*4.2. Results of Study 2*

Another dataset (*n* = 155) was used to confirm the dimensionality of the GMaS. The CFA was conducted with AMOS 23 software. We ran CFA for four models (Figures 1–4). Model 1 consisted of the initial pool of items structured into six factors based on the level and dimension of green marketing (Figure 1). Even though such a structure does not match the results of the EFA, the authors decided to check the model just for the sake of the

interest of its goodness of fit. Table 4 shows that the CFA result indicated that Model 1 fits poorly with the collected data.

The theoretical model with six latent factors did not show an acceptable fit to the data. The measurement model did not fit satisfactorily with TLI = 0.673 and CFI = 0.688). The RMSEA value determined by Model 1 was not considered acceptable, as it did not range between 0.05 and 0.08 as recommended in the literature [45].

**Table 4.** Fit indices for the models.


<sup>1</sup> Sources for norms: [45,46].

Then we ran Model 2 (Figure 2) that consisted of the four factors determined by the EFA. SPSS AMOS requires a factor to have at least three items. Therefore, the factors of marketing communication, price, and resources were eliminated from the dataset. The goodness of fit of Model 2 appeared to be insufficient (TLI = 0.844, CFI = 0.862, RMSEA = 0.100). Therefore, we aimed at ensuring the appropriateness of Model 2 by inspecting factor loadings, modification indices, and cross-loadings. We achieved a better fit by removing three items (Figure 3). We tested this four-factor model (Model 3), which returned a much better data fit (TLI = 0.917, CFI = 0.928, RMSEA = 0.076).

**Figure 1.** Model 1. The initial confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model of the Green Marketing Scale (GMaS).

**Figure 2.** Model 2. The four-factor, 23 item confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model of the Green Marketing Scale (GMaS).

**Figure 3.** Model 3. The four-factor, 20 item confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model of the Green Marketing Scale (GMaS).

Despite a good fit of Model 3, one of the scales (namely, digitalization) demonstrated insufficient internal consistency (α = 0.666). This deficiency of the model led us to slight modifications of the factor structure. Digitalization factor items were infused into marketing communication. Thus, items belonging to the factor of marketing communication were restored and merged with items of the digitalization factor (Model 4). After inspecting factor loadings and cross-loadings, fit statistics were not adequate. However, the configurations of some items improved the model fit (Figure 4).

**Figure 4.** The final four-factor, 14 item confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model of the Green Marketing Scale (GMaS).

Model 4 showed the best fit (TLI = 0.958, CFI = 0.967, RMSEA = 0.0.064). The *p* is greater than 0.05. Therefore, we conclude that the fit of the model is close. We finally conclude that Model 4 reasonably fits the data. In the final validated 14 GMaS, the Strategy subscale consists of five items (Table 5). The Strategy involves items related to dialogue with stakeholders, policy statements, culture, major goals, and beliefs. The Internal Marketing subscale consists of items about environmental activities of potential employees, rewards for environmental behavior of employees, and employee informing about green marketing. The Product factor reveals the innovation of the product, recyclability, reusability, and safety of the materials. Finally, Marketing Communication covers marketing research as a precondition for efficient communication and eco-labeling. The Cronbach alphas of the four subscales (0.908, 0.843, 0.794, and 0.801, respectively) indicated sufficient internal consistency between the items of every scale.


**Table 5.** The items in the Green Marketing Scale (GMaS).

To study the reliability, we run an analysis of compound reliability (CR) and AVE that can be seen in Table 6. In the light of the results obtained, as all the indicators are above the recommended threshold, that is, above 0.7 for CR and 0.5 for the AVE, we can confirm the reliability of the scale.

**Table 6.** Compound reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) of the measures.


Lastly, to check the measuring instrument's discriminatory validity, we made a correlation analysis whose Pearson's Coefficient (r) is far below one (Table 7). Similarly, we checked that the square values of the extracted variance are greater (Strategy: 0.82; Internal Marketing: 0.79; Product: 0.74; Marketing communication: 0.74) than the correlation values and, hence, the discriminant validity is approved [47]. Therefore, we assert that the GMaS measures different dimensions such as Strategy, Internal Marketing, Product, and Marketing Communication.

#### **Table 7.** Correlation matrix.


\*\* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

## **5. Discussion**

Green marketing is a key factor for the successful operation of businesses. It relates not only to commercial benefits (such as stronger relationships with customers, increased profit, competitive advantage, etc.) but also to environmental and social benefits due to cleaner production, increased flexibility to choose green energy. This benefit leads to improvement of the natural ecosystem and increased quality of life [2,4,23,33,48–50]. Therefore, academicians and practitioners have an increasing interest in this construct and its measurement.

The literature review has shown that former green marketing scales had a limited scope and potential to evaluate green marketing in its entirety. Specifically, previous scales focused too heavily on the tactical components of green marketing [51], sometimes on strategic components [33,34], passing over operational components of the construct. It is an issue that prevents the clarification of processes of green marketing not only at the external dimension but also at the internal dimension. Therefore, the current study attempted to develop a scale that evaluated external and internal dimensions of green marketing at strategic, tactical, and operational levels. To do this, we completed a literature review to develop an initial item pool containing recycled items from previous scales. The authors created additional items to evaluate both the external and internal facets of the green marketing construct.

In two studies, we developed the GMaS. The subscales of the final GMaS were not consistent with the suggested domains. Rather than supporting six latent variables, EFA (Study 1) discovered seven interpretable factors that were reduced to four after CFA. Some factors are consistent with the literature [20,21,26,30,48,51].

The newly developed GMaS provides a measure of an important variable in a sustainable era. GMaS is a 14-item measure of four distinct components (Strategy, Internal Marketing, Product, Marketing Communication) that demonstrated adequate factorial validity and reliability. The scale consists of Strategy, which describes values, culture, policies as the basement of green marketing, Internal Marketing that involves green marketing arousal from the side of employees, Product that involves safety, recyclability, reusability, innovativeness of green products, and Marketing Communication, which terms communication based on eco-labeling and market researches. By developing a concise scale to measure green marketing in organizational settings, we hope to advance relevant theory and research on green marketing, its contents, and consequences.
