Next Article in Journal
Global Leadership for Sustainability: Essential Competencies for Leading Transformative Multi-Sector Partnerships
Previous Article in Journal
Automatic Generation Control in Renewables-Integrated Multi-Area Power Systems: A Comparative Control Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Elucidating the Gap between Green Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior through the Prism of Greenwashing Concerns
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 13
10.3390/su16135736
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Relationships between Psychological Risk, Brand Trust, and Repurchase Intentions of Bottled Water: The Moderating Effect of Eco-Friendly Packaging

by
Kyung-A Sun
1 and
Joonho Moon
2,*
1
Department of Tourism Management, Gachon University, Sungnam-si 13120, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Tourism Administration, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(13), 5736; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135736
Submission received: 4 June 2024 / Revised: 28 June 2024 / Accepted: 2 July 2024 / Published: 4 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Food Marketing, Consumer Behavior and Lifestyles)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
According to stakeholder theory, consumers are likely to become the main stakeholders of businesses, and promoting their health is an essential element for building a better reputation in the market. The aim of this work was to investigate the relationships among psychological risk, brand trust, and repurchase intentions. Moreover, the market has been more interested in the environmental implementation of business, and this is not exceptional to the beverage market. Considering such importance, another purpose of this study was to examine the moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging on the relationship between psychological risk and brand trust. This research mainly involved surveys. The survey participants had experience with the bottled water brand Dasani. Survey participants were recruited using a clickworker platform service. To test the research hypotheses, the Hayes process macro model 7 was employed. The results reveal that psychological risk negatively affects brand trust, while brand trust has a positive effect on repurchase intention. Moreover, eco-friendly packaging significantly moderates the impact of psychological risk on brand trust. This work elucidates the literature by identifying the associations among four attributes: psychological risk, brand trust, repurchase intention, and eco-friendly packaging.

1. Introduction

The bottled water market has been growing globally, and its market sizes in 2022 and 2023 were estimated to be approximately USD 302 and 317 billion, respectively. Statista [1] reported that more than ten brands are competing in this market, suggesting that the market involves fierce competition. Dasani, Coca Cola’s bottled water brand, had the largest US domestic market share in 2022. This statistic could be applied to the case of the US market because their consumption volume was USD 83.02 billion in 2022 [2]. Statista [2] also reported that Americans prefer bottled water to tap water because it is clean, healthier, and convenient to use. Under these circumstances, beverage companies have allocated their resources to gain a greater market share. This implies that the US market could become a focal area to investigate consumer behavior in the case of bottled water. Hence, the aim of this research was to investigate consumer behavior in the bottled water market by focusing on the US market to provide information for more effective marketing strategies.
Repurchase intention was selected as the dependent variable in this work. Repurchase intention has been widely used in previous research because it is closely related to business sales [3,4,5]. Moreover, brand trust was used as the mediator. Many scholars have investigated brand trust as a mediating variable with both explained and explanatory attributes [6,7]. Following the approach of previous research, brand trust was chosen as the central element. Furthermore, psychological risk was used as the independent variable. Psychological risk reflects the variation in the consumption of goods, and risk deters consumers from making decisions and appraising services and goods negatively [8,9,10,11]. Considering the arguments from the previous literature, this work adopted psychological risk as its main component. By integrating the arguments of prior studies, this research examined the effect of psychological risk on both brand trust and the repurchase intention of bottled water. Additionally, this study was conducted to explore the impact of brand trust on the repurchase intention of bottled water. Furthermore, it is crucial to scrutinize the effect of psychological risk and brand trust in the domain of the bottled water business; brand trust and risk management are the focal area of the bottled water business to accomplish sustainability [12].
The Coca Cola Company, the leader of the bottled water market, invested its budget in eco-friendly packaging to reduce waste under conditions in which environmental concern has been growing through the implementation of environmental, social, and governance strategies [12]. Scholars contend that socially responsible management is a strategy for protecting companies’ reputations from bad news [13,14,15]. Indeed, Zhou et al. [16] stated that microplastics from packaging are likely to become a concern for consumers because they can be harmful to their health. Additionally, Sun and Moon [17] reported that eco-friendly packaging could mitigate such consumer concerns. These aspects led this research to focus on whether eco-friendly packaging appeals to consumers. Given the claims of previous studies, this research was conducted to examine the moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging to test whether eco-friendly packaging has a negative effect on brand management. By integrating the role of variables, this research has four attributes: repurchase intention (dependent variable), psychological risk (independent variable), brand trust (mediator), and eco-friendly packaging (moderator).
All in all, the first goal of this work was to examine the relationships among psychological risk, brand trust, and repurchase intentions in relation to bottled water. The second aim of this study was to determine the moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging on the relationship between psychological risk and brand trust. Even though psychological risk, brand trust, repurchase intention, and eco-friendly packaging in the domain of bottled water consumer behavior have been integrated in the extant literature, researchers have rarely explored the relationship of the four attributes. This research thus contributes to the literature by identifying the relationships among four attributes: psychological risk, brand trust, eco-friendly packaging, and repurchase intention. Additionally, this work provides information to assist bottled water business managers in making decisions about business strategies. This work contributes to the literature by emphasizing the eco-friendly aspect of packaging in the case of bottled water to accomplish the goal of sustainability by documenting consumer information.

2. Review of the Literature and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Repurchase Intention

Repurchase intention refers to how frequently consumers want to repeatedly select a product or service [3,4]. A vast body of literature has explored the determinants of repurchase intention because of its role in increasing businesses’ sales and market shares [4,5]. Chatzoglou et al. [18] employed repurchase intention as the dependent variable to examine retail shopping consumers. Ho and Chung [19] also explored the determinants of repurchase intention in the domain of mobile application businesses. Hussain et al. [20] investigated the influence of various attributes on the repurchase intentions of halal cosmetic consumers. Zhe et al. [21] researched the antecedents of repurchase intentions among consumers of agricultural products. Lu and Yi [22] selected repurchase intention as the central attribute to scrutinize consumer behavior in the sharing economy. Oteino and Oti [23] additionally examined bottled water consumers in Nigeria using repurchase intention as an explained attribute. Repurchase intention has been frequently studied by numerous scholars as a dependent variable.

2.2. Brand Trust

Brand trust is the credibility of certain brands [24,25]. Brand trust is influenced by various elements, including the quality of products and services, image, and reputation [6,7,26]. In fact, many studies have explored brand trust in various domains. Atulkar [6] studied mall consumers and found that brand trust influenced loyalty. Husain et al. [20] considered consumers in the luxury sector using brand trust as the main attribute. Akoglu and Özbek [7] examined sports goods consumers and showed that brand trust functioned as both a dependent variable and an independent variable. Kwon et al. [27] considered restaurant consumers’ brand trust as a mediating attribute. Hanaysha [28] explored the role of brand trust in determining the behavior of fast-food-service customers. Overall, brand trust has been examined in many different domains to understand consumer behavior, and its role has been mainly as a mediator.

2.3. Psychological Risk

Psychological risk is the perceived variance in the consumption of goods, which comes from a deviation from expectations of the function of goods [8,9,11]. Scholars have alleged that variation in consumer experience causes negative appraisals [10,11,29]. This disconfirmation also leads consumers to behave negatively, which undermines businesses’ sales and reputation in the market [8,29]. Researchers have also documented that water consumption can be negatively linked to health issues because water directly affects individual health conditions [30,31,32]. Napier and Kodner [33] indeed claimed that risk is the motivation for bottled water consumption. Akhbarizadeh et al. [34] also noted that this risk has become a reason for the increase in the global sales of bottled water. Numerous studies have investigated the effect of psychological risk. For example, Zheng et al. [35] explored Chinese consumers’ behavior using psychological risk as an explanatory variable in the domain of electronic commerce by implementing statistical analysis. In a similar vein, Lăzăroiu et al. [36] selected psychological risk as the main attribute to account for consumer behavior in the case of social commerce and the definition of risk was the disconfirmation between expectation and reality. Moreover, Sánchez-Cañizares et al. [37] examined tourists’ behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic using psychological risk as an independent variable with a structural equation model as an instrument for data analysis. Ha et al. [38] examined autonomous vehicle consumer behavior using psychological risk as the main attribute, and the study defined risk as the variation from the consumer’s anticipation with actual experience. A review of the literature confirmed that psychological risk has been used as a crucial element to account for consumer behavior in various domains.

2.4. Bottled Water Research

Prior studies have examined the perception of bottled water consumers. Raj [31] addressed that safety is an essential motivation for the consumption of bottled water. Doria [30] presented that consumers prefer bottled water to tap water because of safety. Also, Zhou et al. [16] documented that microplastic pollution has been a serious problem in the consumption of bottled water. Akhbarizadeh et al. [34] documented that bottled water is a critical issue environmentally because of the plastic garbage problems. Oteino et al. [23] also alleged that consumers consider trust as an important attribute for their decision making in the domain of bottled water purchases. Diduch et al. [32] also contended that consumers consider various aspects when they choose bottled water, and its quality assessment is influenced by diverse attributes. Even though prior research has discussed various issues, such as safety, trust, eco-friendliness, and consumer behavior, scholars have insufficiently explored consumer behavior by integrating the various attributes together.

2.5. Hypothesis Development

Akhbarizadeh et al. [34] noted that risk is an important attribute in the bottled water business context from the perspective of consumers. Kokthi et al. [39] reported that trust in brands has become a key attribute for determining consumer decision making processes related to drinking water because brands convey various meanings. Harridge-March [40] claimed that from the perspective of consumers, brand trust is built by overcoming psychological risk. Alam and Yasin [41] revealed that brand trust is significantly affected by psychological risk, and other researchers have also demonstrated the negative effect of psychological risk on trust in online shopping [42]. Ha et al. [38] revealed a negative association between risk and trust in autonomous vehicles. The second area is the link between psychological risk and repurchase intentions. Scholars have demonstrated the relationship between psychological risk and repurchasing in the area of telecommunication service [43]. Yuniarti et al. [44] demonstrated the negative effect of risk on repurchase intentions in the case of online retailing. Additionally, Loh and Hassan [45] revealed a positive relationship between risk and repurchase intentions for food truck products. The next area is the effect of brand trust on repurchase intentions. Specifically, Sullivan and Kim [46] found a positive impact of brand trust on repurchase intentions among e-commerce consumers. Khan et al. [47] also revealed that online business consumers’ brand trust has a positive effect on repurchase intentions. Lin and Xu [48] found that, in the context of bottled water, desirable consumer behavior is influenced by trust. Leung and Seah [49] indicated that brand trust leads consumers to develop a greater level of repurchase intention in an examination of consumers’ experience with refunding policies. Regarding the literature review, this work proposes the following research hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1:
Psychological risk negatively impacts brand trust in bottled water.
Hypothesis 2:
Psychological risk negatively impacts repurchase intentions for bottled water.
Hypothesis 3:
Brand trust negatively impacts repurchase intentions for bottled water.

2.6. Moderating Effect of Eco-Friendly Packaging

Zhou et al. [16] reported that microplastics from packaging are a point of concern for bottled water consumption from the consumers’ viewpoint. Eco-friendly packaging refers to materials that are recyclable and decomposable in the environment [50,51]. Eco-friendly packaging provides environmental protection because it reduces the amount of garbage [52,53]. Moreover, the perception of an eco-friendly container functions to minimize consumer concerns in the food business domain because it decreases discomfort about the intake of microplastics, which is potentially damaging to individual health [51,54]. Sun and Moon [17] reported a significant moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging in food delivery. Scholars have also documented that the eco-friendly implementation of social responsibility by businesses is likely to reduce stakeholders’ concerns by either creating positive perceptions or functioning as insurance [13,14,15]. It can be inferred that the connection between bottled water consumption and negative brand trust is likely to be improved by the perception of the eco-friendliness of the packaging. This study therefore proposes the following research hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4:
The eco-friendly packaging of bottled water positively moderates the impact of psychological risk on brand trust.

3. Method

3.1. Research Model

Figure 1 shows the research model. This work includes four variables: psychological risk, brand trust, repurchase intention, and eco-friendly packaging. Psychological risk negatively affects both brand trust and repurchase intentions. Brand trust has a positive effect on repurchase intentions. Moreover, eco-friendly packaging significantly moderates the relationship between psychological risk and brand attitude.

3.2. Description of Measurement Items

Table 1 presents the measurement items. This research employed a five-point Likert scale to measure the variables. This research referenced prior research and adjusted items for the purposes of the present study. Four attributes were considered: brand trust [6,7], repurchase intention [4,5], eco-friendly packaging [17,50], and psychological risk [37,38]. The operational definition of brand trust reflects consumers’ reliance on Dasani bottled water. Repurchase intention is defined as the degree to which consumers are willing to use Dasani bottled water again. The definition of eco-friendly packaging is how consumers perceive Dasani packaging, with a focus on the protection of the natural environment. Finally, the definition of psychological risk is psychological uncertainty about the use of Dasani bottled water.

3.3. Data Collection and Analysis

For data collection, this study mainly used a survey as well as a clickworker platform service (https://www.clickworker.com/ access on 22 April 2024). Clickworker platforms have been widely used by scholars in social science as instruments for recruiting survey participants [55,56,57], and we chose this clickworker platform due to that popularity. The data were collected over four days (24 and 27 April 2024). A screening question was used to determine whether the participants had experience with Dasani. Participants without experience with Dasani were excluded because this research aimed to examine information based on actual experience. Initially, 343 observations were collected, but 35 observations were eliminated because of a lack of experience. Consequently, 308 valid observations were obtained for the data analysis. This research chose the Dasani brand to obtain vivid responses from consumer experiences with the brand that has the largest market share in the US. Thus, the nationality of the survey participants in this study was American.
Table 2 shows the profile of the survey participants. There were 84 males and 224 females. Among the survey participants, 68.8% were employed. Table 2 also shows the participants’ ages (20–29 years old: 57, 30–39 years old: 106, 40–49 years old: 104, 50–59 years old: 33, and older than 60 years old: 8). Approximately 56% of the participants had a monthly household income under USD 5000.
This research used frequency analysis to obtain the demographic information of participants by computing the frequency and percentage together. Additionally, exploratory factor analysis was conducted using varimax rotation. For the appraisal of goodness of fit, the following rules were applied: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy > 0.7 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 (p < 0.05) [58]. According to Hair et al. [58], a factor loading > 0.5, a Cronbach’s α > 0.7, and an eigenvalue > 1 are recommended as the criteria for assessing the convergent validity of measurement items. This study also performed correlation matrix analysis to examine the relationships between variables and calculated the means and standard deviations of the attributes. Next, Hayes process macro model 7 path analysis was conducted based on ordinary least squares to test the research hypotheses because Hayes process macro model 7 is relatively unconstrained by the assumption of sample normality [59]. Hayes process macro model 7 refers to the model used to test the conditional indirect effect of the moderated meditation model based on ordinary least squares [59]. In Hayes process macro model 7, researchers not only test the moderating effect based on the quartile of the data referencing the conditional effect of the focal predictor but also examine the significance of the moderated mediation model using the moderated mediation index [59]. Additionally, median split analysis was used to scrutinize the moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging using the following criteria: median eco-friendly packaging = 3.00 and median psychological risk = 1.75.

4. Results

4.1. Results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability Test

Table 3 displays the results of the exploratory factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 indicate the significance of the factor analysis. Moreover, the values of all factor loadings > 0.5 and Cronbach’s α > 0.7 met the criteria. Thus, four attributes were derived from the results: brand trust, repurchase intention, eco-friendly packaging, and psychological risk. All the attributes had four items for the measurement.

4.2. Correlation Matrix and Results of Hypothesis Testing

Table 4 presents the correlation matrix. Brand trust is positively correlated with repurchase intentions (r = 0.732, p < 0.05) and eco-friendly packaging (r = 0.490, p < 0.05). Additionally, repurchase intentions are positively correlated with eco-friendly packaging (r = 0.437, p < 0.05). Psychological risk is negatively correlated with brand trust (r = −0.233, p < 0.05) and repurchase intention (r = −0.162, p < 0.05). Additionally, the mean value of brand trust is 3.508, and its standard deviation is 1.093; the mean value of repurchase intention is 3.174, and its standard deviation is 1.410; the mean value of eco-friendly packaging is 3.115, and its standard deviation is 1.009; and the mean value of psychological risk is 1.995, and its standard deviation is 0.918.
Table 5 shows the results of the Hayes process macro model 7. Model 1 and Model 2 use brand trust and repurchase intentions, respectively, as the dependent variables. Both models are statistically significant (p < 0.05). Psychological risk has a negative effect on brand trust (β = −0.817, p < 0.05). Psychological risk × eco-friendly packaging positively impacts brand trust (β = 0.148, p < 0.05). The magnitude of eco-friendly packaging varies (βeco-friendly packaging: 2.00 = −0.520, p < 0.05; βeco-friendly packaging: 3.00 = −0.371, p < 0.05; βeco-friendly packaging: 4.00 = −0.222, p < 0.05). Moreover, repurchase intention is positively impacted by brand trust (β = 0.946, p < 0.05). All hypotheses other than H2 are supported.
Figure 2 shows the results of the median split analysis. In the case of highly eco-friendly packaging, the mean value decreases from 4.13 to 3.65 (difference: 0.48). For less eco-friendly packaging, the mean value gap between the low-psychological-risk (3.33) group and the high-psychological-risk (2.54) group is 0.79. Therefore, the gap in the case of the more eco-friendly packaging group is smaller than that of the less eco-friendly packaging group.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The bottled water market has been growing steadily, and its growth is expected to continue because of environmental pollution and consumer anxiety about drinking water [60]. This research investigated the relationships among psychological risk, brand trust, and repurchase intention in relation to bottled water. The target of this work was Dasani due to its popularity in the market. Using 308 samples, statistical inference was performed. Hayes process macro model 7 was employed to test the research hypotheses. The results showed that brand trust is negatively affected by psychological risk, while brand trust is positively impacted by eco-friendly packaging. Plus, the results revealed that brand trust positively affects repurchase intention. The results also unveiled the significant moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging on the relationship between psychological risk and brand trust.
To be specific, the results showed that psychological risk negatively impacted brand trust, i.e., uncertainty about bottled water reduced consumers’ level of brand trust. This finding is consistent with the findings of Ha et al. [38]. Moreover, brand trust positively affected repurchase intentions, which was consistent with the findings of Leung and Seah [49]. Specifically, consumers who trusted the bottled water brand more were more likely to purchase the product again. A comparison of the mean values of brand trust and repurchase intention shows that consumers were more conservative in the development of repurchase intention than in the development of brand trust. This indicates that repurchase intention is more difficult to accomplish from the perspective of the seller. Additionally, the mean value of psychological risk suggested that consumers had a slightly negative appraisal of bottled water. Furthermore, the results revealed a nonsignificant effect of psychological risk on repurchase intentions. The results of this work did not confirm the findings of Yuniarti et al. [44]. The unique point of this work could be to determine consumer behavior in the bottled water business. By integrating the results, it can be inferred that the effect of psychological risk was limited to brand trust. This finding also suggests that consumers’ perceived risk might not reduce individuals’ repurchase intention for bottled water because bottled water is a necessary good for living compared to other soft drinks and beverages such as coffee and tea. Indeed, the mean value of psychological risk is quite low, implying that consumers’ expectations of bottled water are relatively low because water typically has less flavor or scent than other beverages. The abovementioned aspects, including the necessity of goods and less varied consumer expectations, might be the reasons for the nonsignificance of the effect of psychological risk on repurchase intentions.
Moreover, this work investigated the moderating role of eco-friendly packaging on the association between psychological risk and brand trust. The results suggest that the perception of eco-friendly packaging may weaken the negative impact of psychological risk on brand trust; this might be due to the health problems caused by microplastics in the packaging of bottled water. In other words, concern about microplastics in packaging might be mitigated by the perception of eco-friendly packaging of bottled water. Additionally, the results of the median split analysis revealed that the degree of decrease from the low-psychological-risk group to the high-psychological-risk group for the low eco-friendly packaging group was greater than that for the high eco-friendly packaging group.
This study contributes to the literature by identifying the relationships among psychological risk, brand trust, and repurchase intention in relation to bottled water business consumers. This study thus contributes to the literature by presenting consumer information on bottled water consumption because scholars have yet to sufficiently inspect consumer behavior in the area of bottled water. The extant literature has sparsely explored the behavior of bottled water consumers, although its market has been growing. Specifically, this research is likely valuable because it examines the effects of psychological risk on brand trust [38,42] and the effects of brand trust on repurchase intentions [46,48,61]. Moreover, the results of this work might be valuable because they confirm the constrained effect of psychological risk on the repurchase intention for bottled water. Additionally, the results of this study contribute to the literature by revealing the significant moderating impact of eco-friendly packaging on the effect of psychological risk on repurchase intention.
This research has practical implications. First, bottled water managers might be able to allocate their resources to minimize consumers’ perception of uncertainty because performing this may build more brand trust, in turn resulting in sales growth for businesses by increasing consumers’ repurchase intentions. Moreover, managers of bottled water businesses could allocate more resources to increasing brand trust to increase their revenue growth. Brand trust can be established in various ways to manage familiar relationships with stakeholders. Finally, bottled water business managers could adopt eco-friendly bottles because eco-friendliness is likely to offset the negative effect of risk on brand trust. Additionally, an eco-friendly bottle design may become a way to build positive relationships with stakeholders, including those interested in environmentalism and consumer health. Additionally, survey participants’ eco-friendly perceptions of bottled water were relatively lower than their brand trust and repurchase intentions. This suggests that consumer awareness of the businesses’ efforts might be low. Thus, managers should consider devoting resources to make advertisements that emphasize the eco-friendly packaging of bottled water. The abovementioned suggestions provide an avenue for achieving sustainable business development in the bottled water industry.
This research has limitations. First, this work was limited to the case of Dasani, so generalizability might become difficult to accomplish because this work adopted only a single brand in the domain of bottled water. If future research chooses other bottled water brands, the results are likely to differ because the main bottled water brand could be varied depending on the market. Moreover, this work was restricted to the US. Future research that considers other countries may provide evidence to support the generalizability of this work because bottled water consumption is likely to vary depending on countries’ different natural environmental conditions. Additionally, future research may consider more diverse attributes, such as price fairness and brand image, to account for consumer behavior because this work focused on only four attributes. Furthermore, future research might be able to consider the method for testing the various attributes together using a structural equation model. Such an investigation might help researchers better understand consumer decision making regarding bottled water by comparing various attributes simultaneously.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, K.-A.S.; writing—original draft, J.M.; writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

According to the exemption standard of Kangwon, the National University, ethical review and approval requirements for this study were waived due to the fact that this research did not collect any personal information.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy concerns.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Statista. The Global Giants of the Bottled Water Business. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/chart/31772/leading-bottled-water-brands-by-global-market-share/ (accessed on 28 April 2024).
  2. Statista. U.S. Bottled Water Market—Statistics & Facts Choose a Region. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/topics/1302/bottled-water-market/#topicOverview (accessed on 28 April 2024).
  3. Herjanto, H.; Amin, M. Repurchase intention: The effect of similarity and client knowledge. Int. J. Bank. Mark. 2020, 38, 1351–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Trivedi, S.K.; Yadav, M. Repurchase intentions in Y generation: Mediation of trust and e-satisfaction. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2020, 38, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nazir, S.; Khadim, S.; Asadullah, M.A.; Syed, N. Exploring the influence of artificial intelligence technology on consumer repurchase intention: The mediation and moderation approach. Technol. Soc. 2023, 72, 102190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Atulkar, S. Brand trust and brand loyalty in mall shoppers. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2020, 38, 559–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Akoglu, H.; Özbek, O. The effect of brand experiences on brand loyalty through perceived quality and brand trust: A study on sports consumers. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2022, 34, 2130–2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bhukya, R.; Singh, S. The effect of perceived risk dimensions on purchase intention: An empirical evidence from Indian private labels market. Am. J. Bus. 2015, 30, 218–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dowling, G.R.; Staelin, R. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 21, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jia, J.; Dyer, J.S.; Butler, J.C. Measures of perceived risk. Manag. Sci. 1999, 45, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mitchell, V.W. Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models. Eur. J. Mark. 1999, 33, 163–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Coca Cola. The Coca-Cola Company 2022 Business & Sustainability Report. 2023. Available online: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/company/us/en/reports/coca-cola-business-sustainability-report-2022.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2024).
  13. Babiak, K.; Trendafilova, S. CSR and environmental responsibility: Motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011, 18, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, C.; Sujanto, R.; Bui, T.; Tseng, M.L. Sustainable recyclate packaging in Indonesian food and beverage industry: A hybrid decision-making analysis in consumption stages. Qual. Quant. 2023, 57, 2053–2089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shaukat, A.; Qiu, Y.; Trojanowski, G. Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 135, 569–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhou, X.J.; Wang, J.; Li, H.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, D.L. Microplastic pollution of bottled water in China. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 40, 101884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sun, K.A.; Moon, J. The Relationship between Food Healthiness, Trust, and the Intention to Reuse Food Delivery Apps: The Moderating Role of Eco-Friendly Packaging. Foods 2024, 13, 890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chatzoglou, P.; Chatzoudes, D.; Savvidou, A.; Fotiadis, T.; Delias, P. Factors affecting repurchase intentions in retail shopping: An empirical study. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ho, M.; Chung, H.F. Customer engagement, customer equity and repurchase intention in mobile apps. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 121, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Husain, R.; Paul, J.; Koles, B. The role of brand experience, brand resonance and brand trust in luxury consumption. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 66, 102895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhe, L.; Jie, W.; Yuan, H. The effect of place attachment of geographical indication agricultural products on repurchase intention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 72, 103266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lu, B.; Yi, X. Institutional trust and repurchase intention in the sharing economy: The moderating roles of information privacy concerns and security concerns. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 73, 103327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Oteino, O.D.; Oti, O.J. Modelling Bottled Water Repurchase Intention in Nigeria: Extending the Expectation DisconfirmationTheory with Trust. Int. J. Public Adm. Manag. Res. 2022, 8, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ha, H.Y. Factors influencing consumer perceptions of brand trust online. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2004, 13, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sung, Y.; Kim, J. Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect. Psychol. Mark. 2010, 27, 639–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Reast, J.D. Brand trust and brand extension acceptance: The relationship. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2005, 14, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kwon, J.H.; Jung, S.H.; Choi, H.J.; Kim, J. Antecedent factors that affect restaurant brand trust and brand loyalty: Focusing on US and Korean consumers. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2021, 30, 990–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hanaysha, J.R. Impact of social media marketing features on consumer’s purchase decision in the fast-food industry: Brand trust as a mediator. Int. J. Inf. Manag. Data Insights 2022, 2, 100102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kamalul Ariffin, S.; Mohan, T.; Goh, Y. Influence of consumers’ perceived risk on consumers’ online purchase intention. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2018, 12, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Doria, M.F. Bottled water versus tap water: Understanding consumers’ preferences. J. Water Health 2006, 4, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Raj, S.D. Bottled water: How safe is it? Water Environ. Res. 2005, 77, 3013–3018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Diduch, M.; Polkowska, Ż.; Namieśnik, J. Factors affecting the quality of bottled water. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2013, 23, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Napier, G.L.; Kodner, C.M. Health risks and benefits of bottled water. Prim. Care Clin. Off. Pract. 2008, 35, 789–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Akhbarizadeh, R.; Dobaradaran, S.; Schmidt, T.C.; Nabipour, I.; Spitz, J. Worldwide bottled water occurrence of emerging contaminants: A review of the recent scientific literature. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 392, 122271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zheng, L.; Favier, M.; Huang, P.; Coat, F. Chinese consumer perceived risk and risk relievers in e-shopping for clothing. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2012, 13, 255. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lăzăroiu, G.; Neguriţă, O.; Grecu, I.; Grecu, G.; Mitran, P. Consumers’ decision-making process on social commerce platforms: Online trust, perceived risk, and purchase intentions. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sánchez-Cañizares, S.M.; Cabeza-Ramírez, L.J.; Muñoz-Fernández, G.; Fuentes-García, F.J. Impact of the perceived risk from COVID-19 on intention to travel. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 970–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ha, T.; Kim, S.; Seo, D.; Lee, S. Effects of explanation types and perceived risk on trust in autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2020, 73, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kokthi, E.; Thoma, L.; Saary, R.; Kelemen-Erdos, A. Disconfirmation of taste as a measure of trust in brands: An Experimental Study on Mineral Water. Foods 2022, 11, 1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Harridge-March, S. Can the building of trust overcome consumer perceived risk online? Mark. Intell. Plan. 2006, 24, 746–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Alam, S.; Yasin, N.M. The antecedents of online brand trust: Malaysian evidence. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2010, 11, 210–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ilhamalimy, R.R.; Ali, H. Model perceived risk and trust: E-WOM and purchase intention (the role OF trust mediating IN online shopping IN shopee Indonesia). Dinasti Int. J. Digit. Bus. Manag. 2021, 2, 204–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tho, N.X.; Lai, M.T.; Yan, H. The effect of perceived risk on repurchase intention and word–of–mouth in the mobile telecommunication market: A case study from Vietnam. Int. Bus. Res. 2017, 10, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yuniarti, F.; Arief, H.; Meydia, H.; Yevis, M.O. Online retailers’ ethics and its effect on repurchase intention: The mediating role of perceived risk. Cogent. Bus. Manag. 2022, 9, 2051691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Loh, Z.; Hassan, S.H. Consumers’ attitudes, perceived risks and perceived benefits towards repurchase intention of food truck products. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 1314–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sullivan, Y.W.; Kim, D.J. Assessing the effects of consumers’ product evaluations and trust on repurchase intention in e-commerce environments. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 39, 199–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Khan, M.A.; Panditharathna, R.; Bamber, D. Online store brand experience impacting on online brand trust and online repurchase intention: The moderating role of online brand attachment. Eur. J. Manag. Mark. Stud. 2020, 5, 138–163. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lin, C.A.; Xu, X. Exploring bottled water purchase intention via trust in advertising, product knowledge, consumer beliefs and theory of reasoned action. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Leung, D.; Seah, C. The impact of crisis-induced changes in refund policy on consumers’ brand trust and repurchase intention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 105, 103272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nguyen, A.; Parker, L.; Brennan, L.; Lockrey, S. A consumer definition of eco-friendly packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bertossi, A.; Troiano, S.; Marangon, F. What makes hot beverage vending machine cups eco-friendly? A research into consumer views and preferences. Br. Food J. 2023, 125, 146–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Galati, A.; Alaimo, L.; Ciaccio, T.; Vrontis, D.; Fiore, M. Plastic or not plastic? That’s the problem: Analysing the Italian students purchasing behavior of mineral water bottles made with eco-friendly packaging. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 179, 106060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Techawachirakul, M.; Pathak, A.; Motoki, K.; Calvert, G.A. Negative halo effects of sustainable packaging. Psychol. Mark. 2023, 40, 2627–2641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shimul, A.S.; Cheah, I. Consumers’ preference for eco-friendly packaged products: Pride vs guilt appeal. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2023, 41, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kähr, A.; Nyffenegger, B.; Krohmer, H.; Hoyer, W.D. When hostile consumers wreak havoc on your brand: The phenomenon of consumer brand sabotage. J. Manag. 2016, 80, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Garaus, M.; Garaus, C. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on consumers’ intention to use shared-mobility services in German cities. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 646593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kremer, P.; Feurer, S.; Kim, J.Y.; Hoeffler, S. Overcoming the negative role of nostalgia in consumer reactions to automated products. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2022, 39, 871–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Babin, B.; Black, W. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hayes. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  60. Precedence Research. Bottled Water Market (by Product: Purified, Spring, Mineral, Distilled, Sparkling, and Others; by Distribution Channel: Supermarkets & Hypermarkets, Convenience Stores, Grocery Stores, and Others)—Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends, Regional Outlook, and Forecast 2023–2032. 2024. Available online: https://www.precedenceresearch.com/bottled-water-market (accessed on 27 April 2024).
  61. Hussain, K.; Fayyaz, M.S.; Shamim, A.; Abbasi, A.Z.; Malik, S.J.; Abid, M.F. Attitude, repurchase intention and brand loyalty toward halal cosmetics. J. Islam. Mark. 2024, 15, 293–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 05736 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 16 05736 g001
Sustainability 16 05736 g002
Figure 2. Results of the median split analysis.
Figure 2. Results of the median split analysis.
Sustainability 16 05736 g002
Table 1. Description of the measurement items.
Table 1. Description of the measurement items.
ConstructCodeItem
Brand trustBT1I trust the Dasani brand.
BT2The Dasani brand is reliable.
BT3The Dasani brand is credible.
BT4The Dasani brand is trustworthy.
Repurchase intentionRI1I am going to repurchase Dasani.
RI2I will purchase Dasani again.
RI3I intend to buy Dasani again.
RI4I have a repurchase intention for Dasani.
Eco-friendly packagingEP1Dasani packaging is environmental.
EP2Dasani packaging is eco-friendly.
EP3Dasani packaging is recyclable.
EP4Dasani packaging is useful to reduce plastic garbage.
Psychological riskPR1Dasani causes psychological risk.
PR2Dasani is psychologically risky to consume.
PR3Dasani is psychologically risky to drink.
PR4Dasani has varied expectations for consumption.
Table 2. Demographic information (n = 308).
Table 2. Demographic information (n = 308).
ItemFrequencyPercentage
Male8427.3
Female22472.4
Employed21268.8
Unemployed9631.2
20–29 years old5718.5
30–39 years old10634.4
40–49 years old10433.8
50–59 years old3310.7
Older than 60 years old82.6
Monthly household income
Under USD 25009831.8
USD 2500 and USD 499910534.1
USD 5000 and USD 74995718.5
Over 75004815.6
Table 3. Results of exploratory factor analysis and reliability tests.
Table 3. Results of exploratory factor analysis and reliability tests.
AttributeCodeLoadingCronbach’s αEigenvalueVariance Explained (%)
Brand trustBT10.6270.9501.0286.426
BT20.708
BT30.723
BT40.696
Repurchase intentionRI10.9160.9777.51146.942
RI20.916
RI30.930
RI40.901
Eco-friendly packagingEP10.8870.8823.09119.318
EP20.889
EP30.662
EP40.846
Psychological riskPR10.9250.8651.68310.521
PR20.941
PR30.901
PR40.566
Note: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = 0.892; Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 = 5562.271; total variance explained: 83.208%.
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
VariableMeanSD1234
1. Brand trust3.5081.0931
2. Repurchase intention3.1741.4100.732 *1
3. Eco-friendly packaging3.1151.0090.490 *0.437 *1
4. Psychological risk1.9950.918−0.233 *−0.162 *0.0631
Note: * p < 0.05; SD stands for standard deviation.
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing.
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing.
Model 1
Brand Trust		Model 2
Repurchase Intention
Βt ValueΒt Value
Constant3.4438.81 *−0.172−0.69
Psychological risk−0.817−4.63 *0.0130.22
Eco-friendly packaging0.2452.16 *
Interaction0.1483.00 *
Brand trust 0.94618.27 *
F value49.83 * 175.59 *
R20.3297 0.5352
Conditional effect of focal predictorβt value
Eco-friendly packaging
2.00−0.520−5.89 *
3.00−0.371−6.28 *
4.00−0.222−3.48 *
Index of mediated moderationIndexLLCIULCI
0.1407 *0.04040.2477
Note: * p < 0.05; interaction: psychological risk × eco-friendly packaging (test of indirect interaction: F = 9.02*).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sun, K.-A.; Moon, J. Relationships between Psychological Risk, Brand Trust, and Repurchase Intentions of Bottled Water: The Moderating Effect of Eco-Friendly Packaging. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5736. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135736

AMA Style

Sun K-A, Moon J. Relationships between Psychological Risk, Brand Trust, and Repurchase Intentions of Bottled Water: The Moderating Effect of Eco-Friendly Packaging. Sustainability. 2024; 16(13):5736. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135736

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sun, Kyung-A, and Joonho Moon. 2024. "Relationships between Psychological Risk, Brand Trust, and Repurchase Intentions of Bottled Water: The Moderating Effect of Eco-Friendly Packaging" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5736. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135736

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop