Next Article in Journal
Recycling Clay Waste from Excavation, Demolition, and Construction: Trends and Challenges
Previous Article in Journal
The Metaverse in Green Building Concept Learning, Creative Design Performance, and Learning Engagement
 
 
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 14
10.3390/su16146263
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

Environmental Knowledge and Green Purchase Intention and Behavior in China: The Mediating Role of Moral Obligation

by
Manfei Cui
1,
Yong Li
2,* and
Shan Wang
2
1
School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou 310058, China
2
School of Marxism, Shanghai Maritime University, 1550 Haigang Avenue, Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201306, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(14), 6263; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146263
Submission received: 6 June 2024 / Revised: 9 July 2024 / Accepted: 19 July 2024 / Published: 22 July 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The increasing global focus on environmental sustainability has led to a growing emphasis on green purchase behavior. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is one of the classical theories used to understand individual green purchase behavior from the perspective of psychology. Data are collected through an online survey, and the structural equation modeling (SEM) method is employed for analysis. The research findings demonstrate that consumers’ green purchase intention and environmental knowledge significantly and positively influence green purchase behavior. Moreover, moral obligation plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between green purchase intention and green purchase behavior, as well as in the relationship between environmental knowledge and green purchase behavior. By incorporating moral obligation and environmental knowledge into the TPB framework, this study advances the theoretical understanding of the drivers of green purchase behavior. Furthermore, this study reveals that green purchase intention, compared to environmental knowledge, exerts a greater influence on promoting consumers’ green purchase behavior. This finding underscores the crucial role of consumers’ internal motivation in driving sustainable choice. This study offers valuable implications for the design of green marketing strategies and have the potential to promote environmentally sustainable consumption behavior, thereby contributing to the global sustainability efforts.

1. Introduction

Human consumption patterns have altered significantly in response to the world’s population growth, which has had a significantly negative impact on the environment and accelerated the trend of climate change [1]. It is reported that at least one year between 2024 and 2028 is predicted to have a 1.5 °C increase in the global mean near-surface temperature over average levels from 1850 to 1900 [2]. This urgent climate context provides a strong basis for an in-depth study of sustainable consumer behavior. It is revealed that environmental deterioration is closely related to unreasonable consumption patterns [3]. Academic research has increasingly emphasized the significance of green consumerism as an effective coping method in light of the reality of environmental degradation and global climate change [4]. For instance, purchasing recyclable goods and energy-efficient electrical appliances is beneficial for reducing resource waste and environmentally sustainable development [5,6].
To gain broad acceptance and the growth of environmentally friendly purchase practices, it is essential to have a thorough grasp of the psychological process that influence customers’ sustainable preferences. According to the TPB, there is a significantly positive correlation between green purchase intention and green consumption behavior [7]. Although green purchase intention is one of the critical factors affecting green purchase behavior [8], it is usually only the inner inclination or attitude of consumers. This study considers environmental knowledge, which is a significant element influencing customers’ green purchase behavior, in addition to examining the impact of intention on green purchase behavior [9]. If a consumer has more information about green products and green consumption methods, he/she is more likely to identify which products are green and tend to buy them [10]. Green purchase intention is the internal psychological state of consumers, which is based on consumers’ individual preference for green consumption. Environmental knowledge is the external cognitive basis of consumers, which includes consumers’ information of green products and purchasing approaches, providing a basis for consumers’ decision-making. Exploring the formation mechanism of green purchase behavior from the perspectives of internal psychology and external cognition can provide valuable reference and implications for environmental policy makers and green marketers.
Although the TPB is helpful to predict consumers’ green purchase behavior, it does not deeply reveal the specific mechanism of the transformation from intention to behavior, and leaves some unexplained variances between them [11]. For instance, some studies have shown that although consumers show increasing willingness to green consumption, this willingness does not always translate into actual actions in reality [12]. Prior research has undervalued the impact of moral obligation on pro-environmental behavior and has not thoroughly examined the potential mediation role of ethical variables in the intention–behavior relationship. According to the norm activation theory (NAT), moral obligation provides an explanation for the intention–behavior path [13]. The purpose of this study is to improve the explanatory power of the TPB by adding the constructs of environmental knowledge and moral obligation, and to enhance the understanding of drivers of green purchase behavior in the context of China.
The novelty and contribution of this study lies in its in-depth analysis of the complex dynamics of green purchase behavior in China, providing a new perspective from moral obligation. Theoretically, this study presents an extended TPB regarding green consumption. By exploring the mediating role of moral obligation in consumer green decision-making, this study not only reveals the mechanism that facilitates the translation of intention into green purchase actions, but also further advances the understanding of how environmental knowledge influences and ultimately translates into green purchase behavior. The research findings are beneficial for policy makers and green marketers to clearly identify and highlight the drivers of green purchase behavior, and contribute to promoting sustainable development and mitigating climate warming.
The structure of this study is as follows. In the second part of the study, we conduct a literature review on green purchase behavior and the intention behind it, environmental knowledge and moral obligation, and put forward a series of hypotheses on this basis. In the third part, we describe the method adopted in this study, using structural equation modeling to test hypotheses. The fourth part presents the research results. The fifth part is the discussion. The sixth part displays the conclusion. In the seventh part, we reflect on the limitations of this study and put forward directions for future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Theory for Green Purchase Behavior

Green purchase behavior refers to the consumption of products that are beneficial to the environment [14]. For instance, green purchase behavior includes the selection of energy-efficient products, the avoidance of excessively packaged items, the preference for biodegradable and recyclable goods, and the minimization of environmental pollution [15]. Many theoretical models have been used to understand the underlying factors that shape consumers’ green purchase behavior.
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is one of the classical theories to explore individual behavior from the perspective of psychology [7]. In previous studies, the TPB provides significant explanation in predicting pro-environmental behavior, such as consumers’ preference for the application of green information technology [16] and the decision of green hotel selection [17].
The above studies verify the reliability of the TPB in predicting green purchase behavior. However, the TPB neglects the process of transforming intention into action. It is revealed that choosing green products is a moral decision for consumers [18]. According to the NAT, Schwartz (1977) states that it is likely that many individuals take certain actions through belief, that is, because they feel a moral obligation to take those actions [13]. The inclusion of moral factors increases the explanatory power of the original model of planned behavior theory 32–40% [19]. The TPB is a theory compatible with other predictors [20]; thus, this study adopts an integrated theoretical framework that incorporates the TPB into NAT, thereby providing a complementary perspective to explain consumers’ green purchase behavior.

2.2. Green Purchase Intention and Green Purchase Behavior

Green purchase intention refers to consumers’ willingness to choose an ecologically friendly product over a conventional product [21]. In the field of consumer behavior research, green purchase intention is regarded as the best predictor of green purchase behavior [22,23]. Nguyen’s (2016) study examines the purchase behavior of energy-saving appliances in the Vietnamese market and discover that customers’ purchase intention has a positive influence on their actual purchase behavior [24]. Furthermore, Kumar et al. (2017) find a typical phenomenon in the realm of ecologically sustainable products: there is a direct and substantial positive association between customers’ intention and their actual purchase behavior [25]. Furthermore, Kanchanapibul (2014) finds that young consumers with strong green purchase intention are more likely to actively participate in the consumption of green products [26]. The previous studies provide a foundation for understanding the positive relationship between green purchase intention and behavior [27]. Hence, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): 
Individuals with a greater level of green purchase intention are more likely to conduct green purchase behavior.

2.3. Environmental Knowledge and Green Purchase Behavior

Environmental knowledge refers to individuals’ awareness and perception of environmental issues and the ecosystem [28]. According to Liu et al. (2020), environmental knowledge consists of tactics and practical abilities for dealing with environmental issues [29]. It is widely acknowledged that environmental information has a significant role in shaping customers’ green consumption and purchase decisions [21,30]. Individuals’ grasp of environmental knowledge determines their capacity to reduce negative environmental impact. A lack of understanding of environmental hazards and conservation methods often discourages public participation in environmental protection initiatives [31]. Individuals with a higher level of environmental knowledge are more likely to adopt green consumption behavior [32]. Likewise, it has been demonstrated that reading environmental literature and acquiring environmental knowledge positively influence environmentally responsible behavior [33]. It is also suggested that pro-environment-related messages can stimulate pro-environmental behavior [10]. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): 
Individuals with a greater level of environmental knowledge are more likely to conduct green purchase behavior.

2.4. The Mediating Role of Moral Obligation

Moral obligation refers to an individual decision to participate in a particular action based on the belief that it is the right thing to do [19,34]. Moral obligation forms the basis for judging what is “right” or “wrong” in the framework of individuals’ consumption decisions. It aims to guide individual consumption practices towards choices that promote sustainable development [35]. People with a moral sense tend to be more sensitive to environmental issues [36]. It is reported that moral obligation is related to individuals’ judgment of consumption behavior [37,38], although the choice of environmentally friendly products may involve higher costs [39]. Accordingly, we postulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): 
Individuals with a higher level of moral obligation are more likely to conduct green purchase behavior.
According to a previous study, intention plays a significant role in the evaluation of moral obligation [40]. Specifically, intention aims at performing positive actions have been shown to result in a more favorable assessment of moral character [41]. Green purchase intention represents a positive intention, thus enhancing one’s moral obligation. This leads us to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4 (H4): 
Individuals with a higher green purchase intention are more likely to have a higher level of moral obligation.
According to cognitive moral development theory, moral development is a continuous, phased process that is closely related to an individual’s level of cognitive development. The theory holds that the core of moral development is cognition [42]. With the improvement of knowledge level, individuals’ cognitive abilities also enhance, leading to an improvement in their moral judgment abilities. Accordingly, we formulate the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5 (H5): 
Individuals with a higher level of environmental knowledge are more likely to have a higher level of moral obligation.
Hypothesis 6 (H6): 
Moral obligation mediates the relationship between green purchase intention and behavior.
Hypothesis 7 (H7): 
Moral obligation mediates the relationship between environmental knowledge and green purchase behavior.
Thus, this study aims to investigate the following questions regarding the relationship between green purchase intention, environmental knowledge, moral obligation and green purchase behavior and examines the mediating role of moral obligation. Figure 1 shows the proposed framework for this study.

3. Method

3.1. Data Collection

Using snowball sampling, an online survey was conducted from March 2024 to April 2024 to examine respondents’ green purchase behavior in China. Before distributing the questionnaires, a pilot study was conducted with 20 respondents to ensure that the questions were clear and explicit. Participants were recruited via the Tencent Questionnaire, which is an online questionnaire distribution platform in China. The investigated participants are mainly from Shanghai and Zhejiang Province. The distribution of this questionnaire’s population was in the post-2000s, post-1990s, post-1980s, and post-1970s groups. A total of 403 valid questionnaires were analyzed. Among the 403 respondents, females (71.7%) exceeded males (28.3%). Regarding educational attainment, 13.7% had a high school diploma or below, 76.9% held a bachelor’s degree, 6.7% had a master’s degree, and 2.7% had a doctoral degree.
This study includes four constructs: green purchase intention (GPI), environmental knowledge (EN), moral obligation (MO), and green purchase behavior (GPB). To ensure the reliability and validity of variables, all constructs were chosen from well-established and validated scales. The initial questionnaire was originally written in English and was translated into Chinese by a bilingual expert panel, with adjustments and modifications made to fit the Chinese context. The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part is the survey of demographic variables, including gender, age, and educational attainment. The second part measures green purchase intention, environmental knowledge, moral obligation, and green purchase behavior.

3.2. Dependent Variable

The green purchase behavior is evaluated using 4 items adapted from Fraj (2007) [43]. The respondents are asked to respond to the following questions to evaluate their green purchase behavior: (1) “I buy a product that causes a lower polluting effect”, (2) “I buy energy saving products”, (3) “I buy environmentally friendly products”, and (4) “I buy organic food”. A 5-point Likert scale (1–5 represent strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree) is used to measure the answers.

3.3. Independent Variables

The green purchase intention is measured by 4 items adapted from Boulding (1993) [44]. The respondents are invited to respond to the following questions to evaluate their green purchase intention: (1) “I would like to purchase environmentally friendly products”, (2) “I would like to consider purchase environmentally friendly products first”, (3) “I would like to practice green consumption”, and (4) “I would like to recommend others to purchase environmentally friendly products”.
The environmental knowledge is evaluated using 4 items adapted from Wahid (2011) [45]. The respondents are asked to respond to the following questions to evaluate their environmental knowledge: (1) “I know how to preserve and not cause damage to the environment”, (2) “I know that plastic bags take many years to decompose and cause pollution”, (3) “I know the causes and effects of global warming”, and (4) “I know the causes and effects of light pollution, automobile exhaust pollution, and marine heavy metal pollution”.

3.4. Mediating Variable

The moral obligation is assessed through the 3 items adapted from Trevino (1986) [46]. The respondents are invited to respond to the following questions to evaluate their green purchase intention: (1) “I think purchasing environmentally friendly products is fulfilling my responsibility to the environment”, (2) “I think purchasing environmentally friendly products is helpful for environmental protection”, and (3) “I think purchasing environmental products meets the demand of the moral code”.
As shown in Figure 2, items A1–A4 measured individuals’ green purchase intention. Items B1–B4 measured individuals’ environmental knowledge. Items C1–C4 measured green purchase behavior. Items D1–D4 measured moral obligation.

4. Results

4.1. Reliability and Validity Evaluation

In this study, SPSS 23.0 and Amos 29.0 are used to test the reliability and validity of the measurement model. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) results of all variables show acceptable value (>0.7), and the Bartlett’s sphericity test is significant (p < 0.01), indicating that it is suitable for factor analysis. The factor loadings of the items are all above 0.5, and the total variance explained is 64.44%, indicating that the validity of the questionnaire is acceptable. The standard loading, Cronbach’s α, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of each factor are shown in Table 1. It can be seen that Cronbach’s α and CR of the scale satisfy the minimum threshold limits of 0.70, and AVE shows acceptable values (ranging from 0.542 to 0.675), which indicates that the scale has satisfactory internal consistency and convergent validity.
We examine the discriminant validity of the baseline model by model comparison with the other five models. As shown in Table 2, the baseline model (four-factor model) best fits the data (χ2 = 229.984; df = 84; NNFI = 0.955; CFI = 0.964; RMSEA = 0.066). All indicators of the other five models exhibit a worse fit than the baseline model and pass the significance test with a significance level of 0.001, indicating that the baseline model has discriminant validity.

4.2. Structural Model Validation and Hypothesis Examination

This study conducts a structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS 29.0 to test the hypotheses of the model. Model fit indices are presented in Table 3. All hypotheses within the path model are tested using a bootstrap sample of 5000, accompanied by 95% confidence intervals (CIs). As shown in Table 3, the path model analysis results (χ2 = 229.984, χ2/df = 2.738, GFI = 0.931, AGFI = 0.901, RESEM = 0.066, NNFI = 0.955, CFI = 0.964) demonstrate a good fit of the model to the data [47].
The standardized path coefficients and the degree of significance among the latent variables are shown in Figure 3 and Table 4.
Table 4 shows the results of the structural equation modeling. Green purchase intention positively affects green purchase behavior (β = 0.355, SE = 0.071, CR = 5.006, p-value < 0.001); thus, H1 is supported. The research finding reveals that environmental knowledge positively impacts green purchase behavior (β = 0.139, SE = 0.058, CR = 2.417, p-value < 0.005), providing validation for H2. Moreover, moral obligation positively affects green purchase behavior (β = 0.436, SE = 0.074, CR = 5.879, p-value < 0.001); hence, H3 is verified. The findings indicate that green purchase intention positively influences moral obligation (β = 0.679, SE = 0.065, CR = 10.404, p-value < 0.001), thereby providing support for H4. Furthermore, the results show that environmental knowledge has a positive impact on moral obligation (β = 0.296, SE = 0.072, CR = 4.080, p-value < 0.001). Thus, H5 is supported.
This study employs the bootstrapping method to conduct mediation analysis [48]. Table 5 shows the bootstrapping test for the mediation effect. The bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) do not include zero, thus demonstrating the mediating effect of moral obligation. The study findings indicate that moral obligation plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between consumers’ green purchase intention and green purchase behavior (β = 0.296, SE = 0.166, bias-corrected confidence intervals between 0.012 and 0.646, p-value < 0.05). Similarly, moral obligation plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between environmental knowledge and green purchase behavior (β = 0.129, SE = 0.072, bias-corrected confidence intervals between 0.012 and 0.349, p-value < 0.05). As shown in Table 5, the results reveal that all mediation hypotheses (H6 and H7) are supported.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Implications

This study aims to explore the influencing mechanism of consumers’ green purchase behavior based on an extended TPB model in the context of China. The study presents four theoretical implications as follows:
First, it is found that green purchase intention positively affects consumers’ green purchase behavior. This finding not only validates previous academic research [22,49], which suggests that consumers’ positive intention for green products is likely to translate into green purchase behavior, but also underscores the critical role of green purchase intention as an intrinsic factor in consumers’ green decision-making process. This study suggests that green purchase intention could prompt consumers to choose those products that meet environmental protection standards when face with multiple consumption choices.
Second, environmental knowledge exerts a significant and positive influence on green purchase behavior. This finding reveals that individuals with high environmental knowledge are more likely to exhibit green consumption behavior, echoing previous studies [50,51]. Individuals with a higher level of environmental knowledge and a deeper understanding of the benefits of green products are more likely to become advocates of green consumption. Therefore, green understanding is the first step of green consumerism. Understanding the determinants of consumers’ green purchase behavior can help remove barriers to green consumption. This result also indicates that green purchase intention, compared to environmental knowledge, has a greater impact on promoting green purchase behavior, highlighting the significance of consumers’ internal motivation.
Third, moral obligation has a significant and positive impact on green purchase behavior. That is, when individuals feel moral responsibility and obligation, i.e., perform what they think is right for the whole environment, they are more inclined to adopt environmentally friendly consumption behavior [52]. Although the original TPB model can effectively predict consumer behavior, it has some limitations in explaining green purchase behavior. By incorporating moral obligation as a new construct to the TPB model, this study provides a more comprehensive explanation of the drivers behind green purchase behavior.
Fourth, and more importantly, moral obligation plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between green purchase intention and green purchase behavior, as well as the relationship between environmental knowledge and green purchase behavior. This means that when consumers have a positive intention to buy green products, they are partially driven to act by a moral obligation to translate that intention into actual green purchase behavior. Furthermore, this study finds that environmental knowledge impacts green purchase behavior through moral obligation. This finding indicates that when consumers have a wealth of environmental knowledge, they are more likely to recognize the seriousness of environmental problems and the significance of addressing environmental issues, thereby stimulating their sense of moral obligation regarding environmental protection. Driven by moral obligation, consumers are more likely to translate environmental knowledge into actual green purchase behavior.

5.2. Practical Implications

These findings have several practical implications for governments, green enterprises, and environmental nonprofit organizations aiming to promote consumers’ green purchase behavior. First, governments and environmental nonprofit organizations can enhance individuals’ environmental consciousness and motivate green purchase intention by launching pro-environmental publicity campaigns. Second, to mitigate environmentally detrimental practices and foster green consumption behavior, governments can formulate laws and regulations regarding environmental taxation and eco-labeling. Third, green enterprises could employ eco-labeling on green products to inform consumers about the environmental attributes of these products, such as manufacturing process and sustainable waste disposal practices, thereby stimulating consumers’ green purchase behavior. Fourth, educational institutions such as schools and universities could actively spread knowledge regarding environment protection and green consumerism culture so as to nudge students to adopt green purchase concepts amongst present and future generations of consumers. Additionally, this study suggests that green marketers could develop moral marketing strategies to inform consumers about the moral benefits of the green purchase behavior, such as enhancing their own positive image and reputation [53].

6. Conclusions

The purpose of this study is to investigate the determinants of consumers’ green purchase behavior based on an extended TPB model in China. The research findings indicate that green purchase intention, environmental knowledge, and moral obligation significantly and positively affect consumers’ green purchase behavior in China. Furthermore, moral obligation serves as a partial mediator in the relationship between green purchase intention and green purchase behavior, as well as in the relationship between environmental knowledge and green purchase behavior. Consequently, consumers who buy environmentally friendly goods may perceive green consumption as moral behavior [54]. These findings provide practical and managerial insights for governments, green enterprises, and environmental nonprofit organizations to promote individuals’ green purchase behavior and environmental sustainability.

7. Limitations and Future Directions

The limitations and future directions of this study can be summarized in five points. First, considering the size of the Chinese population, a larger sample should be utilized to investigate the factors influencing consumers’ green purchase behavior. By increasing the sample size, future studies can mitigate the bias regarding gender and educational attainment within samples and enhance the generalizability and robustness of the findings. Second, in light of potential biases in self-reported data, future studies are encouraged to use objective measures to increase the accuracy of analysis. For instance, future research can conduct observation data analysis. Third, in terms of methodology, future studies can adopt the maximum expert consensus model (MECM) [55,56] or robust two-stage minimum asymmetric cost consensus models (TRMCCM-DCs) [57] to explore and address the decision-making problem of green consumption. Fourth, factors such as green trust and peer influence play vital roles in shaping sustainable purchase behavior and warrant further research. Additionally, future research could examine various moderators and mediators that contribute to the explanation mechanism from green purchase intention to green purchase behavior.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.C., Y.L. and S.W.; methodology, M.C.; formal analysis, M.C., Y.L. and S.W.; investigation, M.C., Y.L. and S.W.; data curation, M.C., Y.L. and S.W.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C., Y.L. and S.W.; writing—review and editing, M.C., Y.L. and S.W.; visualization, M.C., Y.L. and S.W.; supervision, Y.L.; project administration, M.C., Y.L. and S.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the reason that, according to the requirement of the School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, formal ethical approval is not required for a study that is not medical-related.

Informed Consent Statement

Respondents provided informed consent before completing the questionnaire. Their confidentiality of the information collected was also assured.

Data Availability Statement

The data analyzed in this study are available on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Thøgersen, J. Consumer behavior and climate change: Consumers need considerable assistance. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2021, 42, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. World Meteorological Organization. WMO Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update (2024–2028). [Report]. 2024. Available online: https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/68910 (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  3. Saleem, S.B.; Ali, Y. Effect of lifestyle changes and consumption patterns on environmental impact: A comparison study of Pakistan and China. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2019, 17, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. Enhance green purchase intentions: The roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 502–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tanner, C.; Wölfing Kast, S. Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychol. Mark. 2003, 20, 883–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mills, B.; Schleich, J. Residential energy-efficient technology adoption, energy conservation, knowledge, and attitudes: An analysis of European countries. Energy Policy 2012, 40, 616–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ajzen, I. Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
  8. Csutora, M. One more awareness gap? The behaviour–impact gap problem. J. Consum. Policy 2012, 35, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rokicka, E. Attitudes toward natural environment: A study of local community dwellers. Int. J. Sociol. 2002, 32, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tam, K.-P.; Chan, H.-W. Generalized trust narrows the gap between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior: Multilevel evidence. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 48, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Han, Y.; Hansen, H. Determinants of Sustainable Food Consumption: A meta-analysis using a traditional and a structural equation modelling approach. Int. J. Psychol. Stud. 2012, 4, 22–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Consumers’ sustainable purchase behaviour: Modeling the impact of psychological factors. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 159, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Schwartz, S.H. Normative Influences on Altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977; pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lee, K. Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior. J. Consum. Mark. 2009, 26, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Do Paco, A.; Shiel, C.; Alves, H. A new model for testing green consumer behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 998–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dezdar, S. Green information technology adoption: Influencing factors and extension of theory of planned behavior. Soc. Responsib. J. 2017, 13, 292–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Teng, Y.M.; Wu, K.S.; Liu, H.H. Integrating altruism and the theory of planned behavior to predict patronage intention of a green hotel. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2015, 39, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hopfenbeck, W. The Green Management Revolution: Lessons in Environmental Excellence; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  19. López-Mosquera, N.; García, T.; Barrena, R. An extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior to predict willingness to pay for the conservation of an urban park. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 135, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kumar, P. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; pp. 12–14. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kim, Y.; Han, H. Intention to pay conventional-hotel prices at a green hotel—A modification of the theory of planned behavior. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 997–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vazifehdoust, H.; Taleghani, M.; Esmaeilpour, F.; Nazari, K. Purchasing green to become greener: Factors influence consumers’ green purchasing behavior. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2013, 3, 2489–2500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nguyen, T.N.; Lobo, A.; Greenland, S. Pro-environmental purchase behavior: The role of consumers’ biospheric values. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 33, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kumar, B.; Manrai, A.K.; Manrai, L.A. Purchasing behaviour for environmentally sustainable products: A conceptual framework and empirical study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 34, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kanchanapibul, M.; Lacka, E.; Wang, X.; Chan, H.K. An empirical investigation of green purchase behaviour among the young generation. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 528–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jaiswal, D.; Kant, R. Green purchasing behaviour: A conceptual framework and empirical investigation of Indian consumers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fryxell, G.E.; Lo, C.W. The influence of environmental knowledge and values onmanagerial behaviours on behalf of the environment: An empirical examination of managers in China. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 46, 45–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, M.T.; Liu, Y.; Mo, Z. Moral norm is the key: An extension of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) on Chinese consumers’ green purchase intention. Asia. Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2020, 32, 1823–1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Peattie, K. Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2010, 35, 195–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vicente-Molina, M.A.; Fernández-Sáinz, A.; Izagirre-Olaizola, J. Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: Comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Blocker, T.J.; Eckberg, D.L. Gender and environmentalism: Results from the 1993 general social survey. Soc. Sci. Q. 1997, 78, 841–858. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mobley, C.; Vagias, W.M.; DeWard, S.L. Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible behavior: The influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environ. Behav. 2010, 42, 420–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vilas, X.; Sabucedo, J.M. Moral obligation: A forgotten dimension in the analysis of collective action. Rev. Psicol. Soc. 2012, 27, 369–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Barbarossa, C.; De Pelsmacker, P. Positive and negative antecedents of purchasing eco-friendly products: A comparison between green and non-green consumers. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 134, 229–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shaw, D.; McMaster, R.; Newholm, T. Care and Commitment in Ethical Consumption: An Exploration of the ‘Attitude–Behaviour Gap’. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 136, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  38. Grayson, K. Morality and the Marketplace. J. Consum. Res. 2014, 41, 9–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Barber, N.A.; Bishop, M.; Gruen, T. Who pays more (or less) for pro-environmental consumer goods? Using the auction method to assess actual willingness-to-pay. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hirozawa, P.Y.; Karasawa, M.; Matsuo, A. Intention matters to make you (im) moral: Positive-negative asymmetry in moral character evaluations. J. Soc. Psychol. 2020, 160, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Simkulet, W. Intention and moral enhancement. Bioethics 2016, 30, 714–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kohlberg, L. Stages of Moral Development as a Basis for Moral Education; Center for Moral Education, Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1971; pp. 24–84. [Google Scholar]
  43. Fraj, E.; Martinez, E. Ecological consumer behaviour: An empirical analysis. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Boulding, W.; Kalra, A.; Staelin, R.; Zeithaml, V.A. A dynamic process model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. J. Mark. Res. 1993, 30, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wahid, N.A.; Rahbar, E.; Shyan, T.S. Factors influencing the green purchase behavior of Penang environmental volunteers. Int. Bus. Manag. 2011, 5, 38–49. [Google Scholar]
  46. Trevino, L.K. Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1986, 11, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  48. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kalafatis, S.P.; Pollard, M.; East, R.; Tsogas, M.H. Green marketing and Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour: A cross-market examination. J. Consum. Mark. 1999, 16, 441–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gkargkavouzi, A.; Halkos, G.; Matsiori, S. Environmental behavior in a private-sphere context: Integrating theories of planned behavior and value belief norm, self-identity and habit. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 148, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mostafa, M.M. Shades of green: A psychographic segmentation of the green consumer in Kuwait using self-organizing maps. Expert. Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 11030–11038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Arvola, A.; Vassallo, M.; Dean, M.; Lampila, P.; Saba, A.; Lähteenmäki, L.; Shepherd, R. Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of affective and moral attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite 2008, 50, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Mo, Z.; Liu, M.T.; Liu, Y. Effects of functional green advertising on self and others. Psychol. Mark. 2018, 35, 368–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Liu, P.; Teng, M.; Han, C. How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors? The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ma, Y.; Ji, Y.; Qu, D.; Zhang, X.; Wang, L. Maximum expert consensus model with uncertain adjustment costs for social network group decision making. Inf. Fusion 2024, 108, 102403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ma, Y.; Ji, Y.; Wijekoon, C. Robust maximum expert consensus model with adjustment path under uncertain environment. Appl. Soft Comput. 2024, 155, 111430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ji, Y.; Li, Y.; Wijekoon, C. Robust two-stage minimum asymmetric cost consensus models under uncertainty circumstances. Inf. Sci. 2024, 663, 120279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 06263 g001
Figure 1. Proposed framework of this study. Source: The authors.
Figure 1. Proposed framework of this study. Source: The authors.
Sustainability 16 06263 g001
Sustainability 16 06263 g002
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of key variables. Source: The authors.
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of key variables. Source: The authors.
Sustainability 16 06263 g002
Sustainability 16 06263 g003
Figure 3. The structural modeling. Source: The authors.
Figure 3. The structural modeling. Source: The authors.
Sustainability 16 06263 g003
Table 1. Estimates of reliability and validity.
Table 1. Estimates of reliability and validity.
Factor
Loadings		Cronbach’s αAVECR
GPI→GPI10.8610.8900.6740.892
GPI→GPI20.772
GPI→GPI30.853
GPI→GPI40.794
EKN→EKN10.7190.8240.5420.826
EKN→EKN20.706
EKN→EKN30.765
EKN→EKN40.754
GPB→GPB10.8160.8700.6340.873
GPB→GPB20.791
GPB→GPB30.853
GPB→GPB40.719
MO→MO10.8810.8610.6750.861
MO→MO20.775
MO→MO30.805
Source: The authors.
Table 2. Discriminant validity.
Table 2. Discriminant validity.
NumberModelχ2dfNNFICFIRMSEAModel Comparison Test
Model Comparison∆χ2∆df
1Baseline model229.984840.9550.9640.066
2Three-factor model 1441.993870.8930.9120.1012 vs. 1212.009 ***3
3Three-factor model 2398.173870.9060.9260.0943 vs. 1168.189 ***3
4Three-factor model 3283.772870.9410.9510.7064 vs. 153.788 ***3
5Two-factor model495.599890.8810.8990.1075 vs. 1265.615 ***5
6One-factor model568.997900.8610.8810.1156 vs. 1339.013 ***6
Notes: Baseline model (four-factor model): GPI, EKN, MO, GPB; three-factor model 1: GPI + EKN, MO, GPB; three-factor model 2: GPI, EKN + MO, GPB; three-factor model 3: GPI, EKN, MO + GPB; two-factor model: GPI + EKN, MO + GPB; one-factor model: GPI + EKN + MO + GPB. Abbreviations: NNFI: non-normed fit index. CFI: comparative fit index. RMSEA: root-mean-squared error of approximation. *** p < 0.001. Source: The authors.
Table 3. Structural equation model fit.
Table 3. Structural equation model fit.
Indicatorχ2dfχ2/dfGFIAGFIRESEMANNFICFI
Acceptable standardsN/AN/A≤3≥0.9≥0.9≤0.08≥0.9≥0.9
Indices229.984842.7380.9310.9010.0660.9550.964
Notes: Abbreviations: N/A: not applicable. GFI: goodness of fit index. AGFI: adjusted goodness of fit index. RMSEA: root-mean-squared error of approximation. NNFI: non-normed fit index. CFI: comparative fit index. Source: The authors.
Table 4. SEM results.
Table 4. SEM results.
Path RelationsDirect EffectSECRp-ValueHypothesis
GPI→GPB0.3550.0715.0060.000HI: Supported
EKN→GPB0.1390.0582.4170.016H2: Supported
MO→GPB0.4360.0745.8790.000H3: Supported
GPI→MO0.6790.06510.4040.000H4: Supported
EKN→MO0.2960.0724.0800.000H5: Supported
Source: The authors.
Table 5. Bootstrap test for mediation effect.
Table 5. Bootstrap test for mediation effect.
Bias-Corrected 95%CI
Path RelationIndirect EffectSEBootLLCIBootULCIp-ValueHypothesis
GPI→MO→GPB0.2960.1660.0120.6460.041H6: Supported
EKN→MO→GPB0.1290.0720.0120.3490.027H7: Supported
Source: The authors.
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

Cui, M.; Li, Y.; Wang, S. Environmental Knowledge and Green Purchase Intention and Behavior in China: The Mediating Role of Moral Obligation. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6263. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146263

AMA Style

Cui M, Li Y, Wang S. Environmental Knowledge and Green Purchase Intention and Behavior in China: The Mediating Role of Moral Obligation. Sustainability. 2024; 16(14):6263. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146263

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cui, Manfei, Yong Li, and Shan Wang. 2024. "Environmental Knowledge and Green Purchase Intention and Behavior in China: The Mediating Role of Moral Obligation" Sustainability 16, no. 14: 6263. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146263

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