Exploring the Effects of Low-Carbon Labels on Purchase Intentions for Green Agricultural Products
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis
2.1. Theory of Perceived Value
2.2. SOR Theory
2.3. Research Hypothesis
3. Research Design
3.1. Data Sources
3.2. Sample Analysis
4. Empirical Results and Analysis
4.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
4.2. Reliability and Validity Tests
4.3. Correlation Analysis
4.4. Model Testing and Path Analysis
4.5. Intermediate Effect
5. Conclusions and Implications
5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Implication
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kong, D.; Jiang, P. Approaches and policy recommendations for reducing emissions and increasing carbon sinks in crop industry under the background of carbon peak and carbon neutrality. J. Zhejiang AF Univ. 2023, 40, 1357–1365. [Google Scholar]
- Mei, L.; Sun, L.; Zhang, P.; Li, W. The impact of carbon label information transmission on consumer’s green purchasing behavior: Evidence from eye movement tracking experiment. For. Econ. 2023, 45, 7596. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, M.; Lin, B. Towards low-carbon economy by carbon label? Survey evidence from first-tier cities in China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 97, 106902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, Z.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Y. Exploring the driving forces of consumers’ willingness to pay premium for green agri-food based on the MOA theory:Evidence from rice? Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2020, 41, 30–37. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Chen, F. Research on the path to high-quality development of agricultural product supply chain empowered by digitalization. Agric. Econ. 2024, 44, 142–144. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, W. Attribution analysis of consumer willingness and behavior towards green agricultural product consumption: An empirical study based on Guiyang City. Jiangsu Agric. Sci. 2019, 47, 296–300. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, X.P.; Liu, Y. The impact of consumersinformation literacy on the sustainable development of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): Based on the mediation of green trust. J. Southwest Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2024, 46, 101–114. [Google Scholar]
- Herbes, C.; Beuthner, C.; Ramme, I. How green is your packaging—A comparative international study of cues consumers use to recognize environmentally friendly packaging. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2020, 44, 258–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, N. The impact of carbon labelling system on China’s international trade and a proposed solution. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 35, 21–25. [Google Scholar]
- Victor, O.; Owusu, A.M. Consumer willingness to pay a premium for organic fruit and vegetables in Ghana. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2013, 16, 67–86. [Google Scholar]
- Duan, X.; Du, W.; Cheng, R. Study on the formation and avoidance mechanism of the “lemon market” for green agricultural products. Agric. Econ. 2020, 40, 135–137. [Google Scholar]
- Song, Y.; Yu, Q. The impact of consumer characteristics and green food awareness on purchasing behavior. Res. Financ. Econ. Issues 2012, 34, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Zhang, T.; Ma, C.; Chen, S. Consumers’ perception and willing-to-pay of agrofood label in Guangdong Province. J. China Agric. Univ. 2015, 20, 268–274. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, L. Analysis of consumer product authenticity perception and agricultural product marketing under green constraints. J. Commer. Econ. 2023, 42, 126–130. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, C. The theoretical logic and realistic basis of online marketing of ecological green agricultural products in China. Price: Theory Pract. 2020, 40, 31–34, 134. [Google Scholar]
- Lun, R.; Luo, Q.; Gao, M.; Liu, Y. Effects of agricultural product labeling cognition and consumption habit on consumers’ willingness to pay premium of green agricultural products: Taking green fresh-potato as an example. J. China Agric. Univ. 2023, 28, 229–239. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Dou, L. Research on the influence of environmental literacy on consumers’ green consumption behavior. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 23, 39–50, 184–185. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, Q.; Wang, Q.; Yang, J. Research on the motivation of consumption, cognitive level and purchasing behavior of green agricultural products. Complex Syst. Complex. Sci. 2022, 19, 88–95. [Google Scholar]
- Li, F.; Yin, C. Influence of consumption motivation and consumption habit on premium payment intention of ecological agricultural products using green manure-rice as an example. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2022, 30, 1877–1890. [Google Scholar]
- Eden, B.A.K.; Lagerkvist, C.J.; Nordstrom, J. Interested, indifferent or active information avoiders of carbon labels: Cognitive dissonance and ascription of responsibility as motivating factors. Food Policy. 2021, 101, 102036. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X.; Yang, D. Research on the motivation of consumption, cognitive level and purchasing behavior of green agricultural products: Based on the survey of shanghai consumers. Food Ind. 2019, 40, 246–250. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, X.; Sun, X.; Wang, Z. Game analysis of the ecological compensation stakeholders for green agricultural products. Price: Theory Pract. 2020, 40, 37–40, 139. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; Hao, Q.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, X. Consumer information acceptance behavior and influencing factors of green agricultural products in e-commerce platform: In the perspective of information ecology. Inf. Sci. 2019, 37, 151–157. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, J.; Luan, J.; Han, Q.; Ma, Y.; Li, Y. Information richness and green consumption: A perspective of self-construal and temporal distance. J. Manag. Sci. 2022, 35, 18–31. [Google Scholar]
- Sweeney, J.C.; Soutar, G.N. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple-item scale. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheth, J.N.; Newman, B.I.; Gross, B.L. Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. J. Bus. Res. 1991, 22, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.; Zhou, Y. Green value: A new dimension of customer perceived values. China Ind. Econ. 2006, 20, 110–116. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, H.; Li, C.; Wei, S. The impact of online customer perceived quality and perceived value on purchase intention: Based on consumer heterogeneity perspective. Enterp. Econ. 2020, 20, 113–121. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, R.; Ji, C.; Xu, X.; Xu, S. Influence mechanism of customer perceived value on wine purchase behavior. China Brew. 2022, 41, 249–253. [Google Scholar]
- Talwar, S.; Jabeen, F.; Tandon, A.; Sakashita, M.; Dhir, A. What drives willingness to purchase and stated buying behavior toward organic food? A Stimulus-Organism-Behavior-Consequence (SOBC) perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 125882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, G.; Li, L.; Bao, Y. Research on the influence path of product origin on consumers’ willingness to pay premiums for the products with geographical indications:based on psychological ownership and nostalgia. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2022, 24, 57–66. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, X.; Lv, C.; Xiao, Y. Analysis of the influence mechanism of trust on urban resident’ organic food consumption behavior. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2021, 42, 217–228. [Google Scholar]
- Du, J.; Chu, Z. Study on the influence mechanism of eco-label on consumer’s behavior about using degradable plastic bags. Logist. Sci-Tech. 2023, 46, 20–25. [Google Scholar]
- Li, M.; Zhou, Y.; Lian, Z.; Li, Q. Design of green agricultural products supply chain contract considering environmental responsibility. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 39, 132–140. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, M.; Zhang, H. Influence mechanism study of cognitive level and perceived value on green food consumption intention. For. Econ. 2023, 45, 36–53. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Z.; Shou, M. The mechanism of consumer environmental knowledges influence on green consumption intention: Analysis of the mediating role of perceived usefulness. Zhejiang Acad. J. 2022, 60, 123–132. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, P.; Liu, Q.; Qi, Y. Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviors: A survey of rural residents in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheng, G.; Gong, S.; Xie, F. Theoretical basis and empirical test of the formation of chinese consumers’ green purchasing intention. Jilin Univ. J. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2019, 59, 140–151, 222. [Google Scholar]
- Luan, X.; Ma, D.; Xia, H.; Wu, L. The influence of perceived quality of the green agricultural product on consumer’s purchase intention. Price: Theory Pract. 2020, 40, 103–106, 163. [Google Scholar]
- Biswas, A.; Roy, M. Green products: An exploratory study on consumer behavior in emerging economies of the East. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 463–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, P.; Huang, Y. The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green products are based on the theory of consumption values. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 22, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, Z.; Yu, W.; Li, Y. Research on the influence mechanism of corporate environmental claims on consumers’ green purchase intention. J. Bus. Econ. 2019, 39, 68–78. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Wang, X. Research on the influence of eco-label on the purchase intention of green products with the mediating role of consumer perceived value. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 35, 59–64. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, T.T.M.; Phan, T.H.; Nguyen, H.L.; Dang, T.K.T.; Nguyen, N.D. Antecedents of purchase intention toward organic food in an Asian emerging market: A study of urban Vietnamese consumers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Yang, X.; Li, X.; Chen, Q. Less is better: How nutrition and low-carbon labels jointly backfire on the evaluation of food products. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Osman, M.; Thornton, K. Traffic light labelling of meals to promote sustainable consumption and healthy eating. Appetite 2019, 138, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Measure Term | Related Literature | |
---|---|---|---|
Environmental value | EV1 | Purchasing green agricultural products labeled with low-carbon indicators can help alleviate the impact of climate change. | Sun et al., 2023 [14]; Chen et al., 2019 [21]; Sheth et al., 1991 [26] |
EV2 | Purchasing green agricultural products labeled with low-carbon indicators has the potential to decrease carbon emissions. | ||
EV3 | Purchasing green agricultural products with low-carbon labels has the potential to decrease current levels of environmental pollution. | ||
EV4 | Purchasing green agricultural products with low-carbon labels has the potential to decrease the consumption of natural resources. | ||
Functional value | FV1 | I believe that green agricultural products labeled as low carbon are reliable in terms of quality. | Sweeney et al., 2001 [25]; Sheth et al., 1991 [26] |
FV2 | I believe that the quality of green agricultural products labeled as low carbon is comparable to that of other similar products. | ||
FV3 | I believe that green agricultural products labeled as low carbon have undergone rigorous testing. | ||
FV4 | The cost of green agricultural products labeled with low-carbon labels is reasonable. | ||
Affective value | AV1 | Utilizing green agricultural products labeled with low-carbon indicators brings me a sense of satisfaction. | Sheth et al., 1991 [26]; Yang et al., 2006 [27] |
AV2 | Utilizing green agricultural products labeled with low-carbon indicators brings me a sense of satisfaction. | ||
AV3 | I experience a sense of relaxation when I utilize green agricultural products that are labeled as low carbon. | ||
AV4 | Utilizing green agricultural products with low-carbon labels provides me with a sense of alignment with nature. | ||
Social value | SV1 | Purchasing green agricultural products with low-carbon labels can contribute to my social acceptance. | Sheth et al., 1991 [26]; Yang et al., 2006 [27] |
SV2 | Purchasing green agricultural products with low-carbon labels can create a positive impact on those in your social circle. | ||
SV3 | I will purchase green agricultural products with low-carbon labels based on the suggestions or preferences of others. | ||
SV4 | Purchasing green agricultural products labeled as low carbon and environmentally friendly will enhance my reputation. | ||
SV5 | Purchasing green agricultural products with low-carbon labels indicates that I am making responsible choices. | ||
Low-carbon label credibility | CR1 | I believe that the certification body for low-carbon labels is authoritative. | Sweeney et al., 2001 [25]; Sheth et al., 1991 [26] |
CR2 | I believe that the certification process for low-carbon labels is equitable. | ||
CR3 | I believe that the production process of green agricultural products with low-carbon labels is both safe and environmentally friendly. This assertion aligns with academic standards for research writing. | ||
Purchase intention | PI1 | I would be inclined to purchase green agricultural products with low-carbon labels. | Chen et al., 2019 [21] |
PI2 | I am eager to gather and acquire knowledge about green agricultural products labeled with low-carbon credentials. | ||
PI3 | I am willing to purchase green agricultural products with low-carbon labeling. | ||
PI4 | I would suggest that others purchase green agricultural products with low-carbon labels. |
Variable | Sort | Number | Percentage% | Variable | Sort | Number | Percentage% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | male | 132 | 33.50 | Monthly disposable income (RMB) | below 3000 | 122 | 30.96 |
female | 262 | 66.50 | 3000–5000 | 128 | 32.49 | ||
Age | 18 and under | 14 | 3.55 | 5001–8000 | 110 | 27.92 | |
19–28 | 124 | 31.47 | 8001–10,000 | 28 | 7.11 | ||
29–45 | 160 | 40.61 | above 10,000 | 6 | 1.52 | ||
46–59 | 96 | 24.37 | Occupation | pupil | 90 | 22.84 | |
enterprise employee | 46 | 11.68 | |||||
Educational level | primary and below | 8 | 2.03 | freelancer | 54 | 13.71 | |
high school or technical secondary school | 90 | 22.84 | individual industrial and commercial households | 28 | 7.11 | ||
undergraduate or junior college | 286 | 72.59 | public institution or civil servants | 168 | 42.64 | ||
master’s degree or above | 10 | 2.54 | corporate executive | 8 | 2.03 |
Variable | Min | Max | Mean | S.D. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental value | EV1 | 1 | 5 | 4.01 | 1.165 |
EV2 | 1 | 5 | 4.05 | 1.133 | |
EV3 | 1 | 5 | 4.09 | 1.121 | |
EV4 | 1 | 5 | 4.04 | 1.167 | |
Functional value | FV1 | 2 | 5 | 3.96 | 0.919 |
FV2 | 1 | 5 | 4.05 | 0.882 | |
FV3 | 1 | 5 | 4.07 | 0.878 | |
FV4 | 1 | 5 | 3.88 | 0.899 | |
Affective value | AV1 | 1 | 5 | 3.93 | 0.895 |
AV2 | 1 | 5 | 3.99 | 0.869 | |
AV3 | 1 | 5 | 4.03 | 0.900 | |
AV4 | 1 | 5 | 4.10 | 0.884 | |
Social value | SV1 | 1 | 5 | 3.70 | 1.147 |
SV2 | 1 | 5 | 3.80 | 1.114 | |
SV3 | 1 | 5 | 3.89 | 1.056 | |
SV4 | 1 | 5 | 3.70 | 1.110 | |
SV5 | 1 | 5 | 3.99 | 1.057 | |
Low-carbon label credibility | CR1 | 1 | 5 | 4.03 | 0.860 |
CR2 | 1 | 5 | 4.05 | 0.853 | |
CR3 | 1 | 5 | 4.08 | 0.865 | |
Purchase intentions for green agricultural products | PI1 | 1 | 5 | 4.04 | 0.877 |
PI2 | 1 | 5 | 3.94 | 0.967 | |
PI3 | 1 | 5 | 4.09 | 0.838 | |
PI4 | 1 | 5 | 3.96 | 0.950 |
Latent Variable | Observed Variable | Standard Load | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental value | EV1 | 0.878 | 0.964 | 0.929 | 0.765 |
EV2 | 0.882 | ||||
EV3 | 0.891 | ||||
EV4 | 0.846 | ||||
Functional value | FV1 | 0.812 | 0.946 | 0.856 | 0.598 |
FV2 | 0.777 | ||||
FV3 | 0.773 | ||||
FV4 | 0.730 | ||||
Affective value | AV1 | 0.797 | 0.961 | 0.871 | 0.628 |
AV2 | 0.807 | ||||
AV3 | 0.797 | ||||
AV4 | 0.769 | ||||
Social value | SV1 | 0.793 | 0.956 | 0.888 | 0.614 |
SV2 | 0.844 | ||||
SV3 | 0.739 | ||||
SV4 | 0.827 | ||||
SV5 | 0.706 | ||||
Low-carbon label credibility | CR1 | 0.817 | 0.959 | 0.843 | 0.642 |
CR2 | 0.832 | ||||
CR3 | 0.753 | ||||
Purchase intentions for green agricultural products | PI1 | 0.701 | 0.959 | 0.815 | 0.525 |
PI2 | 0.756 | ||||
PI3 | 0.696 | ||||
PI4 | 0.742 |
Variable | EV | FV | AV | SV | CR | PI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EV | 0.875 | |||||
FV | 0.478 ** | 0.773 | ||||
AV | 0.509 ** | 0.650 ** | 0.792 | |||
SV | 0.612 ** | 0.606 ** | 0.676 ** | 0.784 | ||
CR | 0.441 ** | 0.695 ** | 0.643 ** | 0.561 ** | 0.801 | |
PI | 0.534 ** | 0.749 ** | 0.693 ** | 0.678 ** | 0.722 ** | 0.725 |
Fit Index | Recommended Value | Fitted Value |
---|---|---|
χ2 | the smaller, the better | 321.285 |
χ2/df | <3.0 | 2.086 |
GFI | >0.9 | 0.864 |
AGFI | >0.8 | 0.815 |
RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.074 |
TLI | >0.9 | 0.959 |
IFI | >0.9 | 0.967 |
CFI | >0.9 | 0.967 |
Hypothesis | Path Relation | Standardized Path Coefficient | t-Value | p-Value | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Environmental Value → Purchase intention | 0.132 * | 2.410 | 0.016 | true |
H2 | Functional value → Purchase intention | 0.343 *** | 4.696 | 0.000 | true |
H3 | Affective value → Purchase intention | 0.146 * | 2.119 | 0.034 | true |
H4 | Social value → Purchase intention | 0.101 | 1.510 | 0.131 | false |
Effect | Estimated Value | Boot SE | 95% Confidence Interval | Relative Effect Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boot LLCI | Boot ULCI | |||||
Environmental value | Indirect effects | 0.201 | 0.036 | 0.134 | 0.274 | 48.75% |
Direct effects | 0.211 | 0.041 | 0.130 | 0.293 | 51.25% | |
Total effect | 0.412 | 0.069 | 0.286 | 0.552 | ||
Functional value | Indirect effects | 0.277 | 0.055 | 0.162 | 0.382 | 57.58% |
Direct effects | 0.480 | 0.063 | 0.357 | 0.604 | 63.46% | |
Total effect | 0.757 | 0.058 | 0.643 | 0.867 | ||
Affective value | Indirect effects | 0.317 | 0.064 | 0.199 | 0.450 | 45.59% |
Direct effects | 0.379 | 0.062 | 0.256 | 0.502 | 54.48% | |
Total effect | 0.696 | 0.081 | 0.544 | 0.857 | ||
Social value | Indirect effects | 0.234 | 0.043 | 0.158 | 0.327 | 41.86% |
Direct effects | 0.325 | 0.046 | 0.235 | 0.415 | 58.14% | |
Total effect | 0.559 | 0.070 | 0.428 | 0.702 |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Song, Z.; Hu, M.; Leng, M.; Zhu, S. Exploring the Effects of Low-Carbon Labels on Purchase Intentions for Green Agricultural Products. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7313. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177313
Song Z, Hu M, Leng M, Zhu S. Exploring the Effects of Low-Carbon Labels on Purchase Intentions for Green Agricultural Products. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7313. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177313
Chicago/Turabian StyleSong, Zhenjiang, Mengting Hu, Mingni Leng, and Shubin Zhu. 2024. "Exploring the Effects of Low-Carbon Labels on Purchase Intentions for Green Agricultural Products" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7313. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177313