Next Article in Journal
Public–Private Partnership as a Form of Ensuring Sustainable Development of the Forest Management Sphere
Previous Article in Journal
Meetings as an Arena for Coordination in Crisis: The County Governor’s Contingency Coordination through the County Emergency Council in Norway
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Institutionalization of Implicit and Explicit CSR in a Developing Country Context: The Case of Lebanon
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/admsci12040155
admsci-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

Exploring Factors Affecting Sustainable Consumption Behaviour

by
Teofana Dimitrova
1,
Iliana Ilieva
2 and
Mina Angelova
1,*
1
Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, University of Plovdiv Paisii Hilendarski, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
2
Faculty of Economics, University of Food Technologies, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2022, 12(4), 155; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040155
Submission received: 14 October 2022 / Revised: 28 October 2022 / Accepted: 1 November 2022 / Published: 4 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Organizational Change and Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Business development policies cover both marketing and sales functions, as they are so intertwined in most firms. Thus, managers should comply with the factors that influence sustainable consumption behaviour. The study aims to investigate the effect of environmental knowledge (EK), materialism (MAT), environmental influences (EI), the promotion of sustainable consumption (PSC), and sustainable consumption behaviour intention (SCBI) on sustainable consumption behaviour (SCB). Although many studies have examined sustainability issues for various groups of countries, activities in this critical field in Bulgaria are severely limited, and integrated research on the subject is non-existent. This paper focuses on the importance of investigating various factors that influence sustainable consumer behaviour. A total of 489 complete and usable responses were collected from participants from all regions of Bulgaria between May 2022 and July 2022. The partial least square-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) and SmartPLS 4 software were employed to test the hypothesised relationships. The results indicated that EK and MAT significantly affected SCBI. Additionally, the analysis revealed the statistically significant impact of EK, MAT, EI, PSC, and SCBI on SCB. Moreover, this study demonstrated that SCBI significantly mediated the relationships between EK and SCB and between MAT and SCB. Finally, the outcomes of the moderation analysis showed that age moderated the relationship between SCBI and SCB.

1. Introduction

Major environmental issues caused by widespread human meddling, such as pollution, global warming, land degradation, and biodiversity loss, have a direct impact on the sustainability and quality of the environment and ecosystem (Xue et al. 2021). Although numerous studies have examined environmental difficulties for diverse groups of countries (Dulam et al. 2021; Zuzańska-Żyśko 2021) operations in this crucial sector are drastically restricted for Bulgaria, and integrated research on the topic is even non-existent. Multiple initiatives aimed at achieving sustainable consumption and production have been promoted by national and international organisations. Bulgaria and the other 27 EU nations need to advance sustainable consumer behaviour (SCB) by acting in a common but differentiated way, wherein developed countries take the lead while developing countries act as per their development and capabilities (UNDESA 2014). The necessity to analyse different factors that influence the SCB is the focus of this paper. To understand consumer behaviour, the whole consumption cycle should be studied rather than just initial choices because post-choice behaviours such as product usage, product life extension, and product disposal also have a very important and equally significant impact on sustainability (Sheoran and Kumar 2020).
Many investigations, however, have been focused on individual industries and their development based on the globalisation processes. In this sense, globalisation has led to a ‘new paradigm where traditional industries, such as agriculture, employ state-of-the-art technologies to expand their possibilities into what is known as smart farming and the agri-food industry 4.0’ (Pérez-Pons et al. 2021). The aim of this study is to investigate the factors influencing the sustainable consumption behaviour of consumers in Bulgaria.
From the authors’ standpoint, the endorsement of sustainable consumption and production are very crucial aspects of sustainable development. This also applies to Bulgaria—a country that has transitioned away from central planning and is currently part of the EU and the global market. The research tasks of this analysis are:
(1)
To systematise the theoretical concepts regarding SCB;
(2)
To conceptualise the effect of the different external and internal factors on SCB;
(3)
To develop a specific survey methodology and to carry out an empirical study about SCB-related issues in Bulgaria;
(4)
To analyse, interpret, and present the results of the study.
The significance of this topic rests on the claim that while SCB has been an occurrence for some time, the study on the subject is relatively recent: most of it has been conducted over the past two decades. It is crucial to remember that consumer behaviour will be the result of cognitive, emotional, and motivational processes and that it will be influenced and even conditioned by several circumstantial factors, starting with the notion that altering individual consumption patterns calls for more sustainable consumer behaviour (Figueroa-García et al. 2018). The subject of the paper occupies a central position in discussions, research, and organisational activities connected to the process of creating SCB. This plays an essential role in the Bulgarian economic environment and in the national strategies for environmentally friendly consumer behaviour.
To successfully complete the goals and tasks, the partial least PLS-SEM, and the latest software version of SmartPLS 4 were employed to test the hypothesised relationships. The survey was produced using an online questionnaire and quota sampling. A total of 489 complete and usable responses were collected from participants from all regions of Bulgaria between May 2022 and July 2022.
The paper is structured as follows: following the introduction, the second part presents the literature review based on contemporary research in the field of SCB determinants. The third part is focused on the research methodology. The latter provides the framework for the study and is the basis of the fourth part, which presents the empirical results. The paper ends with a discussion and conclusions for future research in the field of SCB.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainable Consumption Behaviour

Sustainable consumption behaviour (SCB) has been connoted differently by different scholars depending on their backgrounds and may include a wide range of components and varying interpretations (Francis and Sarangi 2022). SCB is frequently used interchangeably with specific terms such as “pro-environmental consumption behaviour” (Saari et al. 2021), “green consumption behaviour” (Biswas 2017), “ethical consumption behaviour” (Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and Wooliscroft 2019), etc. This fact may be partly attributed to the complex and ambivalent nature of “sustainable consumption” (Piligrimienė et al. 2020) on the one hand, and to the evolution and transformation of this concept in time, on the other hand (Roy 2020). It is “sustainable consumption” (SC) that plays a fundamental and legitimising role for SCB.
Theoretically, sustainable consumption originated in ethical consumer research (Figueroa-García et al. 2018), where early studies focused on one facet of sustainable consumption only and attempted to understand it: for instance, the environmental aspect of the sustainable consumption phenomenon. They were, of course, important but did not constitute a systematic approach to sustainable consumption (Piligrimienė et al. 2020; Quoquab et al. 2019). Currently, sustainability is one of the key topics for organisations. In practice, organisations must adapt their long-term strategies to meet changing societal demands, including environmental and social aspects in their product offerings and decision-making (Haessler 2020). In this regard, “sustainable consumption” presents a macro framework (with emphasis on the sustainability idea) which presupposes the demonstration of a certain holistic approach to its research. As pointed out by Wang et al. (2014, p. 154), “sustainable consumption is an umbrella term that brings together a number of key issues, such as meeting needs, enhancing the quality of life, improving resource efficiency, increasing the use of renewable energy sources, minimizing waste, taking a life cycle perspective and taking into account the equity dimension”. That is, “sustainable consumption” is more than purchasing and consuming environmentally friendly products, and corresponds to a change in lifestyle (e.g., refraining from hyper-consumption), future orientation, and responsibility to the next generations. Our study adheres to the definition suggested by Quoquab and Mohammad (2017, p. 120), according to which, “sustainable consumption goes beyond the environmental concern by ensuring and managing the existing resources that are not only able to meet the current demand, but also without jeopardizing the needs of future generation”.
There is no consensus among previous studies as to the definition of SCB. SCB is viewed from different perspectives (the policymaker’s view, the marketing view, the consumer interest focus, and the ethical focus) and studied using different methodologies (Antonides 2017). Besides, this type of behaviour affects different areas, such as hospitality (Brandão and Cupertino de Miranda 2022; Wang et al. 2021), the fashion industry (Hirscher 2013), food product markets (Mancini et al. 2017; Fischer et al. 2017; Feil et al. 2020), the retail industry (Lehner 2015), and the forest sector (Häyrinen et al. 2016). Furthermore, it has a variety of forms, from the interest in organic and fair-trade labels in purchase decisions, the consumers’ stated willingness to pay for local food (Tomșa et al. 2021), home water treatment plants, green walls, and eco-friendly architectural designs (Guzmán Rincón et al. 2021), the recycling of waste using energy-efficient appliances, ethical investments, travel mode switch, or the purchase of recycled goods, to adopting minimalist ways among others (Francis and Sarangi 2022). In this paper, we support the position of Aibar-Guzmán and Somohano-Rodríguez (2021, p. 1) that “customers are considered to be major stakeholders whose demands and preferences have a strong influence on corporate strategies”. Additionally, we refer to sustainable consumption behaviour as a set of deliberate and effective actions of consumers that result in their quality of life, taking care of the environment, and resources for future generations (Guzmán Rincón et al. 2021).
In reviewing the literature on the various SCB-related issues, we found that different models had been developed and suggested for explaining sustainable consumption behaviour. In most of the existing research, SCB is regarded because of the effect of several pre-behavioural determinants, such as values (Lee et al. 2015; Sharma and Jha 2017; Ab. Wahab 2017; Kadic-Maglajlic et al. 2019), attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control (Vantamay 2018; Matharu et al. 2021), sex, personality traits, sustainable importance (Luchs and Mooradian 2012), psychological traits, situation, psychological state, environmental education (Pimdee 2020), connectedness to nature, love of nature (Dong et al. 2020). A different approach was chosen by Geiger et al. (2017) for their cube model of sustainable consumption behaviour (SCB-Cube), which includes a sustainability dimension (comprising a socio-economic dimension as well as an ecological one), a consumption phase (comprising different phases, not only the acquisition of goods and services but also their use and disposal), consumption areas (different areas of life such as food, housing, mobility, clothing, etc.), and the impact of chosen behaviours (ecologically and socially most impactful behaviours). Brandão and Cupertino de Miranda (2022) demonstrated the mediating role SCB played in decision-making when consumers purchased a luxury service. Phang et al. (2021) conducted a pioneering study on the moderating role of SCB in consumer behaviour research in the pandemic context.
Figueroa-García et al. (2018) maintained that past studies focused mainly on the internal factors that determine SCB, whereas the effects of external factors on SCB received little attention in the literature. They stressed that the reasons for the occurrence of certain behaviour could be clarified by understanding the context of the action since circumstances impose behavioural patterns that lead to certain forms of conduct and inhibit others. Their research provided evidence of the existence of relationships between three exogenous variables (environmental influences, education and information, and market conditions) and the endogenous variable of sustainable consumption behaviour. Pointing at the need for studying SCB in the broader social context, Wang and Hao (2018) attempted to fill the gaps in previous research by examining the effects of an important external social factor, Internet penetration, on individual SCBs. Their findings indicated that Internet penetration did not significantly influence individual SCBs, but substantially enhanced the transition from pro-environmental attitudes to sustainable behaviours. Similarly, Choudhary et al. (2019) observed that the intervention in information diffusion through social media could exert a targeted influence on SCB instances.
Due to the complexity of SCB, other authors have presented arguments in favour of the consideration of both internal and external factors as important predictors of the sustainable consumption behaviour of individuals (Piligrimienė et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2014; Wu et al. 2016). Some research also attempts to incorporate other factors such as materialism (Dong et al. 2018) and engagement (Kadic-Maglajlic et al. 2019). Earlier studies (Panzone et al. 2016; Bhutto et al. 2021; Sheoran and Kumar 2022) have indicated that demographic variables, i.e., age, gender, education level, income, etc., affect sustainable consumer intention and/or SCB. Table A1 (Appendix A) summarises in chronological order some of the factors affecting SCB by using structural equation modelling (SEM) for the past 10 years. Building on this literature, we aim to examine the following internal and external factors that influence sustainable consumption behaviour: environmental knowledge (EK), materialism (MAT), environmental influences (EI), the promotion of sustainable consumption (PSC), and sustainable consumption behavioural intention (SCBI). To the best of our knowledge, there is a limited number of studies on the influence of values with a negative effect, such as materialism, on SCB. The same also holds true for studies that would analyse the effect (direct or indirect) of PSC on SCB. The proposed research model has been shown in Figure 1. It is expected that EK, MAT, EI, and PSC affect SCB directly and indirectly. Moreover, it is hypothesised that SCBI mediates the relationships between the antecedents and SCB. Additionally, it is assumed that age has an important moderating role in associations of influencing factors with SCB.

2.2. Influence of Environmental Knowledge, Materialism, Environmental Influences, and Promotion on Sustainable Consumption Behavioural Intention

Environmental knowledge, or knowledge about environmental issues, refers to the information individuals have on the relevant environmental concepts, environmental problems, and the ecological effects of consumption and production (Saari et al. 2021). Many researchers agree that environmental knowledge does not directly influence behaviour but acts as a modifier of attitudes (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Vainio and Paloniemi 2014). According to earlier studies (Wang et al. 2014), environmental knowledge is positively correlated with behavioural intention. Therefore, it is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Environmental knowledge has a positive effect on sustainable consumption behavioural intention.
Materialism has been extensively studied. Previous studies have reported numerous findings on the outcomes of materialism. Thus, for instance, Liu et al. (2022) found that materialism was positively associated with self-interest-triggered moral flexibility, and materialists judged immoral acts performed by the self and others more differentially. The marketing literature has previously reported numerous findings supporting a relationship between materialism and consumer–brand relationship outcomes (Fazli-Salehi et al. 2021). For instance, Le (2020) established that materialistic consumers were likely to develop brand addiction. Mainolfi (2020) reported that materialism had a positive relationship with brand consciousness, intentions to buy foreign luxury products online, and bandwagon luxury consumption behaviour. Materialism has also been examined in relation to consumer ethics. Most studies on this subject indicate that these two factors are negatively related and may be considered competing orientations (Ryoo et al. 2020). There are also studies, though fewer, on the effect of materialism on consumers’ pro-environmental behaviours (L. Wang et al. 2019.; Alzubaidi et al. 2021).
Materialism is typically defined as the importance ascribed to the ownership and acquisition of material goods as a means of reaching important life goals (Lindblom et al. 2018). According to the general understanding, materialistic life, “characterized by pursuing possessions, image, and status, has always been looked upon as self-interested and unkind” (L. Wang et al. 2019, p. 1); nevertheless, materialism has not always been regarded as problematic by researchers (Ryoo et al. 2020). For instance, Pandelaere (2016, p. 36) pointed out that “everybody is to some extent materialistic, and materialistic consumption may not necessarily be bad“. In view of the materialists’ established expectations for a transformation of life through consumption (Donnelly et al. 2013), in this study, materialism is defined as a general focus on the possession of material goods aimed at achieving success, centrality, and happiness (Richins 2004). To date, the number of studies which have investigated the influence of materialism on overall SCB is limited. One of the few empirical studies that tackled the link between these constructs was the study conducted by Dong et al. (2018). They tested the moderating effect of materialistic values but not the indirect effect of materialism on SCB. In addressing these gaps in the literature, the following hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Materialism has a negative effect on sustainable consumption behavioural intention.
Past research suggests that influences from the social environment can be exerted by friends, family, and other groups deemed important to a consumer (Gleim et al. 2013). Piligrimienė et al. (2020) confirmed the indirect positive impact of the social environment (as part of the external group of factors) on green product purchase behaviour. Thus, it is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Environmental influences have a positive effect on sustainable consumption behavioural intention.
In the framework of the European Union’s sustainable policies, the promotion of sustainable development thinking has been a key issue. The promotion of the sustainability idea supports alternative consumption patterns; it increases consumers’ knowledge and awareness connected with environmental and social problems, changes consumption and purchase behaviours, and enhances the acceptance level of sustainable consumption (Radziszewska 2019). In previous research, attention was paid to different contextual variables that have an impact on individuals’ sustainable consumption behaviour, such as the price of green products, the availability of infrastructure, policy incentives (Wang et al. 2014), situation (Pimdee 2020), economic factors (Y. Wang et al. 2019), etc. However, as far as we know, there are very few studies presenting empirical evidence of the effect of the SC construct on SCB. For instance, Sousa et al. (2022) confirm the existence of a positive relationship between companies’ green communication and green purchase intentions. The findings of Piligrimienė et al. (2020) showed that the respondents had a positive attitude to green product promotion and to the application of other “engaging mechanisms” for sustainable consumption promotion. Therefore, it is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
SC promotion has a positive effect on sustainable consumption behavioural intention.

2.3. Influence of Environmental Knowledge, Materialism, Environmental Influences, Promotion and Sustainable Consumption Behavioural Intention on Sustainable Consumption Behaviour

Based on the theoretical background, we also decided to study the direct effect of the influencing factors selected by us on SCB. The same approach was adopted by other researchers as well (Saari et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2014; Brandão and Cupertino de Miranda 2022; Le 2020; Joshi and Rahman 2019; Nekmahmud et al. 2022). Most empirical results supported the conventional view that knowledge and behaviour are positively related (Wu et al. 2016). Figueroa-García et al. (2018) revealed that sustainable consumption behaviour was determined by environmental influences (in particular, the influence of family and friends, as well as that generated by cultural factors such as traditions). In conformity with other research, Matharu et al. (2021) concluded that sustainable consumption intention had a significant positive effect on sustainable consumption behaviour. In addressing this issue, the present study has presented the following five hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5a (H5a).
Environmental knowledge has a positive effect on sustainable consumption behaviour.
Hypothesis 5b (H5b).
Materialism has a negative effect on sustainable consumption behaviour.
Hypothesis 5c (H5c).
Environmental influences have a positive effect on sustainable consumption behaviour.
Hypothesis 5d (H5d).
SC promotion has a positive effect on sustainable consumption behaviour.
Hypothesis 5e (H5e).
Sustainable consumption behavioural intention has a positive effect on sustainable consumption behaviour.

2.4. The Mediating Effect of Sustainable Consumption Behavioural Intention

As emphasised by Figueroa-García et al. (2018), it is important to not only evaluate the direct effect of one construct on another, but also the indirect effects produced by mediating constructs. This evaluation is performed by measuring the total effect, which is the sum of all direct and indirect effects. Because of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), which is one of the most influential theories among the studies on consumer behaviour, we considered examining the mediating role that behaviour intention has in the relationships between antecedents and SCB. In this study, we have referred sustainable consumption behavioural intention to people’s willingness to act and consume more sustainably by making sacrifices or by paying more (Saari et al. 2021). Since the behavioural intention construct is often considered a mediator that facilitates some expected outcomes (e.g., attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control), we have derived four mediation hypotheses:
Hypothesis 6a (H6a).
Sustainable consumption behavioural intention mediates the relationship between environmental knowledge and sustainable consumption behaviour.
Hypothesis 6b (H6b).
Sustainable consumption behavioural intention mediates the relationship between materialism and sustainable consumption behaviour.
Hypothesis 6c (H6c).
Sustainable consumption behavioural intention mediates the relationship between environmental influences and sustainable consumption behaviour.
Hypothesis 6d (H6d).
Sustainable consumption behavioural intention mediates the relationship between SC promotion and sustainable consumption behaviour.

2.5. The Moderating Role of Age

Scholars have argued that demographic variables, such as age, gender, income, etc., have a significant moderating influence on consumers’ behaviour (Wu et al. 2016). As regards the effect of age on the occurrence of different SCB forms in particular, the results are contradictory. On the one hand, some studies found that, compared to younger customers, older customers tended to be more ecologically conscious (Han et al. 2009; Yahya et al. 2015). Accordingly, young consumers had a poor environmental attitude and low environmental concern and environmental knowledge (Dhir et al. 2021). Similarly, Witek and Kuźniar (2021) found that young people cared the least about being perceived as environmentally friendly. On the other hand, other studies explained that younger people were more environmentally concerned and made their decisions having considered the effect of their choice on the environment (Akehurst et al. 2012; Sheoran and Kumar 2022). As emphasised by Tripathi and Singh (2016), age could be an important variable while examining sustainable consumption, but inconsistencies of this kind in the previous literature need further research. Based on the above discussions, it is assumed that age can moderate all direct relationships developed in this study. Therefore, the following nine hypotheses have been postulated:
Hypothesis 7a (H7a).
Age moderates the relationship between environmental knowledge and sustainable consumption behavioural intention.
Hypothesis 7b (H7b).
Age moderates the relationship between materialism and sustainable consumption behavioural intention.
Hypothesis 7c (H7c).
Age moderates the relationship between environmental influences and sustainable consumption behavioural intention.
Hypothesis 7d (H7d).
Age moderates the relationship between SC promotion and sustainable consumption behavioural intention.
Hypothesis 8a (H8a).
Age moderates the relationship between environmental knowledge and sustainable consumption behaviour.
Hypothesis 8b (H8b).
Age moderates the relationship between materialism and sustainable consumption behaviour.
Hypothesis 8c (H8c).
Age moderates the relationship between environmental influences and sustainable consumption behaviour.
Hypothesis 8d (H8d).
Age moderates the relationship between SC promotion and sustainable consumption behaviour.
Hypothesis 8e (H8e).
Age moderates the relationship between sustainable consumption behavioural intention and sustainable consumption behaviour.

3. Methodology

3.1. Measurement Instrument

The questionnaire had three parts, namely, (1): socio-demographic characteristics of consumers (e.g., gender, age, education level, personal income, and place of living); (2) general questions about consumers’ sustainable consumption behaviour; (3) factors influencing consumers’ sustainable consumption behaviour. All measurement scales for the constructs have been included in prior publications. The SCB scale is a multi-dimensional second-order construct, which incorporates three dimensions, i.e., “Quality of Life (QL)”, “Care for the Future Generation (CEW), and “Care for the Environ-mental Well-being (CFG)”. Twenty-four items were used to measure QL, CEW, and CFG on the scale developed by Quoquab et al. (2019). The measurement of the constructs of environmental knowledge and sustainable consumption behaviour intention was based on the research conducted by Saari et al. (2021). Both constructs included three items each. The environmental influences construct included three items based on the operationalisation applied and validated by Figueroa-García et al. (2018). Nine items for measuring materialism were adopted from the scale of Lindblom et al. (2018) and Ponchio and Aranha (2008). Sustainable consumption promotion involves information about environmental issues, green product promotion, the promotion of recycling, and other external initiatives. To measure PSC, four items from the scale provided by Piligrimienė et al. (2020) were used. All items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale [where 7 specifies a positive opinion (Strongly Agree/Always) and 1 denotes a negative opinion (Strongly Disagree/Never)]. The measurement items have been listed in Appendix B (Table A2).
The questionnaire was professionally translated into Bulgarian by two bilingual experts from the Department of Language and Specialised Training of Foreign Students at one of the largest Bulgarian universities, and then a standard back translation procedure was used to ensure that the translated content conformed with the original English meaning.

3.2. Sample and Data Collection

The survey design followed a sequence of steps, including a pilot test with 50 respondents aimed to identify problematic items and further improve the survey (Fink 2016). The data were collected with the help of a certified sociological agency operating in Bulgaria. A quota sample was formed for the study of three defined characteristics (gender, age groups, and place of living in administrative-territorial regions in the country). It reproduced the structure of the population in Bulgaria as of 31 December 2021 (in conformity with the data published by the National Statistical Institute in the Republic of Bulgaria). A total of 522 respondents were approached for the questionnaire-based online survey. Observations with missing values and straight lining were deleted, leaving a total sample size of 489. This sample size highly exceeded the recommended minimum sample sizes of 160 and 146 as indicated by the inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods, respectively (Kock and Hadaya 2018).
The respondents’ age ranged between 16 and 64 years, with an average age of 40. The age group (based on the age groups formulated by the National Statistical Institute in the Republic of Bulgaria) and the other sample characteristics have been presented in Table 1.

4. Discussion and Results

This study employed partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) and the latest software version of SmartPLS–SmartPLS 4 (Ringle et al. 2022) to test the hypothesized relationships. SmartPLS software is widely used in many social science disciplines because of its variety of capabilities and user-friendly features. It can estimate very complex and higher-order models, with a considerably smaller sample size at the same time (Sarstedt et al. 2021).
The analysis pursued the guidelines, procedures, and cut-off values as suggested by Hair et al. (2021). The skewness and kurtosis tests were assessed. The findings indicated that the assumption of normality was violated for some items since the threshold of the absolute skewness value and the absolute kurtosis value exceeded 1.
A two-step process was followed, where the measurement model (outer model) was analysed first, followed by the structural model (inner model). To assess the significance of the path coefficients and the loadings, a bootstrapping method with 5000 resamples was used.
Harman’s single-factor test was performed to detect common method bias (CMB) before proceeding to measuring the structural model and the measurement model. The result based on the unrotated principal axis factoring revealed that the first factor explained 34.7% of the total variance, which was less than the critical value of 50% (Fuller et al. 2016). Henceforth, CMB was not at all a concern in the present study.
The model in the present study contained eight first-order reflective constructs and a second-order reflective-reflective construct. The PLS-SEM literature outlines several approaches to the estimation of models containing higher-order constructs, such as the repeated indicators approach and the two-stage approach (embedded and disjoint) (Sarstedt et al. 2019). Since these approaches provide highly similar results when sample sizes are sufficiently large, the disjoint two-stage approach was chosen for the current research. In the first stage of the approach, the model was estimated for reliability and validity with only first-order constructs. After the evaluation of the model, the construct scores for the SCB subconstructs QL, CEW, and CFG were obtained and named QL_LV, CEW_LV, and CFG_LV, respectively. In the second stage, variables QL_LV, CEW_LV, and CFG_LV were used as SCB indicators for the purpose of assessing the hierarchal model. The structural model assessment was created on the grounds of the stage two results.

4.1. Assessment of the Measurement Model

Multiple approaches were used to assess the reliability and validity of the measurement model. The reliability was measured through Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR). The average variance extracted (AVE) was applied to assess the convergent validity. The Fornell–Larcker criterion and Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) were applied to evaluate the discriminant validity (DV). For all the constructs, the CR and Cronbach’s alpha exceeded the 0.7 threshold, and the AVE values surpassed the advised value of 0.50 (Table 2). All HTMT values were consistently smaller than the benchmark of 0.85 (Table 3), and the square root of AVE for every construct was greater than its correlation with all other constructs (Table 4). Hence, reliability and validity were established.

4.2. Assessment of the Structural Model

Once the validity and reliability of the measurement model were assured, the structural model was assessed. Possible collinearity problems between variables were checked through the VIF. Additionally, the coefficient of determination (R2) and the predictive relevance (Q2) of the model were evaluated. The constructs did not have collinearity problems as all VIF values were below the acceptable threshold of 5. The R2 value results indicated that 35% of the variance in SCB was explained by EK, MAT, EI, PSC, and SCBI, and 15% of the variance in SCBI was explained by EK, MAT, EI, and PSC. The predictive relevance of the structural model was established since the Q2 values of SCB and SCBI were greater than zero.
The results revealed that ten of the formulated hypotheses were supported, whereas twelve were not supported (Table 5 and Figure 2). EK (β = 0.214, p = 0.000) was positively related to SCBI, while MAT (β = −0.250, p = 0.000) was negatively related to SCBI. Thus, H1 and H2 were supported. EI (β = 0.014, p = 0.774) and PSC (β = 0.004, p = 0.925) had no significant effect on SCBI. Hence, H3 and H4 were not supported. The H5a–H5e hypotheses were accepted, as EK (β = 0.186, p = 0.000), EI (β = 0.182, p = 0.000), PSC (β = 0.196, p = 0.000), and SCBI (β = 0.160, p = 0.000) were positively related to SCB, and MAT (β = −0.171, p = 0.001) was negatively related to SCB. The mediating hypotheses were tested using the indirect effect approach. The results showed that SCBI significantly mediated the relationship between EK and SCB (β = 0.034, p = 0.004) and between MAT and SCB (β = −0.040, p = 0.001). Therefore, H6a and H6b were supported. Hypotheses H6c and H6d were not supported since the indirect effects between EI and SCB (β = 0.002, p = 0.780) and between PSC and SCB (β = 0.001, p = 0.927) were insignificant.
The moderation outcomes revealed that age moderated only the relationship between SCBI and SCB (β = −0.104, p = 0.008). A positive relationship was found between SCB and SCBI for younger respondents (Figure 3). Thus, H8e was supported. Other moderating effects (H7a–H7d, H8a–H8d) were not supported (Table 5).
With respect to the influence of environmental knowledge on sustainable consumption behavioural intention (H1), our findings align with prior studies (Lin et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2014). The indirect effect of EK on SC-related behaviour was also supported, in consonance with past literature (Dhir et al. 2021; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Saari et al. 2021). The negative association of materialism with consumption behavioural intention (H2) confirmed by us is in concurrence with previous studies (Alzubaidi et al. 2021). That is, materialists are not willing to make certain compromises and adopt SCB. However, to form more conclusive comments, this relationship needs to be tested further since significant differences will probably be observed in the willingness for sustainable consumption among highly materialistic consumers and among consumers with low materialism. Besides, differences may also occur regarding consumers’ intentions for SC depending on the gender, age, and other demographic variables of the respondents. Thus, Alzubaidi et al. (2021) made an interesting discovery in their study; namely, that younger consumers’ materialism did not have a significant effect on behavioural intention, whereas, for older consumers, materialism had a strong negative effect on behavioural intention.
The findings related to H3 contradicted those of past studies (e.g., Bruno et al. 2022). Practically, our results did not confirm the positive effect of environmental influences on the intention for individual sustainable behaviour. That was a surprising discovery for us but still, there could also be other influences that might cause consumers to refrain from motivating people’s desire for making sacrifices or paying more to consume sustainably. For instance, the different aspects of culture, such as “individualism” and “collectivism”, which reflect the differences in the cultural values of western and eastern countries (Hofstede 2001), could play a determining role in this result.
Our study did not confirm the assumption of the existence of a link between sustainable consumption promotion and sustainable consumption behavioural intention (H4). This result contradicted prior studies that reported an indirect effect of PSC on green product buying (Piligrimienė et al. 2020). A plausible explanation for our findings may be that the public institutions, non-governmental organisations, retailers, and other stakeholders in Bulgaria still fail to fully utilise the promotion possibilities for the purpose of raising consumers’ awareness regarding various SCB-related issues. As has already been stressed, the present study is among the few that present empirical evidence of the effect of the SC construct on SCB. Therefore, there is a great need for further research that would enhance the current understanding of this issue.
On the other hand, the tested direct effect of the five factors identified (EK, MAT, EI, PSC, and SCBI) on sustainable consumption behaviour was confirmed. Therefore, the data found support for Hypotheses 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, and H5e. These findings were also in agreement with past research (Figueroa-García et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2014).
H6a, H6b, H6c, and H6d assumed that SCBI mediated the relationship between EK, MAT, EI, PSC, and SCB. The data supported the SCBI mediating effect between environmental knowledge, materialism, and SCB but not between environmental influences, sustainable consumption promotion, and SCB. Past studies also found support for the mediating effect of behavioural intention in the link between environmental value, environmental knowledge, environmental responsibility, and sustainable consumption behaviour (Sheoran and Kumar 2020), environmental concern and sustainable consumption (Saari et al. 2021), and between consumer attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, and sustainable consumption behaviour (Matharu et al. 2021). The unsupported mediating role of SCBI in the relationship between EI, PSC, and SCB leads to the conclusion that EI and PSC only affect SCB directly, not indirectly.
In nine hypotheses (H7a, H7b, H7c, H7d, H8a, H8b, H8c, H8d, and H8e), it was assumed that age would moderate the relationships of the influencing factors with sustainable consumption behaviour. The results showed that age moderated only the effect of SCBI on SCB (H8e), which is positive for younger respondents. Our study indicated that younger respondents were more motivated to make certain sacrifices to demonstrate sustainable consumption behaviour. This finding is in contrast with previous literature, which contended that older consumers were more environmentally friendly and aware of environmental issues than young consumers (Witek and Kuźniar 2021; Dhir et al. 2021). A partial explanation of the result we obtained could be sought in the increasing knowledge levels of young people having public consciousness, who obtain and distribute information using different modern communication channels. As a recommendation in this respect, a proposal could be addressed to the policymakers that would include, for instance, the targeted distribution of information using social networks aimed at promoting the benefits of the transition towards more sustainable consumption models among these individuals.

5. Conclusions

This study aimed to investigate the factors determining the sustainable consumption behaviour of consumers in Bulgaria. To address this issue, a conceptual model was created to provide a thorough understanding of the study. The model involved possible connections between environmental knowledge, materialism, environmental influences, the promotion of sustainable consumption, and sustainable consumption behavioural intention, which may influence and lead to SCB. Moreover, it was assumed that age played a moderating role in associations of influencing factors with SCB. The literature review revealed that these links had not been extensively studied; however, they could be important in a deeper study of the SCB. In this sense, this study contributes to the literature on sustainable consumption behaviour by investigating a few relatively new linkages, i.e., the effect of MAT and PSC on SCB. Furthermore, the mediating effect of SCBI in such a conceptual framework has not been examined yet.
Some limitations of this study should be noted. Firstly, our research is limited geographically to the population of one European country, i.e., Bulgaria; the results might differ if other cultural contexts are considered. Secondly, the respondents were approached through a non-probability-based sampling method, which has issues of respondent selection bias and may therefore restrict again the generalisability of the findings.
The current study enriches the literature on sustainable consumption behaviour by explaining the links between insufficiently studied internal and external factors influencing SCB. Future research should attempt to expand the range of the factors that may be considered SCB determining factors. The design of our study excluded detailing the context. It would be useful to carry out research on factors significant for SCB in specific areas of occurrence, such as the food sector, the fast fashion industry, the hospitality industry, etc. Our conceptual framework emphasised the moderating role of age. Future studies could also test the moderating effect of other demographic variables, such as gender, income, education level, residence, etc., on the relationships between SCB and its antecedents. Moreover, this study used a quantitative approach to test the study hypotheses, whereas it may be recommended that future studies use mixed methods to gain an in-depth understanding of the SCB phenomenon.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, T.D. and I.I.; introduction, M.A.; literature review, T.D.; methodology, T.D.; software, I.I.; validation, T.D. and I.I.; formal analysis, I.I.; investigation, T.D.; resources, M.A.; data curation, I.I.; writing—original draft preparation, T.D., I.I. and M.A.; writing—review and editing, M.A.; visualisation, T.D. and I.I.; supervision, M.A.; project administration, T.D.; funding acquisition, T.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Project № ΦП21-ΦИCH-004; financing organization: Fund “Scientific Research” at the University of Plovdiv Paisii Hilendarski.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the certified sociological agency BluePoint Ltd. The respondents confirmed their participation using a Consent Form.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Previous studies examining the influencing factors of sustainable consumption behaviour.
Table A1. Previous studies examining the influencing factors of sustainable consumption behaviour.
YearStudyInfluencing Factors (Role)Valid Sample and AreaFactors with sig. Effect (Direct and Indirect)Factor(s) with No sig. Effect
2012Luchs and MooradianSex (antecedent), personality traits (antecedent and mediator), sustainable importance (mediator)9.092 German households and 147 undergraduate students at a major
university in the eastern USA participated		Sex, personality traits, sustainable importance-
2014WangEnvironmental
value (antecedent), environmental
knowledge (antecedent), environmental
responsibility (antecedent), environmental
sensitivity (antecedent), response efficacy (antecedent), perceived behavioural control (antecedent), perception of consequence (antecedent),
behavioural intention (mediator)		1.403; rural residents in ChinaEnvironmental
value, environmental
knowledge, environmental
responsibility, environmental
sensitivity, response efficacy, perceived behavioural
control,
behavioural intention		Perception of consequence
2015Lee, Levy, and YapConsumption values (antecedents): functional values (quality, price, physical environment), social
value, emotional value,
epistemic value; place identity (mediator),
environmental attitude (mediator)		561; two inner city suburbs in Auckland, New ZealandConsumption values: functional values (physical environment), social
value, emotional value,
epistemic value; place identity (PI),
environmental attitude		Quality has a significant effect on PI, but it does not indirectly affect SCB.
Price does not affect SCB.
2017Sharma and JhaHolistic values (antecedents): internally oriented values and externally oriented values; environmental attitude (moderator), perceived consumer effectiveness (antecedent and moderator)526; online and offline (during two
train journeys between Delhi and Bangalore)		Some holistic values (HV) have a sig. effect: compassion, benevolence, acceptance,
universalism, tradition; environmental attitude (EA) has a moderating effect on the relationship between some HV and SCB: universalism, acceptance, self-enrichment, etc.; the perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) has a moderating effect on the relationship between EA
and high SCB; the relationship between PCE and SCB is sig.		Some HVs do not have a sig. effect: accomplishment, conformity, courtesy, hedonism, etc.; EA does not have a moderating effect on the relationship between some HV and SCB: conformity, security, tradition, etc.
2017Ab. WahabIslamic work
values (antecedents): piety, benevolence, justice, responsibility, trustworthiness, patience, consultation, cooperation, self-reflection		264; private and public organisations in MalaysiaIslamic work
values		-
2018Dong, Li, Liu, Cai, and FaNeed for
autonomy (antecedent), need for
affiliation (antecedent), need for
control (antecedent), material
possession love (mediator), materialism (moderator)		824; urban areas, such as Shanghai, Hangzhou, and
Nanjing in eastern China; Wuhan, Changsha, and Hefei in central
China; and Nanning and Xian in western China		Need for
autonomy (NAU), need for
affiliation (NAF), need for
control (NC), material
possession love (MPL), materialism positively moderates the relationship between (a) NAU and MPL, (b) NC and MPL		Materialism does not have a significant moderating
effect of NAF on MPL.
2018VantamayAttitude toward the behaviour (antecedent), subjective norm from
friends (antecedent), perceived behavioural control (antecedent)		1.000; ThailandAttitude toward the behaviour, subjective norm from
friends, perceived behavioural control		-
2018Figueroa-García, García-Machado, and Pérez-Bustamante YábarEnvironmental influences (antecedent), education and information (mediator and antecedent), social pressure (antecedent), market conditions (mediator), government actions (antecedent), demographic values (antecedent)139; Community of MadridEnvironmental influences (antecedent), education and information (mediator), social pressure (antecedent), market conditions (mediator), government actions (antecedent), demographic values (antecedent)Government actions, demographic values, social pressure
2019Kadic-Maglajlic, Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, Micevski, Dlacic, and
Zabkar		Self-identity (antecedent), consumer values (antecedent), pro-environmental and
pro-social consumer engagement (mediator), emotional intelligence (moderator)		407; Croatia and SloveniaSelf-identity, consumer values, pro-environmental and
pro-social consumer engagement, emotional intelligence		-
[6] 2020RoyAltruistic value (antecedent), biospheric value (antecedent), egoistic value (antecedent), hedonic value (antecedent), normative goal (mediator)It Is stated that
KMO value of sampling is acceptable (0.798); several big bazaars and junction
malls in India		Altruistic value, biospheric value, egoistic value, normative
goal		Hedonic value
2020PimdeePsychological traits (antecedent), situation (antecedent), psychological
state (mediator), environmental education (mediator)		800; ten state universities located across 5 Thai
regions		Situation, psychological
state, environmental education		Psychological traits
2020Dong, Liu Li, Yang, Liang, and DengConnectedness to nature (antecedent); love of nature (mediator): passion for nature, intimacy with nature, commitment to
nature		888; urban
areas such as Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Nanjing in eastern
China; Wuhan, Changsha, and Hefei in central China; and Nanning
and Xian in western China		Connectedness to nature is an antecedent of (a) green purchasing and (b) recycling; love of natureConnectedness to nature does not predict reusability.
2021Saari, Damberg, Frömbling, and RingleEnvironmental knowledge (antecedent), environmental risk perception (antecedent), environmental concern (mediator and antecedent), behavioural intention (mediator)11.675; European UnionEnvironmental knowledge, risk perception, environmental concern, behavioural intention-
2021Matharu, Jain, and KambojLOHAS lifestyle, consumer attitude (antecedent and mediator), subjective norm (antecedent), perceived
behavioural control (antecedent), intention for
sustainable
consumption (mediator)		627; shopping
and departmental stores of Delhi NCR		LOHAS lifestyle, consumer attitude, subjective norm, perceived
behavioural control, intention for
sustainable
consumption		-

Appendix B

Table
Table A2. Measurement items for the constructs in the research model.
Table A2. Measurement items for the constructs in the research model.
Constructs and ItemsSources
Environmental influences
EI 1. Someone from my family or my friends motivates me to follow in their footsteps in environmental care.
EI 2. I have participated as a volunteer in social work or environmental organisations.
EI 3. I take advantage of the fact that now there are organic or ecological products in the supermarket to buy them.
EI 4. Caring for the environment is a tradition in my family.
EI 5. Where I live, it is normal to separate waste for recycling.
EI 6. My home has enough space for a garden.		(Figueroa-García et al. 2018)
Environmental knowledge
EK 1. How much do you feel you know about the causes of these sorts of environmental problems?
EK 2. How much do you feel you know about solutions to these sorts of environmental problems?
EK 3. How much do you agree or disagree with…: I find it hard to know whether the way I live is helpful or harmful to the environment.		(Saari et al. 2021)
Materialism
Mat 1. I admire people who own expensive homes, cars and clothes.
Mat 2. I like spending money on many different things.
Mat 3. My life would be better if I owned many of the things I do not have.
Mat 4. Buying things gives me a lot of pleasure.
Mat 5. I would be much happier if I could afford to buy more things.
Mat 6. I like to own things that impress people.
Mat 7. I like a lot of luxury in my life.
Mat 8. It bothers me that I cannot afford to buy all the things I like.
Mat 9. Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material possessions.		(Lindblom et al. 2018; Ponchio and Aranha 2008)
Promotion of sustainable consumption
PSC 1. Initiatives of socially responsible organisations to inform society about the damage consumption does to the environment and promotion of sustainable behaviour have an impact on my consumption patterns.
PSC 2. I am willing to buy green products instead of regular products if there is a price promotion.
PSC 3. If there are some incentive mechanisms, I could change some consumption modes.
PSC 4. I am willing to do waste recycling because it can save the living cost.		(Piligrimienė et al. 2020)
Sustainable consumption behaviour intention
How willing would you be to…to protect the environment?		(Saari et al. 2021)
SCBI 1. Pay much higher prices.
SCBI 2. Pay much higher taxes.
SCBI 3. Accept cuts in your standard of living.
Sustainable consumption behaviour
Quality of life well-being
QL 1. I always try hard to reduce misuse of goods and services (e.g., I switch off the light and fan when I am not in the room).
QL 2. I recycle daily newspaper (e.g., use as pet’s litter box, etc.).
QL 3. I avoid being extravagant in my purchases.
QL 4. While dining in a restaurant, I order food(s) of only the amount that I can eat to avoid wasting food.
QL 5. I avoid overuse/consumption of goods and services (e.g., take print
only when needed).
QL 6. I reuse paper to write on the other side.
QL 7. I choose to buy product(s) with biodegradable containers or packaging.
QL 8. I plan carefully before I purchase a product or service.
QL 9. I do not like to waste food or beverage.
QL 10. I recycle my old stuff in every possible way (e.g., distribute old clothes among needy people).
QL 11. I reuse shopping bag(s) every time go shopping.		(Quoquab et al. 2019)
Care for the environmental well-being
CEW 1. I do care for the natural environment.
CEW 2. I use eco-friendly products and services.
CEW 3. I purchase and use products which are environmentally friendly.
CEW 4. I often pay extra money to purchase environmentally friendly products (e.g., organic food).
CEW 5. I am concerned about the shortage of natural resources.
CEW 6. I prefer to use a paper bag since it is biodegradable.
CEW 7. I love our planet.
Care for the future generation
CFG 1. I always remember that my excess consumption can create hindrances for the future generation to meet their basic needs.
CFG 2. I care for the need fulfilment of the next generation.
CFG 3. I often think about future generations’ quality of life.
CFG 4. I try to control my desire for excessive purchases for the sake of future generations.
CFG 5. I am concerned about future generations.
CFG 6. I try to minimise excess consumption for the sake of preserving environmental resources for future generations.

References

  1. Ab. Wahab, Mastura. 2017. Relationships between religious work values, sustainable work behaviours and sustainable energy consumptions: An empirical analysis using Muslim employees. Management Decision 55: 1854–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aibar-Guzmán, Cristina, and Francisco M. Somohano-Rodríguez. 2021. Do Consumers Value Environmental Innovation in Product? Administrative Sciences 11: 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Akehurst, Gary, Carolina Afonso, and Helena M. Gonçalves. 2012. Re-examining green purchase behaviour and the green consumer profile: New evidences. Management Decision 50: 972–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alzubaidi, Hawazin, Emma L. Slade, and Yogesh K. Dwivedi. 2021. Examining antecedents of consumers’ pro-environmental behaviours: TPB extended with materialism and innovativeness. Journal of Business Research 122: 685–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Antonides, Gerrit. 2017. Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Sustainability 9: 1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Bhutto, Muhammad Yaseen, Xiaohui Liu, Yasir Ali Soomro, Myriam Ertz, and Yasser Baeshen. 2021. Adoption of Energy-Efficient Home Appliances: Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustainability 13: 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Biswas, Aindrila. 2017. A consumption value-gap analysis for sustainable consumption. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24: 7714–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brandão, Amélia, and Carmo Cupertino de Miranda. 2022. Does Sustainable Consumption Behaviour Influence Luxury Services Purchase Intention? Sustainability 14: 7906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bruno, Juan M., Enrique C. Bianchi, and Carolina Sánchez. 2022. Determinants of household recycling intention: The acceptance of public policy moderated by habits, social influence, and perceived time risk. Environmental Science and Policy 136: 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Choudhary, Sonal, Rakesh Nayak, Sushma Kumari, and Homagni Choudhury. 2019. Analysing acculturation to sustainable food consumption behaviour in the social media through the lens of information diffusion. Technological Forecasting Social Change 145: 481–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dhir, Amandeep, Mohd Sadiq, Shalini Talwar, Mototaka Sakashita, and Puneet Kaur. 2021. Why do retail consumers buy green apparel? A knowledge-attitude-behaviour-context perspective. Journal of Retailing Consumer Services 59: 102398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dong, Xuebing, Hongbo Li, Shengmin Liu, Chuangneng Cai, and Xiaojun Fan. 2018. How does material possession love influence sustainable consumption behavior towards the durable products? Journal of Cleaner Production 198: 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dong, Xuebing, Shengmin Liu, Hongbo Li, Zhi Yang, Shichang Liang, and Nianqi Deng. 2020. Love of nature as a mediator between connectedness to nature and sustainable consumption behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production 242: 118451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Donnelly, Grant, Masha Ksendzova, and Ryan T. Howell. 2013. Sadness, identity, and plastic in over-shopping: The interplay of materialism, poor credit management, and emotional buying motives in predicting compulsive buying. Journal of Economic Psychology 39: 113–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dulam, Rithika, Kazuo Furuta, and Taro Kanno. 2021. Consumer Panic Buying: Realizing Its Consequences and Repercussions on the Supply Chain. Sustainability 13: 4370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fazli-Salehi, Reza, Ivonne M. Torres, Rozbeh Madadi, and Miguel Á. Zúñiga. 2021. Multicultural advertising: The impact of consumers’ self-concept clarity and materialism on self-brand connection and communal-brand connection. Journal of Business Research 137: 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Feil, Alexandre A., Carlos C. da Silva Cyrne, Fernanda C. W. Sindelar, Júlia E. Barden, and Marlon Dalmoro. 2020. Profiles of sustainable food consumption: Consumer behavior toward organic food in southern region of Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 258: 120690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Figueroa-García, Edna C., Juan J. García-Machado, and Diana C. Pérez-Bustamante Yábar. 2018. Modeling the Social Factors That Determine Sustainable Consumption Behavior in the Community of Madrid. Sustainability 10: 2811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Fink, Arlene G. 2016. How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fischer, Daniel, Tina Böhme, and Sonja M. Geiger. 2017. Measuring young consumers’ sustainable consumption behavior: Development and validation of the YCSCB scale. Young Consumers 18: 312–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Francis, Allen, and Gopal K. Sarangi. 2022. Sustainable consumer behaviour of Indian millennials: Some evidence. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 4: 100109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fuller, Christie M., Marcia J. Simmering, Guclu Atinc, Yasemin Atinc, and Barry J. Babin. 2016. Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research 69: 3192–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, Alexandra, and Ben Wooliscroft. 2019. Well-Being and Everyday Ethical Consumption. Journal of Happiness Studies 20: 141–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Geiger, Sonja M., Daniel Fischer, and Ulf Schrader. 2017. Measuring What Matters in Sustainable Consumption: An Integrative Framework for the Selection of Relevant Behaviors. Sustainable Development 26: 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gleim, Mark R., Jeffery S. Smith, Demetra Andrews, and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. 2013. Against the green: A multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. Journal of Retailing 89: 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Guzmán Rincón, Alfredo, Ruby Lorena Carrillo Barbosa, Ester Martín-Caro Álamo, and Belén Rodríguez-Cánovas. 2021. Sustainable Consumption Behaviour in Colombia: An Exploratory Analysis. Sustainability 13: 802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Haessler, Philipp. 2020. Strategic Decisions between Short-Term Profit and Sustainability. Administrative Sciences 10: 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hair, Joseph F., Jr., G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2021. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  29. Han, Heesup, Li-Tzang (Jane) Hsu, and Jin-Soo Lee. 2009. Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28: 519–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Häyrinen, Liina, Osmo Mattila, Sami Berghäll, and Anne Toppinen. 2016. Lifestyle of health and sustainability of forest owners as an indicator of multiple use of forests. Forest Policy and Economics 67: 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hirscher, Anja-Lisa. 2013. Fashion Activism Evaluation and Application of Fashion Activism Strategies to Ease Transition towards Sustainable Consumption Behaviour. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel 17: 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  33. Joshi, Yatish, and Zillur Rahman. 2019. Consumers’ Sustainable Purchase Behaviour: Modeling the Impact of Psychological Factors. Ecological Economics 159: 235–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kadic-Maglajlic, Selma, Maja Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, Milena Micevski, Jasmina Dlacic, and Vesna Zabkar. 2019. Being engaged is a good thing: Understanding sustainable consumption behavior among young adults. Journal of Business Research 104: 644–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kock, Ned, and Pierre Hadaya. 2018. Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal 28: 227–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kollmuss, Anja, and Julian Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research 8: 239–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Le, Minh T. H. 2020. Social comparison effects on brand addiction: A mediating role of materialism. Heliyon 6: e05460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lee, Christina K. C., Deborah S. Levy, and Crystal S. F. Yap. 2015. How does the theory of consumption values contribute to place identity and sustainable consumption? International Journal of Consumer Studies 39: 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lehner, Mattihias. 2015. Retail store influence on sustainable consumption behavior. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 7: 404–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lin, Mao-Tang (Brian), Dan Zhu, Claire Liu, and Peter B. Ki. 2022. A meta-analysis of antecedents of pro-environmental behavioral intention of tourists and hospitality consumers. Tourism Management 93: 104566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lindblom, Arto, Taru Lindblom, and Heidi Wechtler. 2018. Collaborative consumption as C2C trading: Analyzing the effects of materialism and price consciousness. Journal of Retailing Consumer Services 44: 244–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Liu, Ziqiang, Hong Zhang, Li Wei, and Xinxin Ge. 2022. Moral Chameleons: The positive association between materialism and self-interest-triggered moral flexibility. Journal of Research in Personality 100: 104268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Luchs, Michael G., and Tood A. Mooradian. 2012. Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the Gender Effect. Journal of Consumer Policy 35: 127–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mainolfi, Giada. 2020. Exploring materialistic bandwagon behaviour in online fashion consumption: A survey of Chinese luxury consumers. Journal of Business Research 120: 286–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mancini, Paola, Andrea Marchini, and Mariarosaria Simeone. 2017. Which are the sustainable attributes affecting the real consumption behaviour? Consumer understanding and choices. British Food Journal 119: 1839–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Matharu, Manita, Ruchi Jain, and Shampy Kamboj. 2021. Understanding the impact of lifestyle on sustainable consumption behavior: A sharing economy perspective. Management of Environmental Quality 32: 20–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nekmahmud, Md., Haywantee Ramkissoon, and Maria Fekete-Farkas. 2022. Green purchase and sustainable consumption: A comparative study between European and non-European tourists. Tourism Management Perspectives 43: 100980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pandelaere, Mario. 2016. Materialism and well-being: The role of consumption. Current Opinion in Psychology 10: 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Panzone, Luca, Denis Hilton, Laura Sale, and Doron Cohen. 2016. Socio-demographics, implicit attitudes, explicit attitudes, and sustainable consumption in supermarket shopping. Journal of Economic Psychology 55: 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Pérez-Pons, María E., Marta Plaza-Hernández, Ricardo S. Alonso, Javier Parra-Domínguez, and Javier Prieto. 2021. Increasing Profitability and Monitoring Environmental Performance: A Case Study in the Agri-Food Industry through an Edge-IoT Platform. Sustainability 13: 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Phang, Ing G., Bamini K. P. D. Balakrishnan, and Hiram Ting. 2021. Does sustainable consumption matter? Consumer grocery shopping behaviour and the pandemic. Journal of Social Marketing 11: 507–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Piligrimienė, Žaneta, Andželika Žukauskaitė, Hubert Korzilius, Jūratė Banytė, and Aistė Dovalienė. 2020. Internal and External Determinants of Consumer Engagement in Sustainable Consumption. Sustainability 12: 1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Pimdee, Paitoon. 2020. Antecedents of Thai student teacher sustainable consumption behavior. Heliyon 6: e04676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ponchio, Mateus C., and Francisco Aranha. 2008. Materialism as a predictor variable of low income consumer behavior when entering into installment plan agreements. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 7: 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Quoquab, Farzana, and Jihad Mohammad. 2017. Managing sustainable consumption: Is it a problem or panacea? In Sustainable Economic Development: Green Economy and Green Growth, World Sustainability Series. Edited by Walter Leal Filho, Diana-Mihaela Pociovalisteanu and Abul Quasem Al-Amin. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 115–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Quoquab, Farzana, Jihad Mohammad, and Nurain N. Sukari. 2019. A multiple-item scale for measuring “sustainable consumption behaviour” construct: Development and psychometric evaluation. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 31: 791–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Radziszewska, Aleksandra. 2019. The role of Social Media in Promotion of Sustainable Consumption Behaviour. Paper presented at 34th IBIMA Conference, Madrid, Spain, November 13–14; Available online: https://ibima.org/accepted-paper/the-role-of-social-media-in-promotion-of-sustainable-consumption-behaviour/ (accessed on 20 August 2022).
  58. Richins, Marsha L. 2004. The Material Values Scale: Measurement Properties and Development of a Short Form. Journal of Consumer Research 31: 209–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Ringle, Christian M., Sven Wende, and Jan-Michael Becker. 2022. SmartPLS 4. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS. Available online: https://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 25 September 2022).
  60. Roy, Mousumi. 2020. Greening behavior toward sustainable development. In Sustainable Development Strategies. Edited by Marisa LaFleur. London: Elsevier Inc., pp. 53–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ryoo, Yuhosua, Yongjun Sung, and Inna Chechelnytska. 2020. What makes materialistic consumers more ethical? Self-benefit vs. other-benefit appeals. Journal of Business Research 110: 173–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Saari, Ulla A., Svenja Damberg, Lena Frömbling, and Christian M. Ringle. 2021. Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention. Ecological Economics 189: 107155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sarstedt, Marko, Christian M. Ringle, and Joseph F. Hair. 2021. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In Handbook of Market Research. Edited by Christian Homburg, Martin Klarmann and Arnd Vomberg. Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sarstedt, Marko, Joseph F. Hair Jr., Jun-Hwa Cheah, Jan-Michael Becker, and Christian M. Ringle. 2019. How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal 27: 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sharma, Rajat, and Mithileshwar Jha. 2017. Values influencing sustainable consumption behaviour: Exploring the contextual relationship. Journal of Business Research 76: 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sheoran, Monika, and Divesh Kumar. 2020. Modelling the enablers of sustainable consumer behaviour towards electronic products. Journal of Modelling in Management 15: 1543–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sheoran, Monika, and Divesh Kumar. 2022. Conceptualisation of sustainable consumer behaviour: Converging the theory of planned behavior and consumption cycle. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management 17: 103–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sousa, Sara, Elisabete Correia, Clara Viseu, and Manuela Larguinho. 2022. Analysing the Influence of Companies’ Green Communication in College Students’ Green Purchase Behaviour: An Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour Model. Administrative Sciences 12: 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tomșa, Monica-Maria, Andreea-Ioana Romonți-Maniu, and Mircea-Andrei Scridon. 2021. Is Sustainable Consumption Translated into Ethical Consumer Behavior? Sustainability 13: 3466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tripathi, Avinash, and Manvendra P. Singh. 2016. Determinants of sustainable/green consumption: A review. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management 19: 316–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. UNDESA. 2014. The 10 Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns (10YFP). Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=1444&menu=35 (accessed on 20 August 2022).
  72. Vainio, Annukka, and Riikka Paloniemi. 2014. The complex role of attitudes toward science in pro-environmental consumption in the Nordic countries. Ecological Economics 108: 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Vantamay, Nottakrit. 2018. Investigation and recommendations on the promotion of sustainable consumption behavior among young consumers in Thailand. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 39: 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wang, Luxiao, Dian Gu, Jiang Jiang, and Ying Sun. 2019. The Not-So-Dark Side of Materialism: Can Public Versus Private Contexts Make Materialists Less Eco-Unfriendly? Frontiers in Psychology 10: 790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Wang, Ping, Qian Liu, and Yu Qi. 2014. Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviors: A survey of the rural residents in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 63: 152–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, Tsai-Chiao, Ming-Lang Tseng, Huei-Wen Pan, Chiou-Chi Hsiau, Ta-Wei Tang, and Chia-Liang Tsai. 2021. The development of a sustainable wellness service marketing strategy in Taiwan based on consumer eye movements and preferences. Journal of Cleaner Production 282: 124382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wang, Yan, and Feng Hao. 2018. Does Internet penetration encourage sustainable consumption? A cross-national analysis. Sustainable Production and Consumption 16: 237–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wang, Yonggui, Diandian Xiang, ZhiYong Yang, and Shuang (Sara) Ma. 2019. Unraveling customer sustainable consumption behaviors in sharing economy: A socio-economic approach based on social exchange theory. Journal of Cleaner Production 208: 869–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Witek, Lucyna, and Wiesława Kuźniar. 2021. Green Purchase Behavior: The Effectiveness of Sociodemographic Variables for Explaining Green Purchases in Emerging Market. Sustainability 13: 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wu, Ci-sheng, Xiao-xia Xhou, and Meng Song. 2016. Sustainable consumer behavior in China: An empirical analysis from the Midwest regions. Journal of Cleaner Production 134: 147–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Xue, Jian, Zeeshan Rasool, Raima Nazar, Ahmad Imran Khan, Shaukat Hussain Bhatti, and Sajid Ali. 2021. Revisiting Natural Resources—Globalization-Environmental Quality Nexus: Fresh Insights from South Asian Countries. Sustainability 13: 4224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yahya, Wan K., Nor H. Hashim, and Noor D. Musa. 2015. Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior in Malaysia. Paper presented at 19th MACFEA National Seminar, Putrajaya, Malaysia, November 19–20; pp. 264–73. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284713704 (accessed on 25 October 2022).
  83. Zuzańska-Żyśko, Elżbieta. 2021. Role of Advanced Producer Services Shaping Globalization Processes in a Post-Industrial Region: The Case of the Górnośląsko-Zagłębiowska Metropolis. Sustainability 13: 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 12 00155 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed research model.
Figure 1. Proposed research model.
Admsci 12 00155 g001
Admsci 12 00155 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural model.
Figure 2. Structural model.
Admsci 12 00155 g002
Admsci 12 00155 g003 550
Figure 3. Simple slope analysis for the interaction effect of age and SCBI on SCB.
Figure 3. Simple slope analysis for the interaction effect of age and SCBI on SCB.
Admsci 12 00155 g003
Table
Table 1. Socio-demographic profile of the sample.
Table 1. Socio-demographic profile of the sample.
VariableCategoriesPercentage
GenderMale48%
Female52%
Age group16–24 years14%
25–39 years33%
40–54 years38%
55–64 years15%
Educational levelHigher69%
Secondary
Primary		30%
1%
Personal incomeUnder 650 BGN8%
650–1235 BGN36%
1236–1820 BGN26%
1821–2410 BGN11%
2411–2999 BGN8%
3000 and more BGN7%
Without personal income4%
Place of livingCapital city28%
City above 100 thousand42%
Town from 50 thousand to 100 thousand15%
Town from 25 thousand to 50 thousand12%
Town up to 25 thousand3%
Table
Table 2. Measurement model of the first- and second-order constructs.
Table 2. Measurement model of the first- and second-order constructs.
Constructs and ItemsLoadings
Environmental influences (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.886, CR = 0.921, AVE = 0.746)
EI 1. Someone from my family or my friends motivates me to follow in their footsteps in environmental care.0.834
EI 2. I have participated as a volunteer in social work or environmental organisations.0.870
EI 3. I take advantage of the fact that now there are organic or ecological products in the supermarket to buy them.0.878
EI 4. Caring for the environment is a tradition in my family.0.871
Environmental knowledge (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.918, CR = 0.922, AVE = 0.859)
EK 1. How much do you feel you know about the causes of these sorts of environmental problems?0.928
EK 2. How much do you feel you know about solutions to these sorts of environmental problems?0.919
EK 3. How much do you agree or disagree with…: I find it hard to know whether the way I live is helpful or harmful to the environment.0.934
Materialism (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.836, CR = 0.884, AVE = 0.605)
Mat 1. I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes.0.762
Mat 5. I would be much happier if I could afford to buy more things.0.796
Mat 6. I like to own things that impress people.0.848
Mat 7. I like a lot of luxury in my life.0.743
Mat 8. It bothers me that I cannot afford to buy all the things I like.0.734
Promotion of sustainable consumption (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.865, CR = 0.917, AVE = 0.787)
PSC 1. Initiatives of socially responsible organisations to inform society about the damage consumption does to the environment and promotion of sustainable behaviour have an impact on my consumption patterns.0.887
PSC 2. I am willing to buy green products instead of regular products if there is a price promotion.0.897
PSC 3. If there are some incentive mechanisms, I could change some consumption modes.0.877
Sustainable consumption behaviour intention (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.918, CR = 0.948, AVE = 0.859)
How willing would you be to … to protect the environment?
SCBI 1. Pay much higher prices.0.930
SCBI 2. Pay much higher taxes.0.934
SCBI 3. Accept cuts in your standard of living.0.916
Quality of life well-being (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.844, CR = 0.895, AVE = 0.680)
QL 1. I always try hard to reduce misuse of goods and services (e.g., I switch off the light and fan when I am not in the room)0.839
QL 3. I avoid being extravagant in my purchases0.852
QL 4. While dining in a restaurant, I order food(s) of only the amount that I can eat in order to avoid wasting food0.844
QL 8. I plan carefully before I purchase a product or service0.762
Care for the environmental well-being (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.881, CR = 0.913, AVE = 0.678)
CEW 1. I do care for the natural environment0.818
CEW 2. I use eco-friendly products and services0.835
CEW 3. I purchase and use products which are environmentally friendly0.869
CEW 4. I often pay extra money to purchase environmentally friendly products (e.g., organic food)0.793
CEW 6. I prefer to use a paper bag since it is biodegradable0.799
Care for the future generation (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.911, CR = 0.937, AVE = 0.789)
CFG 1. I always remember that my excess consumption can create hindrances for the future generation to meet their basic needs0.870
CFG 4. I try to control my desire for excessive purchases for the sake of future generations0.897
CFG 5. I am concerned about future generations0.870
CFG 6. I try to minimise the excess consumption for the sake of preserving environmental resources for future generations0.914
Sustainable consumption behaviour (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.832, CR = 0.899, AVE = 0.748)
QL_LV0.808
CEW_LV0.888
CFG_LV0.897
Notes: QL_LV—latent variable scores for the construct “Quality of life well-being”, CEW_LV—latent variable scores for the construct “Care for the environmental well-being”, CFG_LV—latent variable scores for the construct “Care for the future generation”.
Table
Table 3. Discriminant validity with HTMT.
Table 3. Discriminant validity with HTMT.
ConstructEIEKMATPSCSCBIQLCEW
EI-
EK0.429
MAT0.5070.344
PSC0.2290.2080.153
SCBI0.2280.3140.3650.083
QL0.2870.3090.3450.2340.345
CEW0.4680.4070.4290.2930.3120.666
CFG0.4110.4550.3730.3670.2460.680.774
SCB0.4670.4670.4570.3570.358--
Table
Table 4. Fornell–Larcker criterion.
Table 4. Fornell–Larcker criterion.
ConstructEIEKMATPSCSCBIQLCEWCFG
EI0.864
EK0.3870.927
MAT−0.438−0.3030.778
PSC0.2030.188−0.1310.887
SCBI0.2070.29−0.3220.0740.927
QL0.2570.275−0.2970.2030.3060.825
CEW0.4150.369−0.370.2590.2830.5780.823
CFG0.3730.419−0.330.3310.2250.5980.6960.888
SCB0.4080.415−0.3850.3090.3090.865--
The square root of AVE values are marked in bold.
Table
Table 5. Structural model estimates.
Table 5. Structural model estimates.
HypothesesPath Coeffects (β)Standard Errort-Statisticsp-ValueDecision
H1: EK -> SCBI0.2140.0474.5270.000Supported
H2: MAT -> SCBI−0.2500.0455.6140.000Supported
H3: EI -> SCBI0.0140.0490.2870.774Not Supported
H4: PSC -> SCBI0.0040.0450.0940.925Not Supported
H5a: EK -> SCB0.1860.0424.3800.000Supported
H5b: MAT -> SCB−0.1710.0503.4080.001Supported
H5c: EI -> SCB0.1820.0454.0530.000Supported
H5d: PSC -> SCB0.1960.0375.2470.000Supported
H5e: SCBI -> SCB0.1600.0394.1070.000Supported
H6a: EK -> SCBI-> SCB0.0340.0122.9030.004Supported
H6b: MAT -> SCBI-> SCB−0.0400.0123.3310.001Supported
H6c: EI -> SCBI-> SCB0.0020.0080.2790.780Not Supported
H6d: PSC -> SCBI-> SCB0.0010.0070.0920.927Not Supported
H7a: Age*EK -> SCBI−0.0790.0421.8640.062Not Supported
H7b: Age*MAT -> SCBI−0.0310.0440.7060.480Not Supported
H7c: Age*EI -> SCBI0.0660.0451.4780.139Not Supported
H7d: Age*x PSC -> SCBI−0.0070.0430.1640.870Not Supported
H8a: Age*EK -> SCB0.0450.0391.1530.249Not Supported
H8b: Age*MAT -> SCB0.0260.0440.5930.553Not Supported
H8c: Age*EI -> SCB−0.0370.0410.9050.366Not Supported
H8d: Age*PSC -> SCB−0.0190.0350.5270.598Not Supported
H8e: Age*SCBI -> SCB−0.1040.0392.6470.008Supported
R2SCB = 0.352, R2SCBI = 0.154, Q2SCB = 0.291, Q2SCBI = 0.120.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dimitrova, T.; Ilieva, I.; Angelova, M. Exploring Factors Affecting Sustainable Consumption Behaviour. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040155

AMA Style

Dimitrova T, Ilieva I, Angelova M. Exploring Factors Affecting Sustainable Consumption Behaviour. Administrative Sciences. 2022; 12(4):155. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040155

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dimitrova, Teofana, Iliana Ilieva, and Mina Angelova. 2022. "Exploring Factors Affecting Sustainable Consumption Behaviour" Administrative Sciences 12, no. 4: 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040155

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