Green Algorithms: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Environmental Sustainability †
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- How does the inclusion of AI in products affect consumer purchase intentions and appeal to new consumer categories?
- What are the main determinants of the efficacy of AI-based environmental sustainability in product marketing to various consumer types and product categories?
- What are the factors that prevent consumers from embracing artificial intelligence (AI)-based environmental sustainability when buying products, and how can businesses overcome this obstacle to successfully market environmentally sustainable products in this market?
2. Literature Review
2.1. Theoretical Framework
2.2. Product Adoption
2.3. Hypothesis Development
3. Methodology
4. Results
4.1. Common Bias Method
4.2. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)
4.3. Internal Consistency
4.4. Convergent Validity
4.5. Predictability of the Model
4.6. Hypothesis Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Trusilo, D.; Danks, D. Commercial AI, Conflict, and Moral Responsibility: A theoretical analysis and practical approach to the moral responsibilities associated with dual-use AI technology. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2402.01762. [Google Scholar]
- Barbhuiya, S.; Das, B.B. Life Cycle Assessment of construction materials: Methodologies, applications and future directions for sustainable decision-making. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 19, e02326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaik, A.S.; Alshibani, S.M.; Jain, G.; Gupta, B.; Mehrotra, A. Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven strategic business model innovations in small-and medium-sized enterprises. Insights on technological and strategic enablers for carbon neutral businesses. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 33, 2731–2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhujaili, A.; Nocella, G.; Macready, A. Insects as food: Consumers’ acceptance and marketing. Foods 2023, 12, 886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evans, M.I.; Britt, D.W. Resistance to change. Reprod. Sci. 2023, 30, 835–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villacorta, M.; Koestner, R.; Lekes, N. Further validation of the motivation toward the environment scale. Environ. Behav. 2003, 35, 486–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vivek, S.D.; Beatty, S.E.; Dalela, V.; Morgan, R.M. A generalized multidimensional scale for measuring customer engagement. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2014, 22, 401–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loveridge, R.; Sallu, S.M.; Pesha, I.J.; Marshall, A.R. Measuring human wellbeing: A protocol for selecting local indicators. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 114, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, S.; Krogstie, J.; Siau, K. Developing an instrument to measure the adoption of mobile services. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2011, 7, 45–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cacioppo, J.T.; Petty, R.E. The need for cognition. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1982, 42, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saeed, M.; Shafique, I. Customer-based brand equity and destination visit behaviour in the tourism industry: The contingent role of social media. Qual. Quant. 2020, 54, 1491–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gadermann, A.M.; Guhn, M.; Zumbo, B.D. Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2012, 17, 3. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Thiele, K.O. Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2017, 45, 616–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 655–690. [Google Scholar]
- Schuberth, F.; Henseler, J.; Dijkstra, T.K. Partial least squares path modeling using ordinal categorical indicators. Qual. Quant. 2018, 52, 9–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, B. Artificial intelligence-enabled environmental sustainability of products: Marketing benefits and their variation by consumer, location, and product types. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 125242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koller, M.; Floh, A.; Zauner, A. Further insights into perceived value and consumer loyalty: A “green” perspective. Psychol. Mark. 2011, 28, 1154–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berger, J. Signaling can increase consumers’ willingness to pay for green products. Theoretical model and experimental evidence. J. Consum. Behav. 2019, 18, 233–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, P.; Del Bosque, I.R. CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 35, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, S.; Ng, A. Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 104, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H.; Rubel, T. Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 89, 1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, B.; Enkawa, T.; Schvaneveldt, S.J. How do the success factors driving repurchase intent differ between male and female customers? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2014, 42, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Constructs | VIF |
---|---|
Autonomous environmental benefits (AEB1) | 1.040 |
Autonomous environmental benefits (AEB2) | 1.076 |
Autonomous environmental benefits (AEB3) | 1.169 |
Autonomous environmental benefits (AEB4) | 1.093 |
Customer engagement (CE1) | 1.162 |
Customer engagement (CE2) | 1.240 |
Customer engagement (CE3) | 1.225 |
Customer engagement (CE4) | 1.304 |
Customer engagement (CE5) | 1.279 |
Customer engagement (CE6) | 1.189 |
Customer engagement (CE7) | 1.166 |
Environmental well-being (EWB1) | 1.172 |
Environmental well-being (EWB2) | 1.323 |
Environmental well-being (EWB3) | 1.318 |
Environmental well-being (EWB4) | 1.130 |
Need of cognitions (NOC1) | 1.297 |
Need of cognitions (NOC2) | 1.216 |
Need of cognitions (NOC3) | 1.078 |
Need of cognitions (NOC4) | 1.077 |
Product adoption (PA1) | 1.197 |
Product adoption (PA2) | 1.259 |
Product adoption (PA3) | 1.000 |
Construct Name | Items | Outer Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Autonomous environmental behavior (AEB) | AEB1 | 0.651 | 0.450 | 0.699 | 0.369 |
AEB2 | 0.521 | ||||
AEB3 | 0.651 | ||||
AEB4 | 0.634 | ||||
Customer engagement (CE) | CE1 | 0.441 | 0.645 | 0.764 | 0.355 |
CE2 | 0.565 | ||||
CE3 | 0.638 | ||||
CE4 | 0.441 | ||||
CE5 | 0.702 | ||||
CE6 | 0.633 | ||||
CE7 | 0.560 | ||||
Environmental well-being (EWB) | EWB1 | 0.626 | 0.638 | 0.786 | 0.480 |
EWB2 | 0.627 | ||||
EWB3 | 0.751 | ||||
EWB4 | 0.757 | ||||
Need of cognition (NOC) | NOC1 | 0.603 | 0.512 | 0.722 | 0.369 |
NOC2 | 0.611 | ||||
NOC3 | 0.564 | ||||
NOC4 | 0.727 | ||||
Product adoption (PA) | PA1 | 0.664 | 0.528 | 0.760 | 0.516 |
PA2 | 0.679 | ||||
PA3 | 0.804 | ||||
Moderating | Customer engagement × need of cognition | 0.069 | |||
Customer engagement × product adoption | 0.052 |
Variables | R-Square | R-Square Adjusted |
---|---|---|
AEB | 0.113 | 0.105 |
CE | 0.204 | 0.264 |
EWB | 0.022 | 0.017 |
NOC | 0.105 | 0.101 |
PA | 0.303 | 0.289 |
Hypothesis | Structural Relation | Std. Deviation (STDEV) | T-Values | p-Values | Beta | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Autonomous environmental benefits -> customer-initiated engagement | 0.070 | 4.658 | 0.000 | 0.024 | Accepted |
H2 | Customer engagement -> product adoption | 0.071 | 2.596 | 0.009 | 0.017 | Accepted |
H3 | Autonomous environmental benefits -> environmental well-being | 0.086 | 1.716 | 0.086 | 0.016 | Rejected |
H4 | Environmental well-being -> product adoption | 0.084 | 3.888 | 0.000 | 0.012 | Accepted |
Indirect effects | ||||||
H5 | Environmental well-being -> autonomous environmental benefits, Product Adoption | 0.086 | 2.242 | 0.025 | 0.008 | Accepted |
H6 | Customer engagement × need of cognition -> product adoption | 0.053 | 0.339 | 0.735 | -0.005 | Rejected |
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
Zaman, S.I.; Jadoon, S.T.; Khan, S.A. Green Algorithms: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Environmental Sustainability. Eng. Proc. 2024, 76, 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2024076040
Zaman SI, Jadoon ST, Khan SA. Green Algorithms: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Environmental Sustainability. Engineering Proceedings. 2024; 76(1):40. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2024076040
Chicago/Turabian StyleZaman, Syed Imran, Shafaq Tariq Jadoon, and Sharfuddin Ahmed Khan. 2024. "Green Algorithms: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Environmental Sustainability" Engineering Proceedings 76, no. 1: 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2024076040