Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wnon20

From Words to Deeds: How Do Knowledge,

Effectiveness, and Personal Relevance Link
Environmental Concern and Buying Behavior?

Simona Stojanova, Mila Zečević & Barbara Culiberg

To cite this article: Simona Stojanova, Mila Zečević & Barbara Culiberg (2021): From Words
to Deeds: How Do Knowledge, Effectiveness, and Personal Relevance Link Environmental
Concern and Buying Behavior?, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, DOI:
10.1080/10495142.2021.1953671

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2021.1953671

© 2021 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 25 Jul 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2210

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wnon20
JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2021.1953671

From Words to Deeds: How Do Knowledge, Effectiveness,

and Personal Relevance Link Environmental Concern and
Buying Behavior?
Simona Stojanova, Mila Zečević, and Barbara Culiberg
School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The gap between environmental attitudes and behaviors has Environmental concern;
been on research agendas for a while. Despite the enormous environmental buying
efforts of all concerned parties to increase consumer engage­ behavior; consumer
environmental knowledge;
ment in environmental issues, the levels of individual environ­
perceived consumer
mental concern are still higher than actual green purchasing. effectiveness; perceived
Considering the shortcomings in theory and practice, the pur­ personal relevance;
pose of this paper is to examine the link between environmental mediation
concern and environmental buying behavior by introducing
three mediating variables, namely consumer environmental
knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness, and perceived
personal relevance. The hypotheses were tested on a sample of
319 consumers using structural equation modeling. The results
show that environmental concern predicts environmental buy­
ing behavior. Environmental concern also influences consumer
knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness, and perceived
personal relevance, while environmental buying behavior is
affected by knowledge and effectiveness. The model testing
confirmed a partially mediated model. The findings offer several
avenues for public policy makers, academics, and socially
responsible companies that find the environment important.

Introduction
With ever-growing consumption jeopardizing achievement of the Nations
(2021) sustainable development goals, it seems that consideration of the
environment in consumption is more important than ever. Previous studies
on consumer behavior suggest that consumers with a higher level of environ­
mental concern are more likely to engage in ecologically conscious consumer
behavior; however, raising only environmental concern has been found to be
insufficient to achieve meaningful change (Tam & Chan, 2017) with numerous
examples showing how consumer demand has not resulted in widespread
adoption of environmentally-friendly products (Wymer & Polonsky, 2015).
Although the idea that there is an attitude-behavior gap has been circulating
among academics and practitioners for some time (Auger & Devinney, 2007;

CONTACT Barbara Culiberg barbara.culiberg@ef.uni-lj.si School of Economics and Business, University of

Ljubljana, Kardeljeva Ploscad 17, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 S. STOJANOVA ET AL.

Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Jayaratne et al., 2015; Prothero et al., 2011; Roberts &
Bacon, 1997; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008), White et al.’s (2019) recent frame­
work for encouraging sustainable consumer behavior demonstrates that there
is still room for improvement, considering that the discrepancy between what
consumers say and do poses a challenge for marketers in various domains even
today (White et al., 2019). Furthermore, Newton et al. (2015, p. 1974) argue
that “an unresolved issue in the literature is whether the relationship between
environmental concern and environmental purchase intentions is conditional
upon the existence of additional constructs.” Analogously, Gifford and Nilsson
(2014) encouraged researchers to focus more on moderating or mediating
effects when determining pro-environmental behavior.
We respond to this notion and propose to examine the mechanism that
underlies the relationship between environmental concern and buying beha­
vior through three mediating variables: consumer environmental knowledge,
perceived consumer effectiveness, and perceived personal relevance. In this
way, our contribution to the literature is multi-fold. By introducing knowl­
edge, personal relevance, and effectiveness as mediators, we offer a novel set of
constructs to explain the link between environmental concern and behavior.
In line with this reasoning, we propose environmental concern is not only the
determinant of behavior, which has been the focal relationship in previous
research, but also of other constructs, such as knowledge, relevance, and
effectiveness, which were rarely explained by environmental concern before
(see Gifford & Nilsson, 2014; Joshi & Rahman, 2015). Considering the study of
Millennials by Heo and Muralidharan (2019), whose main focus was on the
relationship between environmental knowledge and pro-environmental beha­
vior with environmental concern and perceived consumer effectiveness as
mediators, we propose a different constellation of constructs. Thus, we aim
to demonstrate an alternative and more refined perspective, which suggests the
connection between environmental concern and buying behavior is not so
straightforward, as it is possible that the predictive ability of environmental
concern spans across additional constructs. Moreover, in the proposed set, we
include a previously under-examined construct in the pro-environmental
consumer behavior literature, i.e. perceived personal relevance, which enables
us to capture the importance consumers place on environmental issues and
respond to previous studies which identified a need to include more variables
into the interrelationships between environmental concern, knowledge, and
behavior (Di Martino et al., 2019; Pagiaslis & Krontalis, 2014). Personal
relevance is important as environmentally-friendly products generally provide
benefits for the individual, in addition to short- or long-term societal or
environmental benefits for others (Davari et al., 2017). Finally, the proposed
model is tested on a general consumer sample in a central European country,
i.e. Slovenia, where environmentalism is gaining recognition (Golob et al.,
2017). Our sample choice enables us to extend the findings of previous pro-
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 3

environmental studies, which focused on young consumers (e.g., Heo &

Muralidharan, 2019; Di Martino et al., 2019; Perera et al., 2018). Moreover,
Tam and Chan (2017) found that the link between environmental concern and
behavior differs across societies, so introducing a novel cultural setting could
represent an incremental contribution as well.
In this manner, the purpose of this paper is to examine consumer environ­
mental buying behavior, starting with environmental concern as the main
factor in explaining this behavior. This relationship is further explored by
proposing novel mediating roles for environmental knowledge and perceived
consumer effectiveness, but also by adding another potentially important
mediating factor, i.e. perceived personal relevance, in the context of
Slovenian consumers, where the issue of sustainable development is gaining
a great deal of attention.

Theoretical background and hypotheses development

While an increasing number of studies imply that the awareness of consumers
as to the effects and consequences of their behavior on the environment is
rising (Trudel, 2019; White et al., 2019), researchers are still puzzled by the
complex relationship among consumer environmental concern, intention, and
behavior (strong concern and intention to behave in an environmentally
friendly manner, but an evident lack of actual environmentally friendly actions
in consumer behavior). Novel research suggests that increased environmental
concern and anti-consumption attitudes do not necessarily result in less
consumption or a better impact on the environment (e.g., Kropfeld et al.,
2018). It is becoming obvious that in order to achieve better behavioral results,
a deeper understanding of the factors interfering in the relationship between
environmental concern and behavior is still required.
Due to this apparent intention-behavior gap, researchers are making sig­
nificant efforts to better understand the factors that might enhance the trans­
lation of environmental concern and intentions into genuine behavior, and to
structure the existing knowledge by offering comprehensive integrative
reviews. For example, Gifford and Nilsson (2014) named 18 different personal
and social factors that influence the relationship between environmental con­
cern and behavior. These factors vary from demographics (age, gender) to
deep consumer characteristics (values, a sense of control, and responsibility),
and further research thereon in moderating and mediating roles was suggested
to provide a better understanding of their influence. Furthermore, the effects
of demographics (income and education) on sustainable behavior and con­
sumption were confirmed by Milfont and Markowitz (2016), while
Diamantopoulos et al. (2003) showed the effectiveness of socio-demographic
characteristics for differentiating between consumer knowledge and concern,
while these characteristics were not shown to be significant for behavior. Joshi
4 S. STOJANOVA ET AL.

and Rahman (2015) researched the importance of factors influencing consu­

mer perceptions, purchase intentions, and actual behavior (purchases) regard­
ing green products. They found two major groups of relevant factors that
determine consumer environmental behavior: individual factors (variables
specifically related to the decision-maker, such as emotions, environmental
concern, perceived consumer effectiveness or the extent to which one’s beha­
vior can make a difference, personal values (environmental, social, ethical) and
norms), and situational factors (product price, eco-labeling and certification,
product attributes and quality, product availability, subjective norms/social
norms and reference groups, brand image). Additionally, research so far has
also investigated actions that can help bridge the gap between consumer
environmental concern (as an attitude) and consumer behavior. Steg and
Vlek (2009) reviewed and emphasized interventions as an effective way of
fostering behavioral change related to the environment, while White et al.
(2019) named social influence, habit formation, individual self, feelings and
cognition, and tangibility as relevant psychological processes of consumer
engagement in environmentally friendly behavior.
In recent times, scholars started to delve into more complex relationships
among environmentally-charged constructs with novel studies testing various
concepts in their efforts to explain environmental concern, intentions, and
behavior. Researchers searched for additional constructs related to ethics to
extend existing relationships in the Theory of planned behavior (Rex et al.,
2015). Furthermore, habit and self-identity were reported as mediators in
relation to environmental intentions (Gkargkavouzi et al., 2019), while envir­
onmental knowledge moderated the relationships between different lifestyles
and green product purchasing (Sheng et al., 2019). Additionally, the relation­
ship between consumer green intention and behavior was shown to be mod­
erated by purchase situation (Grimmer et al., 2016). Previous studies
empirically confirmed that the link between environmental concern and
behavior was mediated by self-direction (Zibenberg et al., 2018), learned
helplessness (Landry et al., 2018), religiosity (Bhuian et al., 2018), and culture
and its characteristics (Morren & Grinstein, 2016; Tam & Chan, 2017).
The choice of constructs in our study was guided by the research of
Brochado et al. (2017), who found that the individual or psychographic factors
were more relevant than demographic variables. For example, environmental
concern was found to be one of the factors with the strongest impact on
environmental behavior in a recent study by Hosta and Zabkar (2020). What
is more, Kang et al. (2013) led us to the trio of individual factors, i.e. perceived
consumer effectiveness, environmental knowledge, and personal relevance. The
importance of perceived consumer effectiveness, together with green product
availability, was established in intention-behavior gap research (Nguyen et al.,
2017), while Wei et al. (2018) recognized the mediating role of perceived
consumer effectiveness on the relationship between environmental concern
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 5

and willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Perceived

consumer effectiveness along with consumer knowledge was found to be
a relevant factor of consumer pro-environmental self-identity in a recent
study examining the mediating effects of pro-environmental self-identity on
sustainable buying and curtailment (Dermody et al., 2018). Finally, Heo and
Muralidharan (2019) proved the relationships between environmental knowl­
edge, environmental concern, and perceived consumer effectiveness. These
constructs were observed in a slightly different order than in some earlier
research (e.g., Schahn & Holzer, 1990). Based on these outlines, below we
present the main constructs and related hypotheses of our study.

Environmental concern
Environmental concern has been defined as having positive attitudes about
sustainability, representing the level at which people are attentive to environ­
mental problems and possible solutions (Bickart & Ruth, 2012). It captures
different degrees of individuals’ consciousness with regard to environmental
issues and their efforts to resolve them (Dunlap & Jones, 2002). The concept of
environmental concern is very often listed as an imperative in understanding
green consumer behavior (Heo & Muralidharan, 2019).
Prior studies suggest that consumers’ concern for environmental issues has
a strong impact on purchasing environmentally friendly products (e.g., Heo &
Muralidharan, 2019; Milfont & Markowitz, 2016; Mishal et al., 2017; Morren
& Grinstein, 2016; Paul et al., 2016; H. Wang et al., 2019; White et al., 2019). It
has been shown that environmental concern has a positive effect on other
sustainable actions such as adopting renewable energy or a fictitious green
energy brand (Bang et al., 2000; Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2010). Other
empirical studies have also proved the importance of this factor in the process
of environmentally conscious consumer behavior (Brochado et al., 2017;
Kautish & Sharma, 2019). Follows and Jobber (2000) indicate that when
consumers are purchasing green products they balance between environmen­
tal concern and the attributes of the product. Higher levels of concern make
consumers consider the environmental features of a product (H. S. Kim &
Damhorst, 1998). In line with these outlines, we hypothesize:

H1: Environmental concern has a positive effect on environmental buying

behavior.

Environmental knowledge
According to Fryxell and Lo (2003, p. 48), environmental knowledge can be
defined as “general knowledge of facts, concepts, and relationships concerning
6 S. STOJANOVA ET AL.

the natural environment and its major ecosystems.” The literature on con­
sumer environmental practices often postulates that environmental concern is
a general belief construct that functions as a predecessor of a variety of more
specific constructs, such as environmental knowledge (Pagiaslis & Krontalis,
2014).
Following Zaichkowsky (1985), it is possible that consumers with a high
level of involvement in an environmental issue are more willing to search for
information. This may lead to increasing levels of knowledge regarding
a particular environmental topic. The positive link between concern and
knowledge has been proposed in previous studies in other settings (Bang
et al., 2000; Marcketti & Shelley, 2009), although empirical support was
mixed. In a recent study of green consumer behavior, Pagiaslis and Krontalis
(2014) found that environmental concern has a positive effect on knowledge.
Accordingly, we expect that environmentally concerned consumers who are
involved in this issue are consequently more likely to be knowledgeable about
the environment and eco-friendly products.

H2a: Environmental concern has a positive influence on environmental

knowledge.

Consumer environmental buying behavior is often a reflection of consu­

mers’ environmental knowledge, which is presented as one of the most
influential factors affecting desired behaviors (Joshi & Rahman, 2015;
Nguyen et al., 2017). As an important determinant, knowledge can contribute
to permanent changes in attitudes and behavior (Bator & Cialdini, 2000). It
can be explained by the fact that higher levels of environmental knowledge
mean that consumers have more information, which guides them to buy more
green products and, in this way, behave more sustainably (N. Lee et al., 2012;
Mahesh & Ganapathi, 2012).
In exploring consumer environmental buying behavior, Goh and Balaji
(2016) reported that consumers with higher levels of environmental knowl­
edge were more likely to buy environmentally friendly products. In contrast,
a recent study by He et al. (2019) did not show that environmental knowl­
edge has a significant relationship with environmentally conscious consu­
mer behavior. In general, many studies reveal that environmental
knowledge positively influences both intention and actual pro-
environmental consumption behavior (Mostafa, 2007; Pagiaslis &
Krontalis, 2014; P. Wang et al., 2014). Based on the prevalent previous
findings, we propose the following relationship between environmental
knowledge and buying behavior:

H2b: Environmental knowledge has a positive influence on environmental

buying behavior.
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 7

Perceived consumer effectiveness

Studying the gap between environmental concern and buying behavior,

Roberts (1996) suggests that a critical factor in interpreting this relationship
is perceived consumer effectiveness. Perceived consumer effectiveness is
defined as a “domain-specific belief that the efforts of an individual can
make a difference in the solution to a problem” (P. S. Ellen et al., 1991,
p. 103). In the environmental setting, perceived consumer effectiveness can
be explained as the belief that each individual can contribute to the reduction
of environmental problems by the right choice of products (Roberts, 1996).
The main issue is that many consumers believe the environmental impact of
their product choices would be negligible (Wymer & Polonsky, 2015). They
are not aware that their small everyday practices can lead to positive impacts
on sustainable change (Jayaratne et al., 2015).
Roberts (1996) reported that when people feel that they can be very effective in
saving the environment through a specific action, they will show more concern
for the environment by performing that action. In developing our hypothesis, we
rely on Y. J. Lee et al. (2014), who discovered that altruistic value, which is
concerned with interest in others (e.g., human beings, the biosphere), positively
influences perceived consumer effectiveness. Analogously, we can assume that
consumers who are interested in environmental issues are predisposed to solve
these problems. Consequently, they will have a positive view of their contribution
to problem resolution (Y. J. Lee et al., 2014). Consumers who are more con­
cerned about the environment may also believe that they can do something to
save it. Following this reasoning, we hypothesize:

H3a: Environmental concern has a positive influence on perceived consumer

effectiveness.

P. S. Ellen et al. (1991) argue that perceived environmental effectiveness is

a different factor than environmental concern or attitudes and has an influence
on environmentally conscious behavior. Consumers’ concern about environ­
mental issues might not necessarily lead to green purchases, but when they have
a strong belief that their behavior is the right one, they are more likely to engage
in such behavior. On a similar note, McCarty and Shrum (1994) argued that
consumers’ belief about their ability to influence future outcomes influences
their pro-environmental behavior. In their meta-analysis of 15 studies, Hines
et al. (1987) report that consumers who performed actions that contributed to
environmental sustainability were more often those with high perceived effec­
tiveness, whereas consumers who thought that certain changes were due to
other factors showed environmentally responsible behavior less often.
Many researchers have explored the unique contribution of perceived envir­
onmental effectiveness to the prediction of different pro-environmental
8 S. STOJANOVA ET AL.

behaviors (e.g., Liu et al., 2012; Mostafa, 2007; P. S. Ellen et al., 1991; Vermeir &
Verbeke, 2006). However, it seems likely that consumers feel that a single
purchase of a green product or the purchases of any one individual do not
make a difference to or impact the environment (Gleim et al., 2013). This has
been shown in the case of Millennials, where perceived consumer effectiveness,
or the belief in solving a specific environmental problem alone did not result in
actual purchases (Heo & Muralidharan, 2019). Conversely, perceived consumer
effectiveness had a positive impact on green purchase intention in the study of
H. Wang et al. (2019), as well as in the case of Kautish and Sharma (2019) and
Brochado et al. (2017), who showed that perceived consumer effectiveness has
a direct and positive effect on environmentally conscious consumer behavior,
while P. S. Ellen et al. (1991) found that perceived consumer effectiveness was
a powerful driver of three environmental behaviors: buying, recycling, and
contributing to environmental groups. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

H3b: Perceived consumer effectiveness has a positive influence on environ­

mental buying behavior.

Perceived personal relevance

Perceived personal relevance is described as a personal postulate that a particular
behavior is related to personal interest and in line with one’s lifestyle habits (Celsi
et al., 1992). Related to environmental issues, Kang et al. (2013, p. 445) defined
perceived personal relevance “as the extent to which an individual believes that
environmentally responsible consumption is consistent with his/her own personal
lifestyle, values, social presentations and self-images.” Consumers’ concern for the
environment is to a great extent connected with concern for their own health or
the future of their children (Howarth & Norgaard, 1995). If consumers are
concerned about the environment, then environmental consumption may repre­
sent a large part of who they are. In other words, the more concerned they are
about the environment, the more they perceive environmental consumption as
personally relevant, which leads to the following hypothesis:

H4a: Environmental concern has a positive influence on perceived personal

relevance.

In general, consumption patterns are influenced by the way people perceive and
evaluate themselves; therefore, people buy products that are compatible with their
identity, social status, and values (Belk, 1988). It is important to note that when
a certain action is relevant to consumers, they are more motivated to engage in
that action (McQuarrie & Munson, 1992). Scholars report that when consumers
perceive that buying a green product is relevant and beneficial for themselves or is
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 9

a health-related concern for them or their family, it becomes a significant factor in

choosing that particular product (Prakash & Pathak, 2017). Exploring green
consumer behavior with regard to adopting green electricity, Ozaki (2011)
demonstrated that consumers concerned about the environment were not willing
to adopt this green behavior, with the main reason being the lack of personal
relevance to the consumers’ lives. Ozaki (2011) also pointed out that in order for
a consumer to adopt some green change, it must accord with their individual
identity, self-image, and values. Related conclusions can also be found in other
studies by Pickett-Baker and Ozaki (2008) and Hustvedt and Dickson (2009).
In exploring the influence of perceived consumer effectiveness in their research
on green textile and apparel consumption, Kang et al. (2013) concluded that
perceived personal relevance influences attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioral control regarding the consumption of green apparel, although they did
not specifically test if it influences behavioral intentions or actual buying behavior.
We propose that when a consumer sees that a certain behavioral action is
personally relevant, he or she is more likely to behave positively toward that
action. This provides the foundation for developing the next hypothesis:

H4b: Perceived personal relevance has a positive influence on environmental

buying behavior.

Mediating role

In addition to the proposed hypotheses, we aim to address the mediating role

of the three main constructs, hence, based on the evidence presented above, we
propose the following hypothesis:

H5: The relationship between environmental concern and environmental

buying behavior is mediated by (a) environmental knowledge, (b) perceived
consumer effectiveness, and (c) perceived personal relevance.

In summary, in order to examine the relationship between environmental

concern and buying behavior, we developed the conceptual model presented
in Figure 1.

Research methodology
Data collection
This study was conducted in Slovenia, where the issue of sustainable devel­
opment is gaining a great deal of attention and people rate themselves as
fairly conscious consumers, although an attitude-behavior gap is evident as
 10
S. STOJANOVA ET AL.

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationship between environmental concern and buying behavior.
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 11

well (Golob et al., 2017). Data was gathered by distributing a survey online
through social media platforms and by e-mail directing respondents to the
online questionnaire. Invitations to participate were sent on a voluntary basis
first to friends and colleagues, who were asked to share it with other people,
taking the form of “snowball sampling” (Saunders et al., 2009). By clicking
on the link, respondents were directed to Qualtrics, an online platform for
creating and analyzing surveys. The total number of participants was 319, of
which 21.9% were male and 78.1% female. The overall mean age was
34.6 years, with the youngest respondent 17 years old, and the oldest 75.
Regarding the level of education of all participants, 39.8% had completed at
least a bachelor degree. Data about the perceived standard of living show that
a majority of the respondents, i.e. 63%, stated that their standard of living
was average.

Study instrument
The questionnaire was developed in English using scales from existing
literature and then translated into Slovene. During translation, attention
was devoted to lexical, idiomatic, and experiential meaning, as well as to
grammar and syntax. The level of environmental concern was measured
using the scale from Bang et al. (2000) with four items. A sample item is:
“How concerned are you about the environment when making pur­
chases?” The scale ranged from 1 (not at all concerned) to 4 (very
concerned). While previous studies measured environmental knowledge
in two different ways, by using perceived or factual environmental knowl­
edge, the focus of this study was on perceived environmental knowledge,
as endorsed by Mostafa (2007). The original scale was developed by
P. Ellen et al. (1997). Therefore, environmental knowledge was assessed
with five items, such as: “I know how to select products and packages that
reduce the amount of waste ending up in landfills.” In order to measure
perceived consumer effectiveness, a scale from Kang et al. (2013) was
used. The scale consisted of four items, originally developed by Roberts
(1996). A sample item is: “When I buy products, I tend to try to consider
how my use of them will affect the environment.” Perceived personal
relevance was also measured based on Kang et al. (2013), who used five
items originally adapted from the self-relevance scale of Celsi et al. (1992).
An example of this scale is “The purchase and/or use of eco-friendly
packaged products lets others see me as I ideally would like them to see
me.” Consumer buying behavior was explored by adopting a scale from
Y. Kim and Choi (2005), as a set of five items, i.e. “When I have a choice
between two equal products, I buy the one less harmful to other people
and the environment.” The measurement scales used can be found in
Table 1.
12 S. STOJANOVA ET AL.

Table 1. Measurement scales.

Standardized Cronbach’s Mean Standard
Scale/Item factor loading alpha value deviation
Environmental concern (Bang et al., 2000) .832 M = 4.17* SD = 0.77
How concerned are you about the environment when .717 4.13 0.94
making purchases?
How concerned are you about air pollution? .724 4.19 0.89
How concerned are you about water pollution? .755 4.39 0.87
How concerned are you about land use? .794 3.98 1.05
Environmental buying behavior (Y. Kim & Choi, 2005) .839 M = 3.83 SD = 0.75
I make a special effort to buy paper and plastic products .647 3.84 0.84
that are made from recycled materials.
I have switched products for ecological reasons. .759 3.61 1.03
When I have a choice between two equal products, I buy .734 4.14 0.85
the one less harmful to other people and the
environment.
I make a special effort to buy household chemicals such as .695 3.76 1.08
detergents and cleaning solutions that are
environmentally friendly.
I have avoided buying a product because it had potentially .749 3.82 1.02
harmful environmental effects.
Perceived consumer effectiveness (Kang et al., 2013) .752 M = 4.43 SD = 0.57
It is worth it for an individual consumer to make efforts to .508 4.62 0.64
preserve and improve the environment.
Since each individual can have any effect upon .785 4.26 0.78
environmental problems, what I do can make
meaningful difference.
By purchasing eco-friendly packaged products, each .870 4.42 0.68
consumer’s behavior can have a positive effect on the
environment and society
Perceived personal relevance (Kang et al., 2013) .845 M = 3.65 SD = 0.78
The purchase and use of eco-friendly packaged products .790 3.81 0.90
helps me to attain the type of life I strive for.
I can make connections or associations between the .738 3.62 0.94
purchase and use of eco-friendly packaged products and
other experiences and/or behaviors in my life.
The purchase and use of eco-friendly packaged products is .842 3.94 0.85
of personal importance to me.
The purchase and use of eco-friendly packaged products .670 3.25 1.08
helps me to express who I am.
Environmental knowledge (Mostafa, 2007; P. Ellen et al., .830 M = 3.41 SD = 0.70
1997)
I know that I buy products with packages that are .580 3.13 0.83
environmentally safe.
I know more about Eco packaging than the average .769 3.25 0.96
person.
I know how to select products and packages that reduce .816 3.64 0.88
the amount of waste ending up in landfills.
I understand the environmental phrases and symbols on .679 3.52 0.95
product package.
I am very knowledgeable about environmental issues. .668 3.53 0.91
* Environmental concern was measured with a 4-point scale, whereas all other constructs were operationalized with
a 5-point scale. For the analysis, the scores obtained for the environmental concern items in the questionnaire were
also converted to a 5-point scale.

Common method bias

To account for the potential bias and variance that may result from the
instrument used, common method bias was tested. Defined as “variance that
is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the construct of
interest ‘‘(Bagozzi & Yi, 1991, p. 426), its presence in the data set and
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 13

Table 2. Hypotheses testing.

Hypothesis Relationship Standardized Estimate Result
H1a Concern → Behavior 0.144* Supported
H2a Concern → Knowledge 0.464*** Supported
H2b Knowledge → Behavior 0.318*** Supported
H3a Concern → Effectiveness 0.343*** Supported
H3b Effectiveness → Behavior 0.103 Not supported
H4a Concern → Relevance 0.605*** Supported
H4b Relevance → Behavior 0.509*** Supported
* p < .05, *** p < 0.001

consequently the results compromise their validity. Commonly used techni­

ques to assess common method bias are Harman’s single factor test and
common latent factor (Eichhorn, 2014). It is assumed that common method
bias exists in the data when these techniques show 50% or more of the
explained variance. In our analysis, Harman’s single factor test was conducted
in SPSS for the items measuring the chosen constructs. The results showed
that 38.11% of the variance can be explained by the single factor. Since the
single factor does not explain more than 50% of the variance, it can be
concluded that common method bias does not create a problem in this
analysis. The common latent factor evaluated in AMOS resulted in R2 of
13.10%, which confirms that the measurement instruments did not bias the
obtained variance.Table 2

Results
Structural equation modeling was used to test the proposed conceptual model.
Our data analysis consisted of acquiring assessments of construct reliability
and validity (measurement model analysis) and testing the latent variable
relationships proposed in our hypotheses (structural model analysis). This
procedure is established in structural equation modeling (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988).

Measurement model analysis

The analysis of the measurement model enabled us to assess the relationship
between the indicators and related latent variables through evaluation of the
validity and reliability of the proposed construct measures (Diamantopoulos
et al., 2000). For this purpose, we calculated the average variance extracted
(AVE) and composite reliability (CR) for all constructs in the model. All
constructs satisfied the threshold values of AVE (<0.5) and CR (<0.7) (Table
3). Internal consistency and scale reliability were also calculated for each of the
constructs. Cronbach’s alpha was used for this purpose; its value for each of
the constructs in the model was above 0.7, indicating the adequacy of the
scales. The discriminant validity of the involved constructs was assessed using
14 S. STOJANOVA ET AL.

Table 3. AVE and CR for the model constructs.

Construct AVE CR Cronbach’s alpha
Environmental concern 0.560 0.836 0.832
Perceived knowledge 0.543 0.773 0.830
Perceived effectiveness 0.500 0.831 0.752
Personal relevance 0.584 0.848 0.845
Buying behavior 0.517 0.842 0.839

the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT), as suggested in the existing literature

(Henseler et al., 2015; Voorhees et al., 2016). If the HTMT is below 0.85,
discriminant validity is established. Performing this analysis on our dataset
(see Table 4) gave satisfactory results (Henseler et al., 2015).
The model analysis conducted in AMOS showed that the measurement
model has a good overall fit. The Chi-square equaled 350.064 with 179 degrees
of freedom (the Chi-square/d.f. ratio was 1.956). Other fit indices were satis­
factory: standardized RMR = 0.0577, CFI = 0.947, IFI = 0.947, NFI = 0.898, and
RMSEA = 0.055.

Structural model analysis

The relationships proposed in our hypotheses were tested in the structural
model, again by using the AMOS program. While the Chi-square metric was
significant (Chi-square = 350.836, df = 180, Chi-square/d.f. = 1.949), the other
indicators of overall model fit predominantly show satisfactory values: stan­
dardized RMR = 0.0586, CFI = 0.947, IFI = 0.947, NFI = 0.898, and RMSEA =
0.055.
The hypotheses testing (see Table 4) indicated a strong and stable influence
of environmental concern on environmental behavior, confirming H1.
Furthermore, environmental concern had a positive effect on consumer envir­
onmental knowledge (H2a), which further influenced environmental buying
behavior (H2b). In addition to this, environmental concern positively influ­
enced perceived consumer effectiveness (H3a); however, the latter did not
affect environmental buying behavior. Finally, H4a and H4b were confirmed

Table 4. Discriminant validity overview (HTMT analysis).

Environmental Perceived Perceived Personal Buying
concern effectiveness knowledge relevance behavior
Environmental
concern
Perceived 0.551
effectiveness
Perceived 0.519 0.356
knowledge
Personal relevance 0.683 0.705 0.667
Buying behavior 0.687 0.612 0.730 0.813
Note: The values reported in this table are the HTMT ratio of correlations between the model constructs. HTMT values
lower than 0.85 indicate discriminant validity.
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 15

as higher levels of environmental concern led to higher levels of perceived

personal relevance, which resulted in environmental buying behavior.
We conducted additional analysis in order to test H5. The confirmed path
and regression weight significance along with the supported direct relation­
ship between environmental concern and behavior imply the existence of
partial mediation between environmental concern and pro-environmental
behavior through environmental knowledge and perceived personal relevance
(Jose, 2013). Model appropriateness and validity were additionally assessed by
performing a formal test of mediation. Our proposed model was compared to
a model without a direct path from environmental concern to behavior. The
determined difference in the chi-square values in the two models (Δχ2 = 5.035)
with 1 degree of freedom proved to be significant at p < .05, confirming the
robustness of our proposed model of partial mediation (Werner &
Schermelleh-Engel, 2010). Based on these results, we found partial support
for H5, seeing that environmental knowledge and perceived personal rele­
vance were found to mediate the relationship between environmental concern
and pro-environmental behavior.

Discussion
The study delved into the links between environmental concern and environ­
mental buying behavior by introducing three potential mediators, i.e. consu­
mer environmental knowledge, perceived personal relevance, and perceived
consumer effectiveness. As the results showed, the proposed relationship
between environmental concern and buying behavior is partially mediated
by consumer environmental knowledge and perceived personal relevance. In
addition, we found that environmental concern significantly influences per­
ceived consumer effectiveness, which is not a significant predictor of buying
behavior. These results should be viewed through the prism of previous
studies.
In examining the results, we confirmed a positive relationship between
environmental concern and behavior, which is not surprising. As has been
shown in previous studies, higher levels of environmental concern lead to
more environmental purchasing among Slovenian consumers, making them
comparable to consumers from other countries, such as the USA (Heo &
Muralidharan, 2019), Italy (Cerri et al., 2018), India (Kautish & Sharma, 2019;
Trivedi et al., 2018), China (H. Wang et al., 2019), Turkey (Aytekin &
Büyükahraz, 2013), and Thailand (Maichum et al., 2016), to name a few.
The same conclusion has been drawn in other similar contexts, such as in
the field of green hotel visits, where environmental concern significantly and
positively influenced consumer’s intention to visit green hotels (Verma et al.,
2019) or in the context of energy-efficient appliances where higher levels of
16 S. STOJANOVA ET AL.

environmental concern were manifested in willingness to pay a premium price

for such products (Li et al., 2019).
Additionally, consumer environmental knowledge has been confirmed as
a mediator between environmental concern and buying behavior. While most
of the previous studies focused on environmental knowledge as an antecedent
to behavior (Joshi & Rahman, 2015), we advance this knowledge and demon­
strate its mediating role as well. Liobikienė and Juknys (2016) suggested that
a lack of knowledge may be the reason for the gap between environmental
concern and behavior. We can confirm this proposition as consumers with
a lower level of environmental concern are less knowledgeable about environ­
mental buying options, which is reflected in their avoidance of environmen­
tally friendly buying choices. We echo the findings of Pagiaslis and Krontalis
(2014), who also found a similar path in the context of renewable energy and
biofuels, while our study focused more on environmentally friendly products.
Perceived personal relevance was also introduced as a mediator between
environmental concern and behavior. The literature shows contradictory
results for the effect of perceived personal relevance on consumer buying
behavior, because, as Follows and Jobber (2000) explain, when consumers
are purchasing green products they balance between the consequences for the
environment, captured by environmental concern, and the consequences for
the individual. The mediating role of perceived personal relevance in our study
was shown to be significant and positive, thus linking environmental concern
and buying behavior. This conclusion is an extension of previous research
carried out by Song and Kim (2019), who showed that motives related to self-
centered interests might be better predictors of green buying behavior than
altruistic reasons. Similarly, Ozaki (2011) confirmed that the main reason
concerned consumers were not willing to adopt green electricity was a lack
of personal relevance.
Finally, environmental concern had a positive influence on perceived
consumer effectiveness. Surprisingly, the latter did not affect consumer
buying behavior, which is comparable to the results of Mishal et al. (2017),
who explored the pattern of green purchasing behavior. They confirmed the
positive link between environmental concern and perceived consumer effec­
tiveness, but not with buying behavior. Although the positive influence of
perceived consumer effectiveness on green purchasing behavior has been
confirmed by many authors (e.g., Joshi & Rahman, 2015; Taufique &
Vaithianathan, 2018; H. Wang et al., 2019), our study did not support this.
One of the reasons may be that the other two mediators, i.e. knowledge and
relevance, carry more weight in determining buying behavior. Additionally,
Mishal et al. (2017) suggest that the discrepancy with regard to previous
studies may be due to cultural differences and the beliefs of consumers.
Missing instant gratification might be another reason for the insignificance
of this relationship, as it has been expected to demotivate consumers to take
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 17

environmentally friendly actions (Gaudelli, 2009; Heo & Muralidharan,

2019).

Theoretical contributions

We believe that the findings from our study contribute to the existing pool of
literature and research on consumer environmental behavior in several ways.
First, the mediating role of two out of the three proposed factors was con­
firmed, thereby establishing that perceived knowledge and perceived personal
relevance are not only antecedents of attitudes, norms and behavioral control,
as was the focus of the study by Kang et al. (2013), but they mediate the
relationship between environmental concern and behavior as well. Second,
adding to previous studies on environmental concern that primarily looked at
the antecedents of environmental concern or behavior as its main outcome
(see Gifford & Nilsson, 2014), we demonstrated that not only behavior, but
also other outcomes of environmental concern, i.e. knowledge, relevance, and
effectiveness, are important. Third, we would especially like to point out
perceived personal relevance as a novel relevant factor which previously
received the least amount of attention in the environmental consumption
domain, but was shown to determine behavior and be influenced by concern.
Fourth, the testing of the proposed model showed that Slovenian consumers
are comparable to their counterparts from other countries, as several estab­
lished relationships (between three factors and environmental buying beha­
vior) were re-confirmed.

Implications for practice

These research findings have numerous implications for companies, govern­

ments, and public policy makers. The results can contribute to the formulation
of useful and valid marketing strategies, regulations, and campaigns that can
lead to an increase in environmental buying behavior. The main indication
stemming from this research is that environmental concern is a fundamental
element explaining consumer buying behavior. All involved parties can pro­
mote pro-environmental behavior by tapping into consumer environmental
concern. Marketers of environmentally friendly or eco packaged products
could promote pro-environmental behavior by addressing consumer aware­
ness of an environmental issue and presenting a solution through their
product(s). This can be done through mass media campaigns or more perso­
nalized approaches by employing opinion leaders who could stress the impor­
tance of environmental concern in everyday buying behavior.
As consumers’ environmental knowledge holds implications for marketers
in the business and public policy sectors, they need to be certain about the level
of consumers’ knowledge of the environment and eco-friendly products in
18 S. STOJANOVA ET AL.

order to build effective communication and raise knowledge. Doing marketing

research to capture consumer knowledge needs to be followed by creating and
maintaining communication that will be both highly informative and encoura­
ging to help shape consumer decisions and behavior in an adequate, envir­
onmentally friendly manner. Providing more information on different ways
consumers can engage in environmentally friendly buying behavior and the
all-encompassing benefits of environmentally friendly products can subse­
quently raise the level of such behavior.
Public policy makers and marketers can take advantage of the findings that
consumers need to feel empowered in the struggle to achieve sustainable
change, i.e. they need to believe that their actions can make a difference.
Communication campaigns can focus on pointing out the contribution of
each individual’s environmental actions to the greater good with the goal of
motivating and inspiring individuals to support sustainable choices. Also, it
has been found that when people feel that sustainable consumption is relevant
to them personally, they are more likely to buy such products. Directly
emphasizing environmentally friendly lifestyles and values – as well as an
environmentally friendly self-image – in communication strategies (Kang
et al., 2013) can raise the level of personal relevance, which has been shown
to have positive effects on behavior as well.

Limitations and directions for future research

While this study contributes to the existing literature on the environmental
attitudes of and behavior research on consumers, it is not without limita­
tions. Namely, a social desirability bias which is the “tendency of individuals
to present themselves in the most favorable manner relative to prevailing
social norms and mores” (King & Bruner, 2000, p. 80) is largely present
when discussing environmental issues and reporting behavior. As such was
not addressed in this study, it represents a limitation thereof and creates an
opportunity for future research to deepen the understanding of the results
obtained by including a measure of social desirability bias (see King &
Bruner, 2000; Randall & Fernandes, 1991). Since we used a convenience
sample, the results cannot be generalized due to the sampling method and
sample size used in this study. In this regard, there may be an issue of sample
selection bias, as it seems possible that people with strong pro-environmental
attitudes are more likely to be overrepresented in the sample, because they
were more motivated to participate (Hage et al., 2009). In order to achieve
the generalizability of the results obtained, further research using a more
random sample, as well as a larger sample size, is necessary. In addition, the
study was conducted in a single country. While consumers are becoming
more similar in the globalized economy, similar studies carried out in other
countries would be required in order to be able to claim the universal validity
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 19

of the results. Furthermore, if we consider the UN’s Sustainable

Development Goals (United Nations, 2021), even Slovenia, which is ranked
12th out of 166 countries, faces major challenges in achieving several of these
goals, such as responsible production and consumption, and climate action
(Sachs et al., 2020). Therefore, future research opportunities lie in investigat­
ing how to combat climate change and ensure sustainable consumption and
production patterns in this country. Finally, the focus of the study was on
examining the connection between environmental concern and buying beha­
vior and the impact knowledge, relevance, and effectiveness can have on this
relationship. While the three mediators were relevant, they cannot be con­
sidered to be the only factors in the relationship between environmental
concern and buying behavior. Previous literature elaborated on some addi­
tional constructs that can be of interest (e.g., Bouscasse et al., 2018; Newton
et al., 2015). Further research might include some of these constructs as
mediators, and evaluate their influence on the buying behavior of
consumers.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2007). Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of
preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4), 361–383.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9287-y
Aytekin, M., & Büyükahraz, G. (2013). The Impact of between the environmental interest,
concern and sensitivity level and on purchasing behaviour of environmentally friendly
product. International Journal of Business and Economic Development, 1(3), 37–45. https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/323783986_The_Impact_of_between_the_environmen
tal_interest_concern_and_sensitivity_level_and_on_purchasing_behaviour_of_environ
mentally_friendly_product_httpwwwabrmrcommyfileconference_proceedingsCon_Pro_
21778r
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1991). Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer research. Journal
of Consumer Research, 17(4), 426–439. https://doi.org/10.1086/208568
Bang, H. K., Ellinger, A. E., Hadjimarcou, J., & Traichal, P. A. (2000). Consumer concern,
knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An application of the reasoned
action theory. Psychology & Marketing, 17(6), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-
6793(200006)17:6<449::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-8
Bator, R., & Cialdini, R. (2000). The application of persuasion theory to the development of
effective proenvironmental public service announcements. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3),
527–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00182
20 S. STOJANOVA ET AL.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2),
139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
Bhuian, S. N., Sharma, S. K., Butt, I., & Ahmed, Z. U. (2018). Antecedents and
pro-environmental consumer behavior (PECB): The moderating role of religiosity. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 35(3), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcm-02-2017-2076
Bickart, B. A., & Ruth, J. A. (2012). Green eco-seals and advertising persuasion. Journal of
Advertising, 41(4), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2012.10672457
Bouscasse, H., Joly, I., & Bonnel, P. (2018). How does environmental concern influence mode
choice habits? A mediation analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 59(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.01.007
Brochado, A., Teiga, N., & Oliveira-Brochado, F. (2017). The ecological conscious consumer
behaviour: Are the activists different? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(2),
138–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12321
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer – Do ethics matter in
purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–578. https://doi.org/10.
1108/07363760110410263
Celsi, R. L., Chow, S., Olson, J. C., & Walker, B. A. (1992). The construct validity of intrinsic
sources of personal relevance: An intra-individual source of felt involvement. Journal of
Business Research, 25(2), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(92)90015-4
Cerri, J., Testa, F., & Rizzi, F. (2018). The more I care, the less I will listen to you: How
information, environmental concern and ethical production influence consumers’ attitudes
and the purchasing of sustainable products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175(6), 343–353.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.054
Davari, A., Iyer, P., & Strutton, D. (2017). Investigating moral links between religiosity,
altruism, and green consumption. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 29(4),
385–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2017.1326338
Dermody, J., Koenig-Lewis, N., Zhao, A. L., & Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (2018). Appraising the
influence of pro-environmental self-identity on sustainable consumption buying and cur­
tailment in emerging markets: Evidence from China and Poland. Journal of Business
Research, 86(5), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.041
Di Martino, J., Nanere, M. G., & DSouza, C. (2019). The effect of pro-environmental attitudes
and eco-labelling information on green purchasing decisions in Australia. Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 31(2), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.
2019.1589621
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can
socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence
and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465–480. https://doi.org/
10.1016/s0148-2963(01)00241-7
Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J. A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the
uninitiated. Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3376-3
Dunlap, R. E., & Jones, R. E. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement
issues. Handbook of Environmental Sociology, 3(6), 482–524. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.
1999.0141
Eichhorn, B. R. (2014). Common method variance techniques. Cleveland State University,
Department of Operations & Supply Chain Management. SAS Institute Inc. 1–11.
Ellen, P., Eroglu, D., & Webb, D. (1997). Consumer judgments in a changing information
environment: How consumers respond to ‘green marketing’ claims. Georgia State
University.
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 21

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
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. https://doi.org/10.
1108/03090560010322009
Fryxell, G. E., & Lo, C. W. (2003). The influence of environmental knowledge and values on
managerial behaviours on behalf of the environment: An empirical examination of
managers in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/
25075088
Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of global citizenship discourses towards curriculum
enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(1), 68–85. https://journal.jctonline.
org/index.php/jct/article/view/GAUDHEU
Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental
concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034
Gkargkavouzi, A., Halkos, G., & Matsiori, S. (2019). Environmental behavior in a
private-sphere context: Integrating theories of planned behavior and value belief norm,
self-identity and habit. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 148(9), 145–156. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.039
Gleim, M. R., Smith, J. S., Andrews, D., & Cronin, J. J., Jr. (2013). Against the green: A
multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. Journal of Retailing, 89
(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.10.001
Goh, S. K., & Balaji, M. S. (2016). Linking green skepticism to green purchase behavior. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 131(22), 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.122
Golob, U., Koklič, M. K., Erker, R. S., Murovec, N., Ogorevc, M., Bartolj, T., & Zabkar, V.
(2017). Going Beyond Green: Exploring Sustainability in Slovenia. In Green Economy in the
Western Balkans. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 41-7.
Grimmer, M., Kilburn, A. P., & Miles, M. P. (2016). The effect of purchase situation on realized
pro-environmental consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1582–1586.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.021
Hage, O., Söderholm, P., & Berglund, C. (2009). Norms and economic motivation in household
recycling: Empirical evidence from Sweden. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53(3),
155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.11.003
Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza-Ibanez, V. (2010). Beyond savanna: An evolutionary and environ­
mental psychology approach to behavioral effects of nature scenery in green advertising.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.
10.001
He, Q., Duan, Y., Wang, R., & Fu, Z. (2019). Factors affecting consumers’ purchase intention of
eco-friendly food in China: The evidence from respondents in Beijing. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 43(5), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12525
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Heo, J., & Muralidharan, S. (2019). What triggers young Millennials to purchase eco-friendly
products?: The interrelationships among knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness, and
environmental concern. Journal of Marketing Communications, 25(4), 421–437. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13527266.2017.1303623
22 S. STOJANOVA ET AL.

Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on
responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 18(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
Hosta, M., & Zabkar, V. (2020). Antecedents of Environmentally and Socially Responsible
Sustainable Consumer Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 171, 273–293. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10551-019-04416-0
Howarth, R. B., & Norgaard, R. B. (1995). Intergenerational choices under global environ­
mental change. In Handbook of Environmental Economics (DW Bromley, Ed.). (pp.
111–138).
Hustvedt, G., & Dickson, M. A. (2009). Consumer likelihood of purchasing organic cotton
apparel. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 13(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.
1108/13612020910939879
Jayaratne, M., Sullivan Mort, G., & Clare, D. S. (2015). Sustainability living in a carbon-priced
economy:“Shoulds” and “woulds,” making amends and sustainability guilt. Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 27(3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.
2015.1053343
Jose, P. E. (2013). Doing statistical mediation and moderation. Guilford Press.
Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research
directions. International Strategic Management Review, 3(1–2), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ism.2015.04.001
Kang, J., Liu, C., & Kim, S.-H. (2013). Environmentally sustainable textile and apparel
consumption: The role of consumer knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness and
perceived personal relevance. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(4), 442–452.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12013
Kautish, P., & Sharma, R. (2019). Value orientation, green attitude and green behavioral
intentions: An empirical investigation among young consumers. Young Consumers, 20(4),
338–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/yc-11–2018-0881
Kim, H. S., & Damhorst, M. L. (1998). Environmental concern and apparel consumption.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16(3), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0887302x9801600303
Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of
collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. ACR North American Advances. eds. Geeta
Menon and Akshay R. Rao, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, 32, 592-599.
https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/9156/volumes/v32/NA-32
King, M. F., & Bruner, G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity
testing. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793
(200002)17:2<79::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-0
Kropfeld, M. I., Nepomuceno, M. V., & Dantas, D. C. (2018). The ecological impact of
anticonsumption lifestyles and environmental concern. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 37(2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915618810448
Landry, N., Gifford, R., Milfont, T. L., Weeks, A., & Arnocky, S. (2018). Learned helplessness
moderates the relationship between environmental concern and behavior. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 55(1), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.003
Lee, N., Choi, Y. J., Youn, C., & Lee, Y. (2012). Does green fashion retailing make consumers
more eco-friendly? The influence of green fashion products and campaigns on green
consciousness and behavior. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30(1), 67–82. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0887302x12446065
Lee, Y. J., Kang, H. M., Lee, E. K., song, B. M., Jeong, J., Kwon, Y. K., . . . Choi, K. S. (2014).
Novel reassortant influenza A (H5N8) viruses, South Korea. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 20
(6), 1087. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2006.140233
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 23

Li, G., Li, W., Jin, Z., & Wang, Z. (2019). Influence of environmental concern and knowledge
on households’ willingness to purchase energy-efficient appliances: A case study in Shanxi,
China. Sustainability, 11(4), 1073. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041073
Liobikienė, G., & Juknys, R. (2016). The role of values, environmental risk perception, aware­
ness of consequences, and willingness to assume responsibility for environmentally-friendly
behaviour: The Lithuanian case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(3), 3413–3422. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.049
Liu, X., Wang, C., Shishime, T., & Fujitsuka, T. (2012). Sustainable consumption: Green
purchasing behaviours of urban residents in China. Sustainable Development, 20(4),
293–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.484
Mahesh, N., & Ganapathi, R. (2012). Influence of consumer’s socio-economic characteristics
and attitude on purchase intention of green products. International Journal of Business and
Management, 4(5), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-0453337
Maichum, K., Parichatnon, S., & Peng, K. C. (2016). Application of the extended theory of
planned behavior model to investigate purchase intention of green products among Thai
consumers. Sustainability, 8(10), 1077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101077
Marcketti, S. B., & Shelley, M. C. (2009). Consumer concern, knowledge and attitude towards
counterfeit apparel products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(3), 327–337.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00748.x
McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes: Personal 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
McQuarrie, E. F., & Munson, J. M. (1992). A revised product involvement inventory: Improved
usability and validity. ACR North American Advances. eds. John F. Sherry, Jr. and Brian
Sternthal, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, 19, 108–115. https://www.
acrwebsite.org/volumes/7277/volumes/v19/NA-19
Milfont, T. L., & Markowitz, E. (2016). Sustainable consumer behavior: A multilevel
perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10(4), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cop
syc.2015.12.016
Mishal, A., Dubey, R., Gupta, O. K., & Luo, Z. (2017). Dynamics of environmental conscious­
ness and green purchase behaviour: An empirical study. International Journal of Climate
Change Strategies and Management, 9(5), 682–706. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijccsm-11-2016-
0168
Morren, M., & Grinstein, A. (2016). Explaining environmental behavior across borders: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47(3), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2016.05.003
Mostafa, M. M. (2007). Gender differences in Egyptian consumers’ green purchase behaviour:
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
United Nations Department of Global Communications. (2021). Sustainable Development
Goals. United Nations. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
Newton, J. D., Tsarenko, Y., Ferraro, C., & Sands, S. (2015). Environmental concern and
environmental purchase intentions: The mediating role of learning strategy. Journal of
Business Research, 68(9), 1974–1981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.007
Nguyen, T. N., Lobo, A., & Greenland, S. (2017). Energy efficient household appliances in
emerging markets: The influence of consumers’ values and knowledge on their attitudes and
purchase behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(2), 167–177. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijcs.12323
24 S. STOJANOVA ET AL.

Ozaki, R. (2011). Adopting sustainable innovation: What makes consumers sign up to green
electricity? Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.
650
Pagiaslis, A., & Krontalis, A. K. (2014). Green consumption behavior antecedents:
Environmental concern, knowledge, and beliefs. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 335–348.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20698
Paul, J., Modi, A., & Patel, J. (2016). Predicting green product consumption using theory of
planned behavior and reasoned action. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29(2),
123–134. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.5.042
Perera, C., Auger, P., & Klein, J. (2018). Green consumption practices among young envir­
onmentalists: A practice theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3), 843–864.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3376-3
Pickett-Baker, J., & Ozaki, R. (2008). Pro-environmental products: Marketing influence on
consumer purchase decision. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(5), 281–293. https://doi.
org/10.1108/07363760810890516
Prakash, G., & Pathak, P. (2017). Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among
young consumers of India: A study on developing nation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141
(2), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.116
Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., &
Thøgersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and
public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jppm.30.1.31
Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics
research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(11), 805–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383696
Rex, J., Lobo, A., & Leckie, C. (2015). Evaluating the drivers of sustainable behavioral
intentions: An application and extension of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 27(3), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.
2015.1053342
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green Consumers in the 1990s: Profile and Implications for Advertising.
Journal of Business Research, 36(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/01482963(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
Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., & Woelm, F. (2020). The
Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19. Sustainable Development Report 2020.
Cambridge University Press.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Pearson
education.
Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern: The role of
knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22(6), 767–786.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916590226003
Sheng, G., Xie, F., Gong, S., & Pan, H. (2019). The role of cultural values in green purchasing
intention: Empirical evidence from Chinese consumers. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 43(3), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12513
Song, S. Y., & Kim, Y. K. (2019). Doing good better: Impure altruism in green apparel
advertising. Sustainability, 11(20), 5762. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205762
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review
and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 25

Tam, K. P., & Chan, H. W. (2017). Environmental concern has a weaker association with
pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: A cross-cultural psychology
perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53(5), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvp.2017.09.001
Taufique, K. M. R., & Vaithianathan, S. (2018). A fresh look at understanding Green consumer
behavior among young urban Indian consumers through the lens of Theory of Planned
Behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183(14), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2018.02.097
Trivedi, R. H., Patel, J. D., & Acharya, N. (2018). Causality analysis of media influence on
environmental attitude, intention and behaviors leading to green purchasing. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 196(27), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.024
Trudel, R. (2019). Sustainable consumer behavior. Consumer Psychology Review, 2(1), 85–96.
https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1045
Verma, V. K., Chandra, B., & Kumar, S. (2019). Values and ascribed responsibility to predict
consumers’ attitude and concern towards green hotel visit intention. Journal of Business
Research, 96(3), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.021
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer
“attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 19(2),
169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults in
Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological
Economics, 64(3), 542–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.007
Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity
testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4
Wang, H., Ma, B., & Bai, R. (2019). How does green product knowledge effectively promote
green purchase intention? Sustainability, 11(4), 1193. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041193
Wang, P., Liu, Q., & Qi, Y. (2014). Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviors:
A survey of the rural residents in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63(2), 152–165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.007
Wei, S., Ang, T., & Jancenelle, V. E. (2018). Willingness to pay more for green products: The
interplay of consumer characteristics and customer participation. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 45(6), 230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.08.015
Werner, C., & Schermelleh-Engel, K. (2010). Deciding between competing models: Chi-square
difference tests. Goethe University. Retrieved September 4th, 2020, from https://perma.cc/
2RTR-8XPZ
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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649
Wymer, W., & Polonsky, M. J. (2015). The limitations and potentialities of green marketing.
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 27(3), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10495142.2015.1053341
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12(3), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1086/208520
Zibenberg, A., Greenspan, I., Katz-Gerro, T., & Handy, F. (2018). Environmental behavior
among Russian youth: The role of self-direction and environmental concern. Environmental
Management, 62(2), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1032-7