC ! GSI 0.187 2.501 0.013 Supported
H3 GSC ! GPI 0.377 4.619 0.000 Supported
H4 PSC ! GPI 0.347 4.117 0.000 Supported
H5 GSI ! GPI 0.126 2.964 0.003 Supported
H6 GPI ! GPB 0.333 7.389 0.000 Supported

TABLE 9 Mediation effect of GSI on GSC and GPI and PSC and GPI

Total effects Direct effects Indirect effects via GSI

Variables β P β P β P
GSC 0.431 0.000 0.377 0.000 0.054 0.009
PSC 0.370 0.000 0.347 0.000 0.024 0.059

Abbreviations: GSC, green self-concept; GSI, green self-identity; PSC, product self-concept.

6 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Measuring green consumption has become necessary as the world
becomes more focused on sustainable practices, and the developing
countries have started to realize and follow similar practices. Further,
people's intention of buying eco-friendly products in emerging econo-
mies like India has been on the rise over the years. The present study
focused on understanding people's purchase behaviour towards eco-
friendly/green products. To develop a conceptualized model, the
authors explored different theories, chose the TRA and planned
behaviour. The theory explores the reasoned action of an individual's
behaviour. Further, the theory highlights the individual's determina-
tion towards a new task. In addition, the authors identified the dimen-
sion representing the planned behaviour theory in the context of self-
concept and GSI. Because these dimensions describe the individual's
behaviour, the authors used these dimensions to see how it can evalu-
ate the GPB. However, from the works of literature, the authors
found that different variables influence GPB. Therefore, the authors
conducted a detailed review and found another dimension like the
GPI: GSI and PSC. Then, the authors conceptualized a theoretical
model based on these dimensions, where GSI had a mediating role on
the GSC and PSC. The proposed conceptualized model was tested
through the modified Dillman's approach and received 717 available
samples for the analysis.
Then the collected data were analysed using the PLS-SEM to ver-
ify the hypotheses and predict the outcome of the constructed model
for the GPI. Through the measurement model evaluation, the authors
found that the collected data reliability and validity were within an
acceptable range and apt for further analysis. In addition,
multicollinearity for both the inner and outer models was evaluated to
ensure that no collinearity issues exist in the proposed model. More-
over, the authors used the CMB to check whether the variances are
shared among the constructs. The authors employed two methods to
assess CMB via Harman's single factor test and correlation matrix pro-
cess. The total variance explained by a single factor is 35.63% (<50%)
and confirms the absence of a common bias method. Then we used
the correlation matrix where all the values are (<0.9). Hence, it is con-
firmed that there is no existence of CMB.
Measurement model evaluation ensured the compatibility of the
proposed model. We then analysed the structural model to verify the
proposed hypotheses for GPB in the PLS-SEM. Here, the model pre-
diction is made through the R2 and Q2 to check the accuracy. For the
exogenous variables (GPI), R2 is 0.605, which signifies a robust explan-
atory power of the model and infers that all the independent variables
contribute 60.5% of the total variance in GPI. However, the R2 for the
exogenous variable (GPB) is 0.111, which is less and considers being
low. It infers that intentions alone do not contribute to the purchase
behaviour of the green products. Also, R2 of GSI is 0.354, which con-
cludes that PSC and GSC have only 35.4% of the total variance in GSI.
The predictive orientation of the model can be determined by
assessing Q2 values, and the number of predictive indices is 0.02, 0.15
and 0.35, which implies that effects are small, medium and large,
respectively. Here, Q2 value for GPB is 0.027; it infers that GPI is hav-
ing a profound impact in predicting the variation in consumer behav-
iour towards green products. In the case of GPI, the Q2 result is
significant, with a value 0.413, and GSI has a common effect for the
GPI. Further, the f2 is calculated to estimate the effect size on R2 and
found that all variables' values are less than 0.15, proving that the
effect size is small.
Furthermore, to verify the hypothesis of the proposed model and
test the relationship among the constructs, the path coefficients are
calculated by using the bootstrapping, t values and P values. From
Table 8, it is revealed that the bootstrapping results of resampling
technique (5,000 subsamples) examine the influence of GSC and PSC
on GPI. In addition, the relationship between the GSC, GPI and PSC
has been investigated via the mediating variable GSI. The hypotheses
SHARMA ET AL.
testing proved that all the predictions are valid, and the measurement
model supports the theoretical measurement model. Moreover, the
H1 testing showed that consumers who believe themselves as envi-
ronmentally conscious towards eco-friendly products and environ-
mental issue individualize themselves as a green consumer and
perform green activities.
H2 estimated that PSC positively affects the GSI, which infers
that kind of products individuals buy; it defines the individualization
of the consumers. However, as compared with GSC, PSC has less
impact on GSI of consumers. In addition, H3 and H4 prove that con-
sumers are concerned about the environment and its related issues
and these influence their purchase intentions. Also, the H5 relation-
ship between GSI and GPI is supported, proving that the individuals
who buy green products are recognized for their effort, and their
intention of being eco-friendly profoundly influences it. Lastly, the H6
cascading effect also reveals the linear relationship between green
buying intentions and green buying behaviour among consumers. Fur-
ther, the consumers' preference towards green products is highly
influenced by the individual's purchase intention.
The total, direct and indirect relationship among the constructs,
which shows that GSCs affect green purchasing intentions more than
PSC as the total effect of GSCs, is 0.431. It infers that one-unit
change in GSC would influence green buying intentions of consumers
by 0.431. It implies that having green orientation influences the green
identity of consumers; they perceive themselves as a person who is
doing something from the environment, and eventually, they intend
to buy green products. However, the relationship between PSC and
GPI via GSI is insignificant. It infers that consumers do not always find
the products that are eco-friendly and perceive with the product that
do not align with GSI. Hence, this shows that the product nature and
eco-friendly/green guidelines alone do not lead to green buying inten-
tions. It has been also affirmed that green buying intentions positively
influence the green buying behaviour of consumers. Hence, the entire
testing supports the theoretical model for the GPI.
6.1 | Theoretical contribution
The study enhanced the measures to predict the GPI for eco-friendly
products using constructs of self-concept, behaviour and identity. Fur-
ther, the model is unique and tested in emerging economies, which
have been addressed in few studies. Many studies have reported the
purchase intention but have not evaluated the relationship between
the self-concept and behaviour aspect of the consumers. Such studies
prove that the emerging economies have to incline towards green
consumerism, which is a need of the hour in developing countries.
6.2 | Managerial implications
With different cultural context, it is essential to understand the GPI in
emerging economies like India. The results of the study shed light on
the consumer perception of green products and how their behaviour
11
influences the purchase intention. The results can be instrumental for
the advertising agency, marketing firm, non-profit organizations and
researchers (Albino, Balice, & Dangelico, 2009). Because it is evident
that people welcome eco-friendly products and their consumption,
therefore, the study can be repeated in any emerging economy under
the people's intention towards green products. In addition, key is
directing the marketers in understanding the people's mindset in dif-
ferent cultural backgrounds. It will enable retails to formulate new
strategies for new markets, like India. Further, the study highlights
such challenges as product pricing and availability, which hinders the
peoples' purchase intention. Moreover, the study evaluates the
buyers' relationship towards their purchase intention for eco-friendly
and green products and found that people are becoming more eco-
friendly because it recognizes their self-identity as environmentally
responsible person. Moreover, the GPI influences buying behaviour.
Therefore, the organization should propose policy and market strate-
gies to recognize the consumers as eco-friendly and environmentally
responsible individuals rather than focusing on the product portfolio.
In addition, the retail firm has to make the joint venture and provide
items at an affordable price through farm-to-fork supply chain con-
cept and eradicating the intermediaries in the value chain. Further-
more, studies show that the GPI is collectivism in India, and the
marketer has to provide the right kind of green product for the market
segment.
7 | CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR
FU T U R E R E S E A R C H
The study focused on evaluating the GPI in the emerging economies.
Using the theory of planned action and planned behaviour, the
authors conceptualized the variables for the study. Further, the
authors conducted a detail review and proposed six hypotheses to
evaluate the GPB. The authors proposed a theoretical model to test
the GPI through the survey methods. The proposed model is charac-
terized by PSC, GSC, GPI, GPB and GSI. Here, GSI acts as a mediating
variable. Then, the authors used a modified Dillman's approach and
conducted a survey in the Indian context to assess the people's inten-
tion towards buying eco-friendly/green products. The survey got
717 responses for testing the conceptual model. The authors used the
PLS-SEM approach to test and predict the hypotheses of the pro-
posed model. Based on the analysis, it was found that consumers pre-
fer eco-friendly products. Also, the purchase intention of green
products is high. However, the product aspect does not influence pur-
chase intention.
Moreover, the self-identity and the individual's recognition as a
green consumer create more impact on green consumerism and inten-
tion to buy eco-friendly products. The data collected are focused on
the consumer with knowledge of green products and eco-friendly
practices. However, it may not help the researcher to generalize the
causality of the relationship. Moreover, the study was constrained to
emerging economies (India). This paves the opportunity for future
researchers to use this model in other emerging economies. Besides, a
12
sample from a new and unexplored market will have proper research
with many early adopters. On the other hand, the sample from
established markets can close the early and late adopters in green pur-
chasing. In addition, conducting similar studies in the longitudinal set-
ting can enhance the green measure for organic product consumption.
Furthermore, the study evaluated the mediating role, and future
research can address the mediation effects. The proposed model con-
sists of the variable for the individual behaviour. However, the future
researchers need to develop the variable related to the VUCA world
and extend its application. As the green consumerism becomes a more
challenging process, the intention to buy green products is influenced
by the Volatility in product demand, Uncertain in eco-friendly prac-
tices, Complexity in the sustainable development and Ambiguity
about the product's impact on the environment. Further, VUCA cre-
ates lot of ripple for the green practices and affects the individual's
purchase intention. Therefore, future researchers can explore the
green consumerism in the VUCA scenario.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
The authors sincerely thank the editor in chief, Prof Richard Welford,
and the anonymous reviewers for their timely help and support for
their review to improve the manuscript quality to a higher level. In
addition, the authors would like to thank Mr. Scott Lam for his uncon-
ditional support in the review process during the COVID crisis.
ORCID
Nitika Sharma https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0559-8753
Raiswa Saha https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5804-0182
V. Raja Sreedharan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3601-8002
RE FE R ENC E S
Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the extended self: Love objects and con-
sumer's identity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1),
171–184. https://doi.org/10.1086/429607
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour.
In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behav-
iour (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour
and the Human Decision Process, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1972). Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors
influencing behavioural intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031930
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In
D. Albarracín B. T. Johnson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of atti-
tudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal directed behaviour:
Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioural control. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0022-1031(86)90045-4
Akehurst, G., Afonso, C., & Goncalves, M. H. (2012). Re-examining green
purchase behaviour and the green consumer profile: New evidences.
Management Decision, 50(5), 972–988. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00251741211227726
SHARMA ET AL.
Albino, V., Balice, A., & Dangelico, R. M. (2009). Environmental strategies
and green product development: An overview on sustainability-driven
companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(2), 83–96.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.638
Animesh, A., Ramachandran, V., & Viswanathan, S. (2005, June). Online
advertisers bidding strategies for search, experience, and credence
goods: An empirical investigation. In Second Workshop on Sponsored
Search Auctions.EC.
Annandale, D., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Bouma, G. (2004). The impact of
voluntary environmental protection instruments on company environ-
mental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(1),
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.390
Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2014). Feelings that make a difference: How
guilt and pride convince consumers of the effectiveness of sustainable
consumption choices. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 117–134.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1841-9
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (Sep 1991). Assessing Construct
Validity in Organizational Research. Administrative Science Quarterly
36, 3; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 421
Bailey, J. A. 2nd (2003). Self-image, self-concept, and self-identity
revisited. Journal of the National Medical Association, 95(5), 383–386.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural
change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Barbarossa, C., De Pelsmacker, P., & Moons, I. (2017). Personal values,
green self-identity and electric car adoption. Ecological Economics, 140,
190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.015
Bartels, J., & Hoogendam, K. (2011). The role of social identity and atti-
tudes toward sustainability brands in buying behaviours for organic
products. Journal of Brand Management, 18, 697–708. https://doi.org/
10.1057/bm.2011.3
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer
Research, 15, 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 6) (pp. 1–62). New York: Academic
Press.
Bernstein, D. A., Alison, C. S., Roy, E. J., & Srull, T. K. (1994). Wickens CD
psychology (3rd ed.) (pp. 505–590). Princeton, NJ: Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston.
Bertrandias, L., & Elgaaied-Gambier, L. (2014). Others' environmental con-
cern as a social determinant of green buying. Journal of Consumer Mar-
keting, 31(6/7), 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-05-2014-
0966
Biddle, B. J., Bank, B. J., & Slavings, R. L. (1987). Norms, preferences, iden-
tities and retention decisions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50,
322–337. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786817
Boztepe, A. (2012). Green marketing and its impact on consumer buying
behavior. European Journal of Economic & Political Studies, 5(1), 5–21.
Burke, P. J. (1991a). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociolog-
ical Review, 56, 836–849. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096259
Burke, P. J. (1991b). Attitudes, behaviour, and the self. In J. A. Howard &
P. L. Callero (Eds.), The self-society dynamic: Cognition, emotion and
action (pp. 189–208). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burke, P. J. (2003). Relationships among multiple identities. In P. J. Burke
T. J. Owens R. T. Serpe & P. A. Thoits (Eds.), Advances in identity theory
and research (pp. 195–214). Boston, MA: Springer.
Callero, P. L. (1985). Role-identity salience. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48,
203–215. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033681
Carfora, V., Caso, D., Sparks, P., & Conner, M. (2017). Moderating effects
of pro-environmental self-identity on pro-environmental intentions
and behaviour: A multi-behaviour study. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology, 53, 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.07.001
Chamorro, A., Rubio, S., & Miranda, F. J. (2009). Characteristics of research
on green marketing. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(4),
223–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.571
SHARMA ET AL.
Chan, R. Y. K., Wong, Y. H., & Leung, T. K. P. (2008). Applying ethical con-
cepts to the study of ‘‘green’’ consumer behavior: An analysis of Chi-
nese consumers intentions to bring their own shopping bags. Journal
of Business Ethics, 79, 469–481.
Chan, T. Y., & Wong, C. W. (2012). The consumption side of sustainable
fashion supply chain: Understanding fashion consumer eco-fashion
consumption decision. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
16(2), 193–215.
Charng, H.-W., Piliavin, J. A., & Callero, P. L. (1988). Role identity and rea-
soned action in the prediction of repeated behavior. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 51(4), 303–317.
Cheah, I., & Phau, I. (2011). Attitudes towards environmentally friendly
products: the influence of ecoliteracy, interpersonal influence and
value orientation. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 29(5), 452–472.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501111153674
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned
behaviour: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429–1464. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x
Cook, A. J., Kerr, G. N., & Moore, K. (2002). Attitudes and intentions
towards purchasing GM food. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5),
557–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00117-4
Costa Pinto, D., Herter, M. M., Rossi, P., & Borges, A. (2014). Going green
for self or for others? Gender and identity salience effects on sustain-
able consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5),
540–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12114
Dagher, G. K., & Itani, O. (2014). Factors influencing green purchasing
behaviour: Empirical evidence from the Lebanese consumers. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, 13(3), 188–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.
1482
Datta, S. K. (2011). Pro-environmental concern influencing green buying:
A study on Indian consumers. International Journal of Business and
Management, 6(6), 124–133.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M.
(2003). Can sociodemographics still play a role in profiling green con-
sumers? A Review of the Evidence and an Empirical Investigation.
Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465–480.
Dogan, M., & Yaprak, A. (2017). Self-construal and willingness to purchase
foreign products: The mediating roles of consumer cosmopolitanism
and ethnocentrism. Academy of Marketing Science 2017 1499
M. Stieler (ed.), Creating Marketing Magic and Innovative Future Mar-
keting Trends, Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of
the Academy of Marketing Science, DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-45596-9_277
Downie, J., & Stubbs, W. (2012). Corporate carbon strategies and green-
house gas emission assessments: The implications of scope 3 emission
factor selection. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(6),
412–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1734
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Emekci, S. (2019). Green consumption behaviours of consumers within the
scope of TPB. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 36(3), 410–417. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JCM-05-2018-2694
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of
Akron Press.
Fekadu, Z., & Kraft, P. (2001). Past behavior and its moderating effects on
self-identity-intention relationships. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 29(7), 671–686.
Fielding, K. S., Terry, D. J., Masser, B. M., & Hogg, M. A. (2008). Integrating
social identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain
decisions to engage in sustainable agricultural practices. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 47, 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1348/
014466607X206792
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
13
Ford, G. T., Smith, D. B., & Swasy, J. L. (1988). An empirical test of the sea-
rch, experience and credence attributes framework. ACR North Ameri-
can Advances.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224378101800104
Grewal, R., Mehta, R., & Kardes, F. R. (2000). The role of the social-identity
function of attitudes in consumer innovativeness and opinion leader-
ship. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21(3), 233–252.
Girard, T., & Dion, P. (2010). Validating the search, experience, and cre-
dence product classification framework. Journal of Business Research,
63(9–10), 1079–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.12.011
Gupta, S., & Ogden, D. T. (2009). To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma
perspective on green buying. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(6),
376–391. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760910988201
Hair, J. F. Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on
partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F. J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on
partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver
bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging
tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Handfield, R., Sroufe, R., & Walton, S. (2005). Integrating environmental
management and supply chain strategies. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 14(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.422
Harmon-Kizer, T. R., Kumar, A., Ortinau, D., & Stock, J. (2013). When mul-
tiple identities compete: The role of centrality in self-brand connec-
tions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(6), 483–495. https://doi.org/
10.1002/cb.1449
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A
critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255–269. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787127
Hustvedt, G., & Dickson, M. A. (2009). Consumer likelihood of purchasing
organic cotton apparel: Influence of attitudes and self-identity. Journal
of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 13,
49–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020910939879
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
Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Factors affecting green purchase behaviour
and future research directions. International Strategic Management
Review, 3(1), 128–143.
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.
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
Khare, A., & Pandey, S. (2017). Role of green self-identity and peer influ-
ence in fostering trust towards organic food retailers. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(9), 969–990. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-07-2016-0109
Kinnear, T., James, R. T., & Sadrudin, A. (1974). Ecologically concerned
consumers: Who are they? Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 20–24.
Kock, N. (2017). Common method bias: A full collinearity assessment method
for PLS-SEM. In Partial least squares path modeling (pp. 245–257).
Cham: Springer.
14
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting con-
sumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly prod-
ucts. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503–520. https://doi.org/
10.1108/EUM0000000006155
Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (2003). Handbook of self and identity.
New York: Guilford Press. Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic
self-concept. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299337
Lee, K. (2010). The green purchase behaviour of Hong Kong young con-
sumers: The role of peer influence, local environmental involvement,
and concrete environmental knowledge. Journal of International Con-
sumer Marketing, 23(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.
2011.524575
Lee, Y., Kim, S., Kim, M., & Choi, J. (2014). Antecedents and interrelation-
ships of three types of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 67(10), 2097–2105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2014.04.018
Leone, L., Perugini, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). A comparison of three
models of attitude behavior relationships in the studying behavior
domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 161–189. https://
doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<161::AID-
EJSP919>3.0.CO;2-G
Leonidou, L. C., Leonidou, C. N., & Kvasova, O. (2010). Antecedents and
outcomes of consumer environmentally friendly attitudes and behav-
iour. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(13), 1319–1344. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2010.523710
Lindesmith, A. R., & Strauss, A. L. (1956). Social psychology (Rev. ed.).
New York: Dryden Press.
Lu, L., Chang, H., & Chang, A. (2015). Consumer personality and green buy-
ing intention: The mediate role of consumer ethical beliefs. Journal of
Business Ethics, 127(1), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
013-2024-4
Michaelidou, N., & Hassan, L. (2008). The push and pull towards
organic: Clarifying the roles of health consciousness, food
safety concern and ethical identity. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 32, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.
00619.x
Michaud, C., & Llerena, D. (2011). Green consumer behaviour: An experi-
mental analysis of willingness to pay for remanufactured products.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(6), 408–420.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0148-2963(96)00209-3
Mir, D. F. (2008). Environmental behaviour in Chicago automotive repair
micro-enterprises (MEPs). Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(3),
194–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.517
Mostafa, M. M. (2009). Shades of green: A psychographic segmentation of
the green consumer in Kuwait using self-organizing maps. Expert Sys-
tems with Applications, 36(8), 11030–11038. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eswa.2009.02.088
Nakata, C., & Sivakumar, K. (2001). Instituting the marketing concept in a
multinational setting: The role of national culture. Journal of the Acad-
emy of Marketing Science, 29(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/
03079459994623
Patel, J., Modi, A., & Paul, J. (2017). Pro-environmental behavior and
socio demographic factors in an emerging market. Asian Journal of
Business Ethics, 6(2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-016-
0071-5
Prakash, A. (2002). Green marketing, public policy and managerial strate-
gies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 285–297. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bse.338
Rahman, M. N., Doroodian, M., Kamarulzaman, Y., & Muhamad, N. (2015).
Designing and validating a model for measuring sustainability of over-
all innovation capability of small and medium-sized enterprises. Sus-
tainability, 7, 537–562.
SHARMA ET AL.
Ramirez, G., McDonough, I. M., & Jin, L. (2017). Classroom stress promotes
motivated forgetting of mathematics knowledge. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 109(6), 812–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000170
Rejikumar, G., Sreedharan V. R., & Saha, R. (2019), "An integrated frame-
work for service quality, choice overload, customer involvement and
satisfaction: Evidence from India's non-life insurance sector", Manage-
ment Decision, (ahead-of-print).
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumer 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
Roe, D., & Bruwer, J. (2017). Self-concept, product involvement and con-
sumption occasions: Exploring fine wine consumer behaviour. British
Food Journal, 119(6), 1362–1377. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-
2016-0476
Rokeach, M. J. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free
Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships
between environmental concern and ecologically conscious behaviour.
Journal of Business Research, 10(1), 79–89.
Sadiq, M., Paul, J., & Bharti, K. (2020). Dispositional traits and organic food
consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 121961. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121961
Sammer, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2006). The influence of eco-labelling on
consumer behaviour—Results of a discrete choice analysis for washing
machines. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(3), 185–199.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.522
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. (2017). Partial least squares structural
equation modeling. Handbook of market research, Springer.
Sharma, N., & Lal, M. (2020). Facades of morality: The role of moral disen-
gagement in green buying behaviour. Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, 23, 217–239. Vol. Ahead-of-Print No. Ahead-of-
Print. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-03-2019-0030
Sharma, N., & Kesherwani, S. (2015). Encouraging green purchasing behav-
ior by increasing environmental consciousness. In J. K. Das, A. Zameer,
A. Narula, & R. Tripati (Eds.), Reinventing marketing for emerging markets
(pp. 288–301). India: Bloombury Publishing.
Sharma, N., Saha, R., & Rameshwar, R. (2019). “I don't buy LED bulbs but I
switch off the lights” green consumption versus sustainable consump-
tion. Journal of Indian Business Research, 11(2), 138–161. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JIBR-01-2018-0040
Sharma, N., & Sharma, C. S. (2013). Encouraging green purchasing behav-
ior through green branding. Business Analyst, 34(2), 65–76.
Shaw, D., Shiu, E., & Clarke, I. (2000). The contribution of ethical obligation
and self-identity to the theory of planned behaviour: An exploration of
ethical consumers. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(8), 879–894.
https://doi.org/10.1362/026725700784683672
Sparks, P., & Guthrie, C. A. (1998). Self-identity and the theory of planned
behaviour: A useful addition or an unhelpful artifice? Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 28(15), 1393–1410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1559-1816.1998.tb01683.x
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. J. (1995). Assessing and structuring
attitudes toward the use of gene technology in food production: The
role of perceived ethical obligation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
16, 267–285.
Sprengel, D. C., & Busch, T. (2011). Stakeholder engagement and environ-
mental strategy—The case of climate change. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 20(6), 351–364.
Sreedharan, R., Gopikumar, V., Nair, S., Chakraborty, A., & Antony, J.
(2018). Assessment of critical failure factors (CFFs) of Lean Six Sigma
in real life scenario: Evidence from manufacturing and service indus-
tries. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(8), 3320–3336.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2017-0281
Swann, W. B. Jr., Chang-Schneider, C., & Larsen McClarty, K. (2007). Do
people's self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday
SHARMA ET AL.
life. American Psychologist, 62(2), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0003-066X.62.2.84
Stets, J. E., & Biga, C. F. (2003). Bringing identity theory into environmen-
tal sociology. Sociological Theory, 21, 400–423.
Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned
behavior: Assessing the role of identification with green consumerism.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 388–399. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2786955
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an iden-
tity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2695840
Temminck, E., Mearns, K., & Fruhen, L. (2015). Motivating employees
towards sustainable behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment,
24(6), 402–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1827
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned
behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 38(3), 225–244.
Tilikidou, I. (2013). Evolutions in the ecologically conscious consumer
behaviour in Greece. EuroMed Journal of Business, 8(1), 17–35. https://
doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-05-2013-0022
Tung, T., Koenig, H. F., & Chen, H. L. (2017). Effects of green self-identity
and cognitive and affective involvement on patronage intention in
eco-friendly apparel consumption: A gender comparison. Sustainability,
2017(9), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111977
Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013). The value of environmental
self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmen-
tal self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behav-
iour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55–63. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006
Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2014). I am what I am, by looking
past the present: the influence of biospheric values and past behaviour
15
on environmental self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 46(5),
626–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512475209
Wang, L., Li, S., & Gao, S. (2014). Do greenhouse gas emissions affect
financial performance?—An empirical examination of Australian public
firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(8), 505–519. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bse.1790
Whitmarsh, L., & O'Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role
of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across
diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology, 30(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003
White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer
behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding
framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49.
Webster, J., & Frederick, E. (1975). Determining the characteristics of the
socially conscious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2,
188–196. https://doi.org/10.1086/208631
Yadav, R., & Pathak, G. S. (2017). Determinants of consumers' green pur-
chase behavior in a developing nation: Applying and extending the
theory of planned behavior. Ecological Economics, 134, 114–122.
How to cite this article: Sharma N, Saha R, Sreedharan VR,
Paul J. Relating the role of green self-concepts and identity on
green purchasing behaviour: An empirical analysis. Bus Strat
Env. 2020;1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2567
16
APPENDIX A.
A1 Measurement Scales
Constructs
Product self-concept (PSC)
Green self-identity (GSI)
Green-self concepts (GSC)
Green purchasing intentions (GPI)
Green purchasing behaviour (GPB)
SHARMA ET AL.
Indicators Statements
PSC1 I am very concerned about the product I
purchase
PSC2 Due to the product preference and choice,
my personal experience was influenced.
PSC3 Buying the product is expressive of my
personality
PSC4 I buy product for my use based on their
important and interest
GSI1 I am very certain about being a
environmentally responsible person
GSI2 I ensure that myself and my surrounding are
eco-friendly
GSI3 I put reasonable effort to position myself as
a green consumer, avoiding products that
are harmful to the environment
GSC1 It is important to me that I am updated
regarding environmental issues
GSC2 I have good knowledge regarding
environmentally friendly products
GSC3 I feel that I am good at thinking
environmental issues
GSC4 I feel like I have good understanding
ecological problems
GSC5 Compared with others, I feel that I am more
environmentally conscious
GSC6 Compared with others, I feel I understand
green concept better
GPI1 You buy the product for its environmental
concern
GPI2 You are expected to buy the product for its
environmental performance
GPI3 Because it is environmentally well-being,
you are glad to buy the product
GPB1 I go through the ingredient to check the
product's ingredients are eco-friendly
GPB2 When the product quality is similar, I prefer
green over non green products
GPB3 I ensure to be eco-friendly and buy
products that are environmentally
friendly.
 SHARMA ET AL.

A2 Inter-item Correlation Matrix

Correlation matrix

PSC1 PSC2 PSC3 PSC4 GSC1 GSC2 GSC3 GSC4 GSC5 GSC6 GPB1 GPB2 GPB3 GPI1 GPI2 GPI3 GSI1 GSI2 GSI3
Correlation PSC1 1.000
PSC2 .741 1.000
PSC3 .693 .689 1.000
PSC4 .732 .679 .693 1.000
GSC1 .694 .597 .602 .714 1.000
GSC2 .666 .603 .596 .636 .743 1.000
GSC3 .659 .616 .573 .669 .764 .821 1.000
GSC4 .660 .626 .595 .626 .709 .798 .835 1.000
GSC5 .626 .590 .576 .602 .686 .720 .748 .768 1.000
GSC6 .611 .556 .545 .596 .665 .694 .700 .720 .842 1.000
GPB1 .288 .281 .299 .261 .265 .284 .275 .303 .309 .308 1.000
GPB2 .254 .256 .278 .241 .237 .269 .261 .300 .290 .279 .788 1.000
GPB3 .230 .236 .280 .193 .181 .258 .220 .296 .249 .237 .736 .761 1.000
GPI1 .545 .432 .501 .533 .534 .512 .518 .509 .502 .523 .294 .253 .210 1.000
GPI2 .587 .478 .532 .585 .633 .586 .597 .551 .582 .570 .272 .255 .176 .781 1.000
GPI3 .584 .501 .530 .594 .623 .555 .578 .538 .544 .566 .304 .273 .218 .685 .772 1.000
GSI1 .451 .358 .403 .411 .476 .427 .434 .421 .454 .404 .277 .236 .227 .367 .416 .396 1.000
GSI2 .442 .355 .421 .432 .474 .468 .469 .459 .449 .418 .296 .238 .233 .391 .442 .417 .785 1.000
GSI3 .438 .352 .406 .410 .459 .457 .467 .442 .445 .415 .338 .276 .271 .386 .439 .433 .761 .783 1.000

Abbreviations: GPB, green purchase behaviour; GPI, purchase intention; GSC, green self-concept; GSI, green self-identity; PSC, product self-concept.
17