sustainability

Article
Determinants of Green Purchase Intention: The Roles of Green
Enjoyment, Green Intrinsic Motivation, and Green Brand Love
Yu-Hsien Lin

Department of Urban Industrial Management and Marketing, University of Taipei, Taipei 10048, Taiwan;
drlinyh@go.utaipei.edu.tw

Abstract: This study investigated the relationship among green enjoyment, green brand love,
green intrinsic motivation, and green purchase intention. Data were collected from 26 August
to 16 September 2022, through a questionnaire survey distributed online, and quantitative instru-
ments were applied to analyze the data. A total of 302 randomly selected samples from consumers
with experience of green consumption were analyzed. The data were analyzed using descriptive
statistics and confirmatory factor analysis. The results revealed that the content, discriminant, and
convergent validity and reliability of the model were satisfactory. Global model analysis of green
intrinsic motivation revealed acceptable results. Moreover, structural equation modeling indicated a
satisfactory model fit to the standard sample data. Finally, the study revealed that green intrinsic
motivation positively influences green enjoyment, green brand love, and green purchase intention.
Green enjoyment positively affects green brand love and green purchase intention. Furthermore,
green enjoyment and green brand love mediate the positive relationship between green intrinsic
motivation and green purchase intention.

Keywords: green intrinsic motivation; green enjoyment; green brand love; green purchase intention

1. Introduction
Climate change is a global problem with drastic effects, including changing weather
Citation: Lin, Y.-H. Determinants of
patterns, extreme weather, food shortages, and natural resource depletion. Therefore,
Green Purchase Intention: The Roles
implementing measures for curbing climate change is imperative. The Paris Agreement was
of Green Enjoyment, Green Intrinsic
signed in 2015 as part of international efforts to curb climate disasters and global warming.
Motivation, and Green Brand Love.
Moreover, global action is being taken in response to climate-related disasters and climate
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132. https://
change. For example, the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly—Which
doi.org/10.3390/su15010132
was held in Nairobi, Kenya, from 28 February to 2 March 2022—Gathered representatives
Academic Editors: Wen-Hsien Tsai, of the 193 United Nations member states to begin the process of formulating a landmark
Hong-Youl Ha and Chu-Lun Hsieh treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution worldwide. Environmentally friendly behaviors
Received: 17 September 2022
are also crucial for alleviating the negative impacts of human activities on the environment
Revised: 9 November 2022
and have thus been promoted. The purchase of environmentally friendly products and
Accepted: 15 December 2022 services is an emerging trend. Green consumption is integral to sustainable business, nature
Published: 22 December 2022 preservation, and environmental hazard prevention in environmental protection; it must
also achieve the goals of satisfying existing consumers and attracting new consumers. Many
consumers derive personal satisfaction from living frugally and engaging in environmental
protection activities. Consequently, such consumers are willing to purchase green products
Copyright: © 2022 by the author. and services on the basis of their personal values.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
For 2020–2025, the UK Conservative–Liberal Democrat government implemented
This article is an open access article
two key policies. First, the UK government would support innovation that increases the
distributed under the terms and
environmental friendliness of products and services. Second, the UK government would
conditions of the Creative Commons
encourage resource efficiency and environmental management [1]. The environment–
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
economy nexus is a prominent topic among large companies. The manufacturing industry
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
has placed increasing emphasis on producing environmentally friendly products because
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010132 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 2 of 20

of increasing pressure from consumers, environmental activists, and government regu-

lators. The ubiquity of online customer shopping has exerted similar pressure on the
e-commerce industry to embrace environmentally conscientious supply chain practices.
To meet customer demands for environmentally friendly and sustainable products, firms
must establish green-oriented management strategies that emphasize sustainability [2].
With environmental regulations and increasing liability for producing hazardous prod-
ucts, firms are increasingly motivated to incorporate green practices in their operations.
Manufacturers are eager to implement strategies such as reverse logistics and recycling to
reduce environmental hazards and costs. Firms may be able to effectively combine existing
and newly acquired environmental knowledge to gain a competitive advantage over their
competitors in e-commerce. Environmental topics such as energy efficiency are also gaining
momentum. Numerous firms have complied with environmental regulatory standards
by adopting the market-leading Carbon Trust Standard and attaching carbon footprint
labels to their products. Environmental and consumer advocates believe in preserving
the planet and protecting the environment, and firms must consider these groups when
making decisions on green products to improve their performance.
The environment is changing, and in response, firms must use up-to-date information
to develop the techniques and secure the resources required to maintain and expand their
business operations. Environmental responsibility has become a major topic in business.
Consumers increasingly favor and are willing to pay a premium for eco-friendly prod-
ucts [2]. Environmental ethics and a sense of environmental responsibility influence how
consumers view businesses and their products and services. Consumers are becoming more
likely to make ethical or sustainable choices in purchasing situations. Modern consumers
think about, believe in the power of, and want to make ethical decisions; therefore, they
actively reduce their harmful consumption behaviors. Accordingly, compared with other
factors, firms’ green marketing strategies for their green products are crucial for gaining
market advantage [3–5].
Intrinsic motivation is autonomously activated when people engage in behaviors or
activities from which they derive inherent satisfaction, rather than deriving satisfaction
by achieving a particular outcome. However, how intrinsic motivation can be applied to
eco-friendly living and whether any connection exists between intrinsic motivation and
enjoyment in the green context require clarification. If people could satisfy their hedonic
needs by demonstrating eco-friendly behaviors, they would be driven by antecedents
relating to environmentally friendly behaviors. Marketing managers can thus boost con-
sumers’ desire for and dedication to green living and green consumption by offering
environmentally friendly products or services. The positive feedback that people receive
from engaging in green consumption enables them to meet their own ethical standards
relating to environmental protection.
Not all firms are capable of adding value to their products and services, particularly
products and services that are claimed to be environmentally friendly. Consequently, con-
sumers are prone to disbelieving the green marketing claims of firms [6]. Firms must
implement mechanisms for producing green products and services and establish guidelines
for attracting consumers to purchase such products and services. If firms could use environ-
mental factors to their advantage, their products and services would be warmly received by
consumers. A growing number of firms have certified themselves and their products and
services as energy efficient and carbon neutral. However, this measure is insufficient and
ineffective if firms do not add pleasing or hedonic elements to their products and services.
Thus, industries, instead of aiming to enhance consumer enjoyment, must implement envi-
ronmentally friendly measures to promote “green enjoyment” (GE). As reported by Davis,
Bagozzi, and Warshaw [7], enjoyment is a pleasant feeling, and firms must implement
strategies to enable consumers to derive enjoyment from their products or services in an
environmentally friendly manner. Firms must explore different environmentally friendly
factors to benefit from the green consumption trend.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 3 of 20

Green consumption is a major aspect of sustainable behavior and is an effective ap-

proach to mitigating the negative effect of human activities on the environment. Purchasing
environmentally friendly products and services can generate feelings of satisfaction among
environmentally conscious consumers [8,9], enhancing the general consumption experi-
ence. When consumers perceive themselves as having low social worth, the positive effect
of purchasing green products as part of the consumption experience is amplified [10].
Accordingly, this study introduced the new concept “green enjoyment” (GE), which is
a type of intrinsic benefit people can derive from engaging in environmentally friendly
behaviors. However, questions that remain are whether intrinsic motivation is related to
GE and whether the research framework is still reasonable when intrinsic motivation and
GE are incorporated. This study proposed that GE is crucial for green consumption and
can both increase corporate revenue and support sustainability goals.
Green brand love (GBL) is an increasingly critical topic in business. As part of the trend
of forming long-term relationships with consumers, brand love is prevalent in many differ-
ent industries. Large companies such as American Eagle Outfitters, Aeropostale, Express,
J.Crew, and H&M are contemplating launching brand love initiatives [11]. Moreover, more
companies are selling products and services labeled as environmentally friendly, leading to
another growing trend. In the 2009 Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)/Deloitte
Consulting study, GMA noted a major opportunity for companies to meet latent demands
for green products. Socially responsible or green goods and services are becoming increas-
ingly important for retailers, and their market presence continues to grow rapidly [12].
Accompanied by appropriate regulation, trade can assist the transition to a green economy
by encouraging the exchange of environmentally friendly goods and services. Tully and
Winer [12] observed that over half of all the participants in their study (60.1%) were willing
to pay a premium for such products. Laroche, Michel, Bergeron, Jasmin, and Barbaro-Forleo
Guido [13] reported that 80% of consumers who were inclined to pay a premium for green
products refused to purchase from companies that do not follow environmental regulations
or that misrepresent nongreen products as green. Firms typically announce goals to protect
the environment and reduce environmental hazards to both satisfy existing consumers
and attract new ones. In terms of personal values, people who actively participate in
various environmental protection activities derive satisfaction from living frugally and en-
gaging in environmental protection. Consequently, such consumers are willing to purchase
green products or services, given their environmental concerns and personal values [14].
Many consumers thus tend to purchase green products in the environmental era [15,16].
Some companies such as Tesla, Apple, IKEA, and Johnson & Johnson already manufacture
products made of recycled materials to actively promote GBL. Because of its increasingly
prominent role, studies have applied GBL as an antecedent construct [17] and outcome
construct [17,18], but they have failed to explore the effect of GBL on green purchase inten-
tion (GPI). The practical contributions of the current study are as follows: green brand love
is rarely analyzed with respect to its antecedent and outcome variables. Understanding
green brand love in purchase behaviors could be helpful for brand managers in developing
stronger brands. The proposed green purchase intention model also proves that green
brand love increases the effect of brand engagement on purchase attitude. The theoretical
contributions of the current study are as follows: the idea of increasing green intrinsic
motivation, green enjoyment, green brand love, and green purchase intention represents a
new strategy. Moreover, the present study proposed the new constructs green enjoyment
and analyzed the relationships among green intrinsic motivation, green enjoyment, green
brand love, and green purchase intention to fill the literature gap.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference was held in Paris in December
2015. According to the Paris Agreement, the signing parties would “pursue efforts to”
limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 ◦ C. According to the United Nations’ Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change, meeting the 1.5 ◦ C goal requires reducing carbon
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 4 of 20

emissions to zero by 2030 to 2050. In the context of global environmental protection initia-
tives and consumers’ growing environmental awareness, firms can promote GE and green
brand love (GBL) through their products and services to generate both environmental and
financial benefits. With consumers becoming more sensitive to the environmental impact
of their purchasing behaviors, brands must extend beyond claims of eco-friendliness and
identify new environmental elements to attract consumers. Consumers want to associate
products with enjoyment and as a reflection of them and their behaviors. Therefore, GE
and GBL result from consumers’ identification with a product or service. Accordingly, the
present study explored the crucial elements in consumers’ emotional connection to brands.

2.1. Positive Effect of GIM on GE

Studies have often measured intrinsic motivation in a unidimensional manner and
have regarded high intrinsic motivation as indicative of low extrinsic motivation [19–21].
Deci and Ryan [22] defined intrinsic motivation as the execution of an activity because
of its inherent appeal and satisfaction. Therefore, intrinsic motivation can be described
as a desire to perform an activity or behavior or to achieve a standard. In contrast to
intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation refers to the execution of an activity under the
influence of an external force. Harter [23] studied the learning motivation of high school
students in four states in the United States; he divided motivation into extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation and proposed that students would engage in an academic task for intrinsic or
extrinsic reasons, or both. He used 16 items to assess each motivation type on separate
subscales. The results revealed that intrinsic motivation decreased from Grade 3 to Grade 9.
Intrinsic motivation encourages people to perform an action because of its own inherent
characteristics, whereas extrinsic motivation encourages people to perform an action to
achieve a separable outcome, such as receiving money or fame [24]. Intrinsically motivated
behaviors are those performed without any reward or a valued consequence. Deci et al. [24]
reported that people attribute less intrinsic motivation to individuals who receive greater
rewards for an activity than they do to those who receive fewer rewards. Furthermore,
Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer [25] reported that handmade products are given more
favorable evaluations, because the producers were perceived as having intrinsic (rather than
extrinsic) motivation. Li et al. [26] stated that green intrinsic motivation (GIM) is operative
when people or employees perceive their locus of causality to be internal. The current study
referred to the aforementioned explanation of intrinsic motivation and applied a six-item
scale to measure GIM. GIM reflects an individual’s tendency to engage in proenvironmental
behaviors as well as their interest in, curiosity toward, and self-expression related to green
products. For example, a person who purchases more environmentally friendly products
because they perceive the products as interesting or because they believe that they can
derive satisfaction from performing this proenvironmental behavior rather than perceiving
the product as being of value to them is demonstrating the behavior on the basis of intrinsic
motivation rather than for extrinsic reasons.
Enjoyment is conceptually linked to motivation through positive feelings associated
with performing an activity when intrinsically motivated [27]. Some scholars have asserted
that enjoyment is an attitude [28] or experiential state [29], whereas others have argued
that the definition of enjoyment is rooted in intrinsic motivation [29,30]. Waterman [31]
stated that “hedonic enjoyment may be expected to be felt whenever a pleasant effect
accompanies the satisfaction of needs, whether physical, intellectual, or socially based”
(p. 679). Enjoyment is the satisfaction of both hedonic and nonhedonic intrinsic needs [32],
whereby people perceive the behavior itself to be intrinsically interesting or pleasurable.
Studies have yet to explore the relationship between GIM and GE. Accordingly, the present
study was conducted to fill this research gap. On the basis of the definition of enjoyment
provided by Tamborini et al. [32], the present study defined GE as the satisfaction of both
hedonic and nonhedonic needs through the execution of eco-friendly behaviors. This study
applied a three-item scale to measure GE. When consumers engage in an environmentally
friendly behavior, they experience self-endorsement of their actions, behaviors, and volition.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 5 of 20

Therefore, when consumers are intrinsically motivated by green products or services, they
are likely to enjoy the experience of expressing their positive feelings about sustainability
and eco-friendliness. Through GIM, the purchase behavior itself is rewarding, the con-
sumption situation is pleasurable, and GE is experienced. Therefore, this study proposed
the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). GIM positively influences GE.

2.2. Positive Effect of GIM on GBL

Intrinsic motivation is characterized by personal investment and engagement [33].
Li et al. [26] asserted that with intrinsic motivation, this investment is based on an interest
in and passion for preserving and caring for the environment. Environmental ethics
underlie GIM, which in turn drives the purchasing of environmentally friendly products
and services. Li et al. [26] noted that GIM reflects an employee’s inherent interest in, love
for, passion about, enjoyment of, or satisfaction from proenvironmental behavior. Ali,
Ashfaq, Begum, and Ali [34] conducted a study in three cities in China to investigate young
Chinese consumers’ behaviors toward purchasing electronic products. They determined
that GIM has a positive effect on GPI. However, evidence indicating whether GIM affects
GBL is lacking. The present study thus explored the relationship between GIM and GBL to
fill the research gap.
Brand love refers to consumers’ love for and attachment to a specific brand [35–37]
and was first empirically studied by Ahuvia [38] in 1993. Fournier [39] stated that love
is a core element of consumers’ relationships with brands. Brand love is a fundamental
element for forming brand loyalty and can be regarded as an antecedent of brand loyalty.
Brand love can be regarded as a relationship between consumers and brands rather than an
emotion itself [40]. Additionally, Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, and Iacobucci [41]
used the term “brand love emotion” to refer to the specific affective state generated through
the consumer–brand relationship. Although the definition of brand love is clear and has
been mentioned by numerous scholars, the numbers of dimensions and the measurement
methods for brand love vary. Researchers have identified several dimensions of brand love,
ranging from 1 (e.g., [42]) to 11 dimensions [43]. Carroll and Ahuvia [42] and Bergkvist
and Bech-Larsen [44] have both maintained that brand love is a unidimensional construct.
Batra et al. [40] stated that brand love consists of three factors: passion-driven behaviors,
self–brand integration, and positive emotional connection. Moreover, Verma [45] pro-
posed that the concept consist of the following factors: high quality, emotion, and passion.
Batra et al. [40] argued that brand love, as consumers experience it, is best represented
as a higher-order construct that includes multiple cognitions, emotions, and behaviors,
which consumers organize into a prototype or cognitive reference point. The present study
defined GBL as the intensity of positive emotions and enthusiasm consumers have toward
a green brand. Salehzadeh, Sayedan, Mirmehdi, and Aqagoli [18] asserted that GBL is
inherently dynamic and changes over time. Salehzadeh et al. [18] developed a seven-item
scale for measuring GBL; the present study used this scale as a reference to design a seven-
item GBL scale. Love for the environment is an essential element of GIM. Consumers who
feel more intrinsically motivated to purchase environmentally friendly products likely have
a higher degree of GBL. Accordingly, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). GIM positively influences GBL.

2.3. Positive Effect of GIM on GPI

Intrinsic motivation refers to an inner force that drives an individual’s behavior. Shang,
Chen, and Shen [46] used extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation to assess consumer
online shopping behavior. They determined that extrinsic motivation consists of only one
factor, namely, perceived usefulness, whereas intrinsic motivation consists of two factors,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 6 of 20

namely, perceived ease of use and cognitive absorption; their results revealed that intrinsic
motivation has positive effects on online shopping. Kim, Lee, and Bonn [47] studied
travel-related purchase intention among older adult users of mobile social networking
sites. They determined that extrinsic motivation consists of the factors of usefulness and
social interaction and that intrinsic motivation consists of enjoyment and self-efficacy; their
results indicated that intrinsic motivation has a positive effect on purchase intention.
Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal [48] studied the effects of price, brand, and store infor-
mation on buyers’ perceptions of product quality and value as well as their willingness
to buy. They used a five-item scale to assess purchase intention. They reported that price,
brand, and store information affect perceived quality, perceived sacrifice, and perceived
value as well as consumers’ willingness to buy. Chen and Deng [49] defined green purchase
intention (GPI) as an individual’s readiness to demonstration green purchase behaviors,
mainly in consideration of pollution reduction. Li et al. [26] also reported that individuals
with high GIM tend to exhibit eco-friendly behaviors. On the basis of Chen and Deng’s [49]
definition of GPI, the present study developed a four-item scale to measure GPI.
The present study posited that consumers’ values and interests determine whether they
are likely to distinguish between environmentally friendly and environmentally unfriendly
products, and hence, whether their GIM engenders an intention to reduce pollution through
their purchase behavior. Environmentally unfriendly products include those that do not
use recyclable components or appropriate materials for packaging and those manufactured
using legal or illegal harmful substances. In contrast, environmentally friendly products
include those that use natural substances and sustainable materials and that reduce adverse
environmental effects. Lastovica, Bettencourt, Hughner, and Kuntze [50] noted that frugal
and eco-centric motivations have positive effects on consumers’ product use behavior.
People with high GIM would be expected to purchase eco-friendly products and services.
Therefore, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). GIM positively influences GPI.

2.4. Positive Effect of GE on GBL

Waterman [51] stated that feelings of personal expressiveness arise when a person
is in the process of self-realization through the fulfillment of their personal potentials,
when personal potentials take the form of the “development of one’s skills and talents, the
advancement of one’s purpose in living, or both” (p. 679). Ryan, Rigby, and Przybylski [52]
conducted a study of video game players and reported that they experienced enjoyment
through expressions of competency and autonomy while playing. On the basis of the
theory presented by Ryan et al. [52], Tamborini et al. [32] determined that enjoyment is
an experience that includes the satisfaction of hedonic and nonhedonic needs. Tamborini
et al. [32] referred to Vorderer’s [53] two-factor model of media enjoyment when testing
their model of hedonic and nonhedonic needs in video game players and interactive video
game players. Vorderer’s model includes a lower-order factor labeled enjoyment and
a higher-order factor labeled appreciation. Vorderer [53] indicated that enjoyment and
appreciation could be satisfied separately through exposure to diverse forms of media
entertainment. Tamborini et al. [32] developed an enjoyment model by replacing the terms
“lower-order” and “higher-order” with the terms “hedonic” and “nonhedonic” to examine
how the hedonic (arousal and absorption) and nonhedonic (competence, autonomy, and
relatedness) components of need satisfaction are related to each other in the context of
media entertainment. They used three- and seven-item scales to measure enjoyment in
video game players and interactive video game players, respectively; their findings provide
valuable insight into need satisfaction and extend the scholarly understanding of enjoyment
and its conceptualization. According to the aforementioned literature, GE can be regarded
as the satisfaction of hedonic and nonhedonic needs rooted in eco-friendly behaviors.
Enjoyment is still a major topic in the field of marketing, particularly in relation to green
consumption. For example, Ford offers mass customization options for online consumers,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 7 of 20

thereby increasing consumers’ enjoyment when they are choosing products. To reduce
costs and increase customer responsiveness, firms may develop products that are perceived
as environmentally friendly and that can be used to increase GE. Green consumers tend
to develop strong relationships with trustworthy brands that provide green products or
services. Furthermore, if others perceive green consumers as enjoying green consumption
and as gaining satisfaction through interaction with the environment, they may also be
attached to an eco-friendly brand. Engaging in an environmentally friendly behavior can
also elicit positive emotions through the generation of a positive self-image. Through their
relationship with brands, consumers gain opportunities to construct and maintain their
identity and to achieve feelings of love and attachment. The more GE they experience, the
more positive emotions and enthusiasm they feel. Understanding how to initiate, develop,
and maintain high quality consumer–firm relationships is critical for business success [54].
Carroll and Ahuvia [42] argued that brand love has a much stronger affective focus
than satisfaction does. Brand love is influenced by various factors, including intrinsic
motivation, passion-driven behaviors, and self–brand integration. GBL reflects consumers’
positive emotion toward and attachment to a brand that emphasizes sustainability and
eco-friendly business practices through its products and services. People who have positive
environmentally friendly purchasing experiences have a greater willingness to declare their
love for green brands. Their GE experiences increase their preference for and confidence in
the products and services of brands that do not harm the environment. Accordingly, this
study proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4 (H4). GE positively influences GBL.

2.5. Positive Effect of GE on GPI

Xu, Chen, Peng, and Anser [55] investigated the behavior of consumers engaging in
online shopping in China. They reported that certain game elements affect consumers’
enjoyment and psychological need satisfaction, thus influencing their online purchase
intention. Furthermore, Wang, Yeh, and Liao [56] analyzed consumer intention to purchase
online content services; they determined that perceived enjoyment directly influences
purchase intention. Enjoyment is experienced when needs, including physical, intellectual,
and social, are satisfied [51]. GE is a form of happiness that generates hedonic satis-
faction through purchase of green products or services. Purchasing is not only about
obtaining products or services but is also an enjoyable experience and a form of entertain-
ment [57]. Most studies have reported that enjoyment has a positive effect on purchase
intention [55,56], which increases consumers’ positive attitude toward specific products
or services. Consumers especially experience pleasure when they purchase innovative
products and support ethical brands, increasing purchase intention. Thus, GE has an effect
on both consumers’ attitude and behavioral intention.
Environmental concern is becoming increasingly prevalent in modern society. Laroche,
Begeron, and Barbaro-Forleo [13] asserted that consumers with higher levels of environmen-
tal concern are more likely to practice environmentally friendly consumption. Therefore,
when an individual perceives products and services to be environmentally friendly, their
purchase intention toward such products and services is enhanced. If an individual has
strong environmental ethics, they may wish to purchase green products to satisfy their
hedonic goals. By using green products, consumers perceive that they have contributed to
environmental conservation. GE, as the satisfaction of needs relating to the consumption of
green products and services, affects consumers’ GPI. Therefore, this study proposed the
following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5 (H5). GE Positively Influences GPI.

Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 8 of 20

2.6. Positive Effect of GBL on GPI

Brand love is associated with passion-driven purchase behaviors [40], commitment,
affection, connection [58], consumer–brand identification [59], and the consumer–brand
relationship [60]. Batra et al. [33] argued that brand love has a significant effect on purchase
intention in that it can increase consumers’ willingness to pay a higher price and can
generate customer value. Scholars [45,61–63] have observed that consumers frequently
make purchase decisions on the basis of brand love. The present study speculated that
a person with GBL toward a particular brand is more likely to specifically purchase that
brand’s products or services. When consumers purchase environmentally friendly or sus-
tainable products and services, they perceive that they are contributing to the development
of a circular economy. Bagozzi, Batra, and Ahuvia [11] maintained that brand love is a
crucial topic among brands and marketers. Consumers’ GBL increases their willingness to
purchase green products. For example, BMW claims that no two vehicles it manufactures
are identical. In this manner, BMW promotes a unique type of brand love for BMW based
in its products’ uniqueness, which can strengthen the bond BMW has with its consumers.
Green brands are brands that consumers associate with environmental conservation
and eco-friendliness and that typically minimize their environmental impact in the pro-
duction and shipping stages. Salehzadeh et al. [18] maintained that green brands generate
benefits such as enhanced reputation through the reduction of their environmental impact.
GBL is at the core of the relationship between consumers and green brands; eco-conscious
consumers having a positive perception of such brands can lead to GPI and brand loyalty.
Papista and Dimitriadis [64] conducted a study of brand love and its outcome variables;
they indicated that the consumer–green brand relationship quality and consumer satisfac-
tion with the green brand have a significant impact on the following behavioral outcomes:
word-of-mouth (WOM), expectation of continuity, and cross-buying. Thus, they argued
that green brands could be considered a means through which consumers express their
environmental concerns while still enjoying similar levels of functional performance to
those afforded by conventional brands. GBL increases consumers’ expectancy of product
quality and environmental friendliness. Therefore, GBL drives consumers to purchase
eco-friendly products with a low environmental impact. GBL thus represents a strong bond
between consumers and a green brand and is expected to positively affect GPI. Accordingly,
this study proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6 (H6). GBL positively influences GPI.

3. Methods
This study used SPSS version 22 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) for factor analysis. This
study used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the hypotheses. The research
framework is illustrated in Figure 1.

3.1. Measurement Scales

This study applied two pretests involving questions on GIM and GE; after the pretest,
the questionnaire was revised to ensure content validity. First, the developed questionnaire
was presented during interviews with 10 part-time MBA students with a minimum of
3 years of business experience. They provided feedback about whether the questionnaire
items were worded ambiguously. Additionally, the questionnaire was distributed over the
Internet by using the PTT Bulletin Board System (the largest terminal-based bulletin board
system based in Taiwan) to 10 consumers with a minimum of 3 years of green consumption
experience. The items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale with anchors ranging from
1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”).
Sustainability 2023,15,
Sustainability2023, 15,132
x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of
9 of 2120

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Research
Research framework.
framework.

3.1. Measurement
Tables 1 andScales 2 present the results of this study and other related studies. As summa-
rizedThisin the tables,
study the concepts
applied two pretests proposed
involvingin this study are
questions on GIMinnovative
and GE; and dothe
after notpretest,
overlap
with those in related
the questionnaire wasstudies.
revised A topretest
ensure andcontent factor analysis
validity. were
First, theconducted
developedon the GIM,
question-
GE,
naireGBL,
was and GPI subscales.
presented According
during interviews withto 10thepart-time
exploratory MBA factor analysis
students withresults,
a minimum items
1, 2, and 5 of the GIM subscale had factor loadings of 0.786,
of 3 years of business experience. They provided feedback about whether the question- 0.860, and 0.691, respectively,
and
nairewere
items thus
were removed.
worded Items 2, 4, 5, and
ambiguously. 7 of the GBL
Additionally, the subscale had factor
questionnaire loadings of
was distributed
0.864, 0.861, 0.885, and 0.891, respectively, and were thus
over the Internet by using the PTT Bulletin Board System (the largest terminal-based removed. Furthermore, item 3 of
bul-
the GPI subscale had a factor loading of 0.739 and was also
letin board system based in Taiwan) to 10 consumers with a minimum of 3 years of green removed. The items that had
cross-loadings on more than
consumption experience. Theone factor
items were
were removed
scored on a to avoid Likert
7-point multicollinearity
scale with [65]. anchors This
study
ranging identified variables disagree”)
from 1 (“strongly relevant toto GPI and used agree”).
7 (“strongly them to effectively measure GPI. The
definitions
Tablesand 1 and measurements
2 present the of the constructs
results of this study in this
andstudy
other are described
related studies. asAsfollows:
summa-
rized in the tables, the concepts proposed in this study are innovative and do not overlapTo
GIM. This study referred to Li et al. [26], who measured intrinsic motivation.
measure
with those GIM, the following
in related studies.six Aitems
pretest were
andused: factor(1)analysis
“I enjoywere thinking of newon
conducted green ideas”,
the GIM,
(2) “I enjoy trying to complete environmental tasks in my workplace”,
GE, GBL, and GPI subscales. According to the exploratory factor analysis results, items 1, (3) “I enjoy tackling
environmental
2, and 5 of the tasks that are completely
GIM subscale new”, (4)of
had factor loadings “I 0.786,
enjoy 0.860,
improving existing
and 0.691, green ideas
respectively,
in
andmywereworkplace”,
thus removed. (5) “I become
Items 2,excited
4, 5, andwhen 7 of Ithe
have GBLnew green ideas”,
subscale had factorand loadings
(6) “I would of
like to 0.861,
0.864, become moreand
0.885, engaged in the development
0.891, respectively, and were of green ideas”. Furthermore, item 3
thus removed.
of theGE. GPIThis studyhad
subscale referenced the survey
a factor loading of 0.739of Tamborini
and was also et al. [32] to measure
removed. The itemsGE thatby
applying the following
had cross-loadings on morefive items:
than one (1)factor
“The products
were removed or services
to avoid were enjoyable”, (2)[65].
multicollinearity “The
products or services were entertaining”, (3) “The products
This study identified variables relevant to GPI and used them to effectively measure GPI. or services were appealing”,
(4)
The“The products
definitions and ormeasurements
services were of pleasant”,
the constructsand (5)in“The products
this study or servicesaswere
are described fun”.
follows:
GBL. This study referred to Salehzadeh et al. [18] for
GIM. This study referred to Li et al. [26], who measured intrinsic motivation. To the measurement of GBL, which
was performed
measure GIM, the using the following
following six items seven
were used: items(1)related
“I enjoy tothinking
environmental
of new greenproducts and
ideas”,
services recently
(2) “I enjoy tryingused by the respondents:
to complete environmental (1)tasks
“Thisinismy a wonderful
workplace”, green
(3) “Ibrand”, (2) “This
enjoy tackling
green brand makes
environmental tasksme feel
that aregood”, (3) “This
completely new”, green(4) brand
“I enjoy is improving
amazing”, (4) “Thisgreen
existing greenideasbrand
makes me very happy”,
in my workplace”, (5) “I(5) “I loveexcited
become this green
when brand”,
I have (6) new “Igreen
am passionate
ideas”, and about
(6) “Ithis green
would
brand”, and (7) “I am very attached to this
like to become more engaged in the development of green ideas”. green brand”.
GPI. Thisstudy
GE. This studyreferenced
referred to theChen
surveyand of Deng
Tamborini[49] to et measure
al. [32] toGPImeasureand applied
GE by ap- the
following four items: (1) “Purchasing green products is more
plying the following five items: (1) “The products or services were enjoyable”, (2) “The beneficial than purchasing
nongreen
products or products”,
services were (2) “Purchasing
entertaining”, green
(3) “Theenergy-saving
products or products
services makes me happy”,
were appealing”,
(3)
(4) “When purchasing
“The products a product,
or services wereI pleasant”,
consider how and it(5)affects the environment”,
“The products or servicesand were (4)fun”.
“I am
willing to spend a little more money to purchase green products”.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 10 of 20

Table 1. Constructs.

Green Intrinsic Green Green Purchase

Constructs Green Brand Love
Motivation Enjoyment Intention
Ali, Ashfaq, Begum, and Ali
X X
(2020) [34]
Li, Bhutto, Wang, Maitlo, Zafar,
X
and Bhutto (2020) [26]
Wu and Chen (2019) [17] X
Salehzadeh, Sayedan, Mirmehdi,
X
and Aqagoli (2021) [18]
Our paper X X X X
Remarks New concept

Table 2. Variables.

Green Intrinsic Green Green Brand Green Purchase

Constructs Other
Motivation Enjoyment Love Intention
Ali, Ashfaq, Begum, and Green thinking and
X X
Ali (2020) [34] green altruism
Li, Bhutto, Wang, Maitlo, Green transformational
Zafar, and Bhutto X leadership, green extrinsic
(2020) [26] motivation, and green creativity
Green brand empowerment,
green brand perceptual
evaluation, green brand
Wu and Chen (2019) [17] X co-creation, green brand regret,
green brand experiential
satisfaction, and green brand
supportive intentions
Salehzadeh, Sayedan,
Green brand image, green trust,
Mirmehdi, and Aqagoli X
and green attitude
(2021) [18]

3.2. Data Collection and Study Sample

This study focused on green consumers in Taiwan, which was appropriate for sev-
eral reasons. Taiwan has a flourishing business-to-business and business-to-consumer
e-commerce environment, the growth of which has changed the traditional business mode
of in-store purchasing and generated considerable profit. Second, Taiwanese firms have
developed green products and services to satisfy green customers’ needs, with many of
such firms using a circular economy design for sustainable environmental, engineering,
and social solutions. Third, even under the ongoing economic crisis, Taiwanese consumers’
attitudes and behaviors toward green products have been changing favorably, with many
embracing green products and services [66]. Furthermore, Taiwan’s government has com-
mitted to reducing Taiwan’s dependence on imported energy resources and raw materials,
thus supporting the development of a circular economy.
The questionnaire survey was distributed online through social media channels for
data collection. Only people who reported having green consumption experience were
eligible for inclusion in the study. E-mail addresses were collected to facilitate contact
and were reviewed to ensure that they matched a standard format. To avoid common
method variance, respondents were assured of their anonymity and the confidentiality
of their responses, and they were requested to respond honestly to reduce the chance of
social desirability bias affecting the results. The respondents were divided into two broad
groups (Groups A and B) for questionnaire completion. The respondents in Group A were
requested to respond to questionnaire items related to GIM and GE (Questionnaire A);
concurrently, those in Group B were requested to respond to questionnaire items related to
GBL and GPI (Questionnaire B). When the respondents in Group A completed the items,
the author sent them the questionnaire items related to GBL and GPI (Questionnaire B);
similarly, when the respondents in Group B completed the items, the author sent them the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 11 of 20

questionnaire items related to GIM and GE (Questionnaire A). A total of 302 completed
questionnaires were retrieved from 386 distributed questionnaires; the response rate was
78.24%. This study adopted convenience sampling to collect the data samples. Convenience
sampling enables the researcher to freely choose sample group members. Nonprobability
sampling lacks the advantage of every data sample of a particular size having an equal
chance of being selected, but this is often unavoidable. Because online data collection is
quick and cost-effective, many researchers have embraced this nonrepresentative method.
Harvard’s Project Implicit, which offers implicit-association tests, is one example. The
nonprobability sampling procedure relies on the person conducting the sampling, which
can elicit other complicated concerns. This person conducting the sampling must be
knowledgeable of the population and phenomena being studied [67]. However, simple
random sampling is a favored method for achieving sufficient external validity. Moreover,
a larger sample size is required to eliminate the margin of error.

4. Results
All measures used were first refined using Cronbach’s α and then tested through
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). LISREL 8.7 was applied to test the hypothesized links
and the obtained results. The study employed SEM to assess both the measurement and
structural models for construct validity and path analysis.

4.1. Measurement Model Results

Analysis of the squared multiple correlations revealed that most survey items reached
the conventionally accepted threshold of 0.30 [68]. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a
single-factor solution for each of the four constructs. The single-factor solutions cumula-
tively explained more than 60% of the variance, reducing the likelihood of common method
bias. Finally, CFA was used to test the construct validity of the scales used in the study.

4.2. SEM Results

This study used descriptive statistics to describe the basic features of the study data.
Table 3 presents the correlations between the constructs and indicates that the means and
standard deviations followed normal distributions. Positive correlations were also observed
among GIM, GE, GBL, and GPI (Table 3). Table 4 presents a summary of the results of the
factor analyses of the data set. Every construct had only a single underlying dimension.
In the present study, after the design of the questionnaire items and assessment of the
factor structure according to common empirical approaches, two pretests were conducted;
the test results constituted the basis for subsequent questionnaire revision to ensure the
content validity. The questionnaires were distributed through online social media networks.
Reliability testing was performed as follows, with the results demonstrating the validity
of the measurements. First, this study tested each of the items to determine if they had
significant loadings. Second, reliability was assessed using the loadings of individual
items for all four constructs. After the executed exploratory factor analysis, the author
removed three out of six items in the GIM dimension, four out of seven items in the
GBL dimension, and one out of four items in the GPI dimension. Table 5 lists the factor
loadings of all items for each construct. Cronbach’s α was then used to calculate the internal
consistency coefficients of the items in order to estimate the reliability of the questionnaire
measurements. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of GIM was 0.91, that of GE was 0.86, that
of GBL was 0.62, and that of GPI was 0.89. Because the Cronbach’s α coefficients of all
four constructs exceeded 0.6 [69], the measurements were both stable and reliable. The
variance inflation factor values of the exogenous constructs were all less than 5 and are
listed in Table 4. This study had no multicollinearity problem [68], and the results exhibited
acceptable reliability and validity.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 12 of 20

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients.

Constructs Mean Standard Deviation A. B. C.

GIM 4.8808 0.99192
GE 5.1815 0.74846 0.534 **
GBL 4.9901 0.93785 0.568 ** 0.637 **
GPI 5.3035 0.90088 0.513 ** 0.600 ** 0.607 **
Note: ** p < 0.01.

Table 4. Factor Analysis, Multicollinearity Tolerance Test, and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) Results.

Accumulation on Percentage
Constructs Number of Items Number of Factors VIF Tolerance
of Explained Variance
GIM 3 1 71.105% 1.647 0.607
GE 5 1 65.813% 1.998 0.501
GBL 3 1 70.083% 2.099 0.476
GPI 4 1 73.622% 1.861 0.537

Table 5. Item Factor Loadings and Construct Cronbach’s α Coefficients and AVE Values.

Squared Multiple The Square

Constructs Items λ Cronbach’s α AVE
Correlation Root of AVE
GIM1 0.68 0.78 **
GIM GIM2 0.72 0.78 ** 0.91 0.58 0.762
GIM3 0.74 0.77 **
GE1 0.66 0.44 **
GE2 0.62 0.38 **
GE GE3 0.59 0.35 ** 0.86 0.67 0.819
GE4 0.68 046 **
GE5 0.73 053 **
GAC1 0.71 0.50 **
GAC GAC2 0.70 0.79 ** 0.62 0.62 0.787
GAC3 0.79 0.62 **
GPI1 0.71 0.50 **
GCA GPI2 0.66 0.44 ** 0.89 0.54 0.735
GPI3 0.58 0.34 **
Note: ** p < 0.01.

This study analyzed the validity of the four constructs through CFA. The average
variance extracted (AVE), which is a measure of the variance captured by the construct
in relation to the variance resulting from measurement error, was also applied to assess
discriminant validity [70]. For discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE of each
construct must exceed the coefficient of the correlation of this construct with any other
construct. As indicated in Table 3, the model had desirable psychometric properties. For
example, the square roots of the AVE for the two constructs GIM and GE were 0.762 and
0.819, respectively, and thus exceeded the correlation between the two constructs (0.534).
The AVE for each latent construct exceeded the 0.5 threshold, and construct reliability
must exceed 0.7 for all model constructs. Table 5 presents the factor loading, AVE, and
construct reliability results. The AVE values for GIM, GE, GBL, and GPI were 0.58, 0.67,
0.62, and 0.54, respectively, all of which exceeded 0.5, thus indicating acceptable convergent
validity. Model validity was determined using convergent and discriminant validity. The
results revealed that the model was adaptable and suitable for assessment, and it had
adequate reliability and validity. This study used the PROCESS macro version 2.15 to
test the mediating effect of GE on the relationship between GIM and GBL; the effect sizes
were 0.059 and 0.250, respectively. Harman’s single-factor test was used to avoid common
method bias. The variance value in this test was 40.94%, which was less than the threshold
of 50%. Therefore, this study had no common method bias problem.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 13 of 20

In the explicit statistical test of the measurement model and structural model, the
chi-square difference test revealed that χ2 (11.9, 3) > 11.34 at the 0.01% significance level.
Thus, this study assessed the hypothesized paths in the structural model. As presented in
Table 6, the path analysis revealed that GIM influenced GE (t = 9.15), thus supporting H1.
GIM had a positive direct effect on GBL (t = 7.81) and GPI (t = 3.73); thus, H2 and H3 are
fully supported. This finding is consistent with that obtained by Ali et al. [34]. GIM had a
positive effect on GPI. Moreover, GIM had a significant total effect on GPI when influenced
by GE and GBL (t = 5.35). GE positively influenced GBL (t = 5.39) and GPI (t = 2.60), thus
supporting H4 and H5. H6, which referred to the relationship between GBL and GPI, was
also supported. Therefore, GIM, GE, GBL, and GPI were positively correlated and GBL
positively affected GPI.

Table 6. Measures of Overall Model Fit.

Hypothesis Measurement Model Estimates Results

X2 Sig No, 262.47
SRMR < 0.08 Yes, 0.052
Absolute Fit Measures
RMSEA < 0.1 Yes, 0.0095
GFI > 0.80 Yes, 0.89
AGFI > 0.80 Yes, 0.84
NFI > 0.80 Yes, 0.85
NNFI > 0.90 Yes, 0.85
Incremental Fit Measures
CFI > 0.90 No, 0.88
RFI > 0.90 No, 0.79
IFI > 0.90 No, 0.88
PNFI > 0.50 Yes, 0.66
PGFI > 0.50 Yes, 0.60
Parsimonious Fit Measures
χ2 /df < 5 Yes, 3.70
CN > 200 No, 110.06

The CFA results also indicated that the overall fit was acceptable and that the measure-
ment model indicators were substantial and highly significant (GFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.095,
NFI = 0.85, and CFI = 0.88). Seyal, Rahman, and Rahim [71] suggested that a GFI that
exceeds 0.8 implies a satisfactory fit. Furthermore, χ2 /df must not exceed the threshold
of 3 [72], and NFI must exceed the recommended value of 0.8 [73]. Moreover, the AGFI
value must be higher than the recommended value of 0.8 [71]. An RMSEA value of <0.1 is
desirable, but an RMSEA value of <0.08 is preferable [74]. On the basis of these criteria, the
results of this study (Table 6) indicated a favorable goodness of fit; hence, the study model
was determined to be reasonably consistent with the data. Table 7 lists the direct, indirect,
and total effects of the factors from one SEM example.

Table 7. Effects of Factors Based on the Structural Equation Modeling Example.

Coefficients
Path
Effect t-Value
GIM → GE
Hypothesis 1 Direct Effect 0.74 9.15 *
Indirect Effect – –
Total Effect 0.74 9.15 *
GIM → GBL
Hypothesis 2 Direct Effect 0.45 7.81 *
Indirect Effect 0.36 7.56 *
Total Effect 0.68 11.42 *
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 14 of 20

Table 7. Cont.

Coefficients
Path
Effect t-Value
GIM → GPI
Hypothesis 3 Direct Effect 0.37 3.73 *
Indirect Effect 0.43 5.35 *
Total Effect 0.80 13.62 *
GE → GBL
Hypothesis 4 Direct Effect 0.58 5.39 *
Indirect Effect – –
Total Effect 0.58 5.39 *
GE → GPI
Hypothesis 5 Direct Effect 0.41 2.60 *
Indirect Effect 0.25 2.19 *
Total Effect 0.66 5.41 *
GBL → GPI
Hypothesis 6 Direct Effect 0.43 2.28 *
Indirect Effect – –
Total Effect 0.43 2.28 *
Note: * p < 0.5.

Figure 2 depicts the study model. All six paths estimated were significant. The orig-
inal figure was exported from the statistical software and is presented in Appendix A.
GE positively influenced GBL and GPI. Additionally, this study revealed that GE ex-
erted partial mediating effects on the positive relationship between GIM and GBL (0.36,
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21
* p < 0.05). Therefore, all study hypotheses were supported.

Figure 2. Results of the full model.

Figure 2. Results of the full model.
5. Conclusions
5.1. Practical Implications
The findings relating to GIM provide market managers with new insights into con-
sumers’ environmental and sustainability concerns and contribute to the current under-
standing of the development of a green economy. Davari and Strutton [75] maintained
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 15 of 20

5. Conclusions
5.1. Practical Implications
The findings relating to GIM provide market managers with new insights into con-
sumers’ environmental and sustainability concerns and contribute to the current under-
standing of the development of a green economy. Davari and Strutton [75] maintained
that consumers with a more favorable attitude toward the environment are more likely
to have the intrinsic motivation to search for and use green products. Deci and Ryan [76]
observed that feelings of personal expressiveness are closely related to feelings associated
with intrinsic motivation. GIM is a key factor driving individuals’ green purchase behaviors.
Moreover, this study verified that higher levels of GIM are associated with higher levels of
green consumption.
Waterman [77] indicated that when an individual is intrinsically motivated or is in
a psychological state of flow, they are most likely to engage in personal expressiveness.
Deci and Ryan [27] advocated that enjoyment is conceptually linked to motivation through
positive feelings associated with performing an activity when intrinsically motivated. GIM
is generated when people engage in an environmentally friendly activity from which they
experience positive feelings. Although enjoyment is theoretically rooted in pleasure and
pain, feelings of personal expressiveness are conceptually linked with feelings associated
with intrinsic motivation [77]. GE is generated alongside satisfaction with and interest in
green products or services. GIM guides individuals in manifesting their environmentally
conscious thinking as behaviors. Hence, GIM provides a starting point for investigating GE
and other variables through additional marketing-related and environment-related research.
No previous study has explored a concept similar to GE. Accordingly, the present
study investigated the relationships between GE and three related concepts. GE is gener-
ated through green consumption and represents the satisfaction of the need to demonstrate
environmentally friendly behaviors. This study discussed GIM, GE, GBL, and GPI, all
of which together constitute the cornerstone of green business. A thorough understand-
ing of these factors can enrich the debates on green economy theory and environmental
protection strategies.
This study identified the process that forms GBL, which, alongside GE, is a product
of consumer satisfaction. GBL reflects the emotion and connection consumers’ have for
brands with eco-friendly products and services. The results indicate that GBL increases GPI.
The concept and impact of GBL is expected to attract considerable attention in the future.
The results of this study reveal that GIM positively affects GE and GBL. Moreover, GE
positively influences GBL and GPI. GE and GBL also positively influence GPI. These results
support the proposed hypotheses. Additionally, the results indicate that GIM not only
directly and positively influences green purchasing but also indirectly affects it through
the partial mediating effect of GE and GBL. These empirical findings constitute valuable
contributions to the literature on green business and green consumption and highlight the
value of promoting GIM.
This study demonstrated that GIM positively affects GE, GBL, and GPI and that GBL
mediates the positive relationship between GE and GPI. Furthermore, the mediating role
of GE was identified in the present study. First, GE can indirectly influence GPI. Second,
increased GE can strengthen the positive relationship between GIM and GPI. This result
implies that promoting GIM and GE is a valuable measure for firms to take in their efforts
to drive GPI through GBL. Third, because no previous study has investigated the role of
GBL, the present study is the first to demonstrate its mediating role in the relationship
between GE and GPI. Finally, this study proposes the concept of GE and thus contributes
to the development of a new approach for analyzing GIM. GBL is rarely analyzed with
respect to its antecedent and outcome variables. Understanding GBL in purchase behaviors
could be helpful for brand managers in creating stronger brands. This study depicts GIM
and GE as drivers of GBL which is relatively new. The proposed GPI model also proves
that GBL reinforces the effect of brand engagement on purchase attitude.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 16 of 20

5.2. Theoretical Implication

The theoretical contributions of this study are as follows. First, the idea of increasing
GIM, GE, GBL, and GPI represents a novel and innovative strategy. Second, although the
concepts of GBL and GPI have been examined in other studies, the present study proposed
the new constructs of GIM and GE and analyzed the relationships among GIM, GE, GBL,
and GPI to fill the literature gap. Third, this study integrated the concepts of GIM, GE,
GBL, and GPI into a research framework of GPI to extend green economy research. Fourth,
Salehzadeh et al. [18] determined that green brand image affects green brand attitude,
GBL, and green trust but failed to explore the relations between GBL and other variables.
This study incorporated GIM, GE, GBL, and GPI into a new model to expand the relevant
literature. This study proposed the new concept GE, which can positively contribute
to the development of new managerial strategies related to green business. However,
further investigation is necessary to identify new green concerns; this is because changing
environmental policies and challenges necessitate new strategies and solutions.
This study also revealed a path whereby GE and GBL have mediating roles in the GIM
model. First, GE mediates the positive relationship between GIM and GPI. Second, GBL
mediates the positive relationship between GIM and GPI. Therefore, the antecedent of GBL
is GIM, and the consequence of GBL is GPI; the partial mediators are GE and GBL. GIM
can directly affect GPI, and the influences of GE and GBL are also crucial. Therefore, firms
can enhance their GBL through the promotion of GIM and GE. This study also identified
the mediating role of GE and GBL in the relationship between GIM and GPI, such that
the strong effects of GIM on GPI occur only when GE and GBL are emphasized but are
weaker when GIM is emphasized alone. Most research has focused on GIM, without
attempting to explore other factors. By expressly focusing on three dimensions, the present
study identified the factors that drive GPI. Integrating the new concept of GE is a key
step in creating, marketing, and presenting a green brand. The introduction of GE in
this study, specifically in the field of green business, has changed the interpretation of
the relationship between GE and GBL. The study employed the definition of enjoyment
provided by Tamborini et al. [32] together with GIM and GBL to propose the research model
in which GIM and GE influence GBL and GPI, which shapes GBL and GPI as consumer
responses. Therefore, the mediating role of GE in the relationship between GIM and GBL
was revealed. Similar studies [17,18] have failed to explore the mediating role of GBL.
Thus, this study has advanced the GBL literature by exploring its antecedent and outcome
variables. The results can serve as a reference for proposing theories related to GBL and
GE. This study also contributed to the literature by identifying the relationships among
GIM, GE, and GBL, thereby advancing green business research.
Consumer motivation and intention are crucial in green business. In the technological
era, all businesses must employ innovative methods to market their products and services,
and green businesses must effectively cater to their environmentally conscious consumers.
Marketing strategies that focus on enhancing GIM, GE, and GBL can generate increased
revenue and improve a firm’s image and reputation. If a brand can reflect their eco-friendly
image in their products and services, they can increase brand resonance in a green economy.

5.3. Limitations and Future Study

The present study includes some limitations. First, the cross-sectional approach limits
the ability to make causal inferences about the findings. Second, online survey may lead
to biased data, which limits the statistical power. Future research should focus on the
antecedent of GBL as well as other theoretical dimensions pertinent in a green context.
Furthermore, scholars could extend this framework to include other variables that may
have negative effects on GPI.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 17 of 20

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of the study are available from the
author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments: The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, or publi-
cation of this article.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Appendix A

Figure A1. Results of the full model.

Figure A1. Results of the full model.

References
References
1.
1. Public
Public Health
Health England
England (PHE).
(PHE). Sustainable
Sustainable Development
Development Management
Management Plan
Plan 2020/25;
2020/25; PHE
PHE Publications:
Publications: London,
London, UK,UK, 2020.
2020.Available
Available
online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach-
online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907192/PHE_
ment_data/file/907192/PHE_SDMP_2020_25-2.pdf
SDMP_2020_25-2.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2022). (accessed on 13 October 2022).
2.
2. Bhat, V.N. A blueprint for green product development.
Bhat, V.N. A blueprint for green product development. Ind. Ind. Manag.
Manag. 1993,
1993, 35,
35, 4–7.
4–7.
3.
3. Chen, Y.-S.; Lai, S.-B.; Wen, C.-T. The influence of green innovation performance
Chen, Y.-S.; Lai, S.-B.; Wen, C.-T. The influence of green innovation performance on corporate on corporate advantage
advantage in Taiwan.
in Taiwan. J. Bus. J.Ethics.
Bus.
Ethics. 2006, 67, 331–339.
2006, 67, 331–339. [CrossRef]
4.
4. Papasolomou,
Papasolomou, I.; I.; Thrassou,
Thrassou, A.;A.; Peattie,
Peattie, K.;
K.; Peattie,
Peattie, S.;
S.; Ponting,
Ponting, C.
C.Climate
Climatechange:
change:A Asocial
socialand
andcommercial
commercialmarketing
marketingcommuni-
commu-
nications challenge. EuroMed J. Bus. 2009, 4, 270–286.
cations challenge. EuroMed J. Bus. 2009, 4, 270–286. [CrossRef]
5.
5. Porter, M.E.; Van
Porter, M.E.; Vander derLinde,
Linde,C.C.Toward
Toward a new
a new conception
conception of the
of the environment-competitiveness
environment-competitiveness relationship.
relationship. J. Econ.
J. Econ. Perspect.
Perspect. 1995,
1995, 9, 97–118.
9, 97–118. [CrossRef]
6.
6. Polonsky,
Polonsky, M.J.;
M.J.; Grau,
Grau, S.L.;
S.L.; Garma,
Garma, R. R. The
The new
new greenwash?
greenwash? Potential
Potential marketing
marketing problems
problems with
with carbon
carbon offsets.
offsets. Int.
Int. J.J. Bus.
Bus. Stud.
Stud.
2010, 18, 49–54.
2010, 18, 49–54.
7.
7. Davis,
Davis, F.D.;
F.D.; Bagozzi,
Bagozzi, R.;R.; Warshaw,
Warshaw, P.P. Extrinsic
Extrinsic and
and intrinsic
intrinsic motivation
motivation to
to use
use computers
computers inin the
the workplace.
workplace. J.J. Appl.
Appl. Soc.
Soc. Psychol.
Psychol.
1992, 22, 1111–1132.
1992, 22, 1111–1132. [CrossRef]
8. Andreoni, J. Giving with Impure Altruism Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence. J. Political Econ. 1989, 97, 1447–
1558.
9. Andreoni, J. Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm Glow Giving. Econ. J. 1990, 100, 464–477.
10. Tezer, A.; Bodur, H. The Green consumption Effect: How Using Green Products Improves Consumption Experience. J. Consum.
Res. 2020, 47, 25–39.
11. Bagozzi, R.P.; Batra, R.; Ahuvia, A. Brand Love: Development and Validation of a Practical scale. Mark. Lett. 2017, 28, 1–14.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 18 of 20

8. Andreoni, J. Giving with Impure Altruism Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence. J. Political Econ. 1989, 97, 1447–1558.
[CrossRef]
9. Andreoni, J. Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm Glow Giving. Econ. J. 1990, 100, 464–477.
[CrossRef]
10. Tezer, A.; Bodur, H. The Green consumption Effect: How Using Green Products Improves Consumption Experience. J. Consum.
Res. 2020, 47, 25–39. [CrossRef]
11. Bagozzi, R.P.; Batra, R.; Ahuvia, A. Brand Love: Development and Validation of a Practical scale. Mark. Lett. 2017, 28, 1–14.
[CrossRef]
12. Tully, S.M.; Winer, R.S. The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis.
J. Retail. 2014, 90, 255–274. [CrossRef]
13. Laroche, M.; Bergeron, J.; Barbaro-Forleo, G. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly
products. J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 503–520. [CrossRef]
14. Bratianu, C.; Stanescu, D.F.; Mocanu, R.; Bejinaru, R. Serial Multiple Mediation of the Impact of Customer Knowledge Management
on Sustainable Product Innovation by Innovative Work Behavior. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12927. [CrossRef]
15. Makower, J. Strategies for Green Economy—Opportunities and Challenges in the New World of Business, 2nd ed.; McGraw Hill
Companies Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
16. Kalafatis, S.; Pollard, M.; East, R.; Tsogas, M. Green marketing and Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior A cross-market examination.
J. Consum. Mark. 1999, 16, 441–460. [CrossRef]
17. Wu, H.C.; Chen, G. An Empirical Study of Green Brand Supportive Intentions: The Case of Acer. In Proceedings of the 2019
International Conference on Economic Management and Model Engineering (ICEMME), Malacca, Malaysia, 6–8 November 2019.
18. Salehzadeh, R.; Sayedan, M.; Mirmehdi, S.M.; Aqagoli, P.H. Elucidating green branding among Muslim consumers: The nexus of
green brand love, image, trust and attitude. J. Islam. Mark. 2021, 759–833. [CrossRef]
19. Isen, A.M.; Reeve, J. The Influence of Positive Affect on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: Facilitating Enjoyment of Play
Responsible Work Behavior, and Self-Control. Motiv. Emot. 2005, 29, 295–323. [CrossRef]
20. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2000,
25, 54–67. [CrossRef]
21. Sen, S.; Bhattacharya, C.; Korschun, D. The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Strengthening Multiple Stakeholder
Relationships: A Field Experiment. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2006, 34, 158–166. [CrossRef]
22. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Can. Psychol. 2008,
49, 14–23. [CrossRef]
23. Harter, S. A New Self-Report Scale of Intrinsic versus Extrinsic ORIENTATION in the Classroom: Motivation and Information
Components. Dev. Psychol. 1981, 7, 300–312. [CrossRef]
24. Deci, E.L.; Benware, C.; Landy, D. The attribution of motivation as a function of output and rewards. J. Pers. 1974, 42, 652–667.
[CrossRef]
25. Fuchs, C.; Schreier, M.; van Osselaer, S.M. The handmade effect: What’s love got to do with it? J. Mark. 2015, 79, 98–110. [CrossRef]
26. Li, W.; Bhutto, T.A.; Wang, X.; Maitlo, Q.; Zafar, A.U.; Bhutto, N.A. Unlocking employees’ green creativity: The effects of green
transformational leadership, green intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120–129. [CrossRef]
27. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq.
2000, 11, 227–268. [CrossRef]
28. Nabi, R.L.; Krcmar, M. Conceptualizing media enjoyment as attitude: Implications for mass media effects research. Commun. Theory.
2004, 14, 288–310. [CrossRef]
29. Vorderer, P.; Klimmt, C.; Ritterfeld, U. Enjoyment: At the heart of media entertainment. Commun. Theory. 2004, 14, 388–408.
[CrossRef]
30. Gomez, E.A.; Wu, D.; Passerini, K. Computer-supported team-based learning: The impact of motivation, enjoyment and team
contributions on learning outcomes. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 378–390. [CrossRef]
31. Waterman, A.S. When effort is enjoyed: Two studies of intrinsic motivation for personally salient activities. Motiv. Emot. 2005,
29, 165–188. [CrossRef]
32. Tamborini, R.; Bowman, N.D.; Eden, A.; Grizzard, M.; Organ, A. Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs.
J. Commun. 2010, 60, 758–777. [CrossRef]
33. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory. In Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development and Wellness; Guilford
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
34. Ali, F.; Ashfaq, M.; Begum, S.; Ali, A. How “Green” thinking and altruism translate into purchasing intentions for electronics
products: The intrinsic-extrinsic motivation mechanism. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 24, 281–291. [CrossRef]
35. Bowlby, J. The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds; Tavistock: London, UK, 1979.
36. Fehr, B. A Prototype Approach to Studying Love. In The New Psychology of Love; Sternberg, R.J., Weis, K., Eds.; Yale University
Press: New Haven, CA, USA, 2006; pp. 225–246.
37. Fehr, B.; Sprecher, S. Prototype analysis of compassionate love. Pers. Relatsh. 2009, 16, 343–364. [CrossRef]
38. Ahuvia, A.C. I love it! Toward a Unifying Theory of Love across Diverse Love Objects. Ph.D. Thesis, Field of Marketing,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA, 1993.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 19 of 20

39. Fournier, S. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 24, 343–373.
[CrossRef]
40. Batra, R.; Ahuvia, A.; Bagozzi, R.P. Brand Love. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 1–16. [CrossRef]
41. Park, C.W.; Macinnis, D.; Priester, J.R.; Eisingerich, A.B.; Iacobucci, D. Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual
and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 1–17. [CrossRef]
42. Carroll, B.A.; Ahuvia, A.C. Some Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Love. Mark. Lett. 2006, 17, 79–89. [CrossRef]
43. Albert, N.; Merunka, D.; Valette-Florence, P. When consumers love their brands: Exploring the concept and its dimensions. J. Bus.
Res. 2008, 61, 1062–1075. [CrossRef]
44. Bergkvist, L.; Bech-Larsen, T. Two studies of consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love. J. Brand Manag. 2010,
17, 504–518. [CrossRef]
45. Verma, P. The effect of brand engagement and brand love upon overall brand equity and purchase intention: A moderated–
mediated model. J. Promot. Manag. 2021, 27, 103–132. [CrossRef]
46. Shang, R.A.; Chen, Y.C.; Shen, L. Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Motivations for Consumers to Shop On-Line. Inf. Manag. 2005,
42, 401–413. [CrossRef]
47. Kim, M.J.; Lee, C.K.; Bonn, M. Obtaining a better understanding about travel-related purchase intentions among senior users of
mobile social network sites. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 484–496. [CrossRef]
48. Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations. J. Mark.
Res. 1991, 28, 307–319.
49. Chen, K.; Deng, T. Research on the Green Purchase Intentions from the Perspective of Product Knowledge. Sustainability 2016,
8, 943. [CrossRef]
50. Lastovica, J.L.; Bettencourt, L.A.; Hughner, R.S.; Kuntze, R.J. Lifestyle of tight and frugal: Theory and measurement. J. Consum.
Res. 1999, 36, 85–98. [CrossRef]
51. Waterman, A.S. Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 1993, 64, 678–691. [CrossRef]
52. Ryan, R.M.; Rigby, C.S.; Przybylski, A. The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motiv. Emot.
2006, 30, 344–360. [CrossRef]
53. Vorderer, P. What Do We Want When We Want Narratives? 2009. Available online: http://sites.google.com/a/newliteracies.co.
cc/xin-su-yang-yan-jiu-qun/2009shu-wei-xushi-guo-ji-gong-zuo-fang/1-2-vorderer/What_do_we_want_when_we_want_
narratives_v1.3.doc (accessed on 13 October 2022).
54. Styles, C.; Ambler, T. Successful export practice The UK experience. Int. Mark. Rev. 1994, 11, 23–47. [CrossRef]
55. Xu, Y.; Chen, Z.; Peng, M.Y.-P.; Answer, M.K. Enhancing Consumer Online Purchase Intention Through Gamification in China:
Perspective of Cognitive Evaluation Theory. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 581200. [CrossRef]
56. Wang, Y.S.; Yeh, C.H.; Liao, Y.W. What drives purchase intention in the context of online content services? The moderating role of
ethical self-efficacy for online piracy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 199–208. [CrossRef]
57. Chirwa, T.G.; Odhiambo, N.M. Sources of Economic Growth in Zambia: An Empirical Investigation. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2017,
18, 275–290. [CrossRef]
58. Mittal, S.; Gupta, V.; Motiani, M. Examining the linkages between employee brand love, affective commitment, positive word-of-
mouth, and turnover intentions: A social identity theory perspective. IIMB Manag. Rev. 2022, 34, 7–17. [CrossRef]
59. Alnawas, I.; Altarifi, S. Exploring the role of brand identification and brand love in generating higher levels of brand loyalty.
J. Vacat. Mark. 2015, 22, 111–128. [CrossRef]
60. Zhang, S.; Peng, M.Y.P.; Peng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Ren, G.; Chen, C.C. Expressive brand relationship, brand love, and brand loyalty for
tablet Pcs: Building a sustainable brand. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 231. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Sallam, M.A.; Wahid, N.A. The effects of satisfaction and brand identification on brand love and brand equity outcome the role of
brand loyalty. Eur. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2015, 4, 42–55.
62. Sarkar, A.; Sreejesh, S. Examination of the roles played by brand love and jealousy in shaping customer engagement. J. Prod.
Brand. Manag. 2014, 23, 24–32. [CrossRef]
63. Rodrigues, C.; Rodrigues, P. Brand love matters to Millennials: The relevance of mystery, sensuality and intimacy to neo-luxury
brands. J. Prod. Brand. Manag. 2019, 28, 830–848. [CrossRef]
64. Papista, E.; Dimitriadis, S. Consumer—Green brand relationships: Revisiting benefits, relationship quality and outcomes. J. Prod.
Brand. Manag. 2019, 28, 166–187. [CrossRef]
65. Shea, J. Instrument relevance in multivariate linear models: A simple measure. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1997, 79, 348–352. [CrossRef]
66. Chen, Y.-S.; Huang, A.-F.; Wang, T.-Y.; Chen, Y.-R. Greenwash and green purchase behavior: The mediation of green brand image
and green brand loyalty. Total. Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2020, 31, 194–209. [CrossRef]
67. Kerlinger, F.N.; Lee, H.B. Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th ed.; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2000.
68. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Eur. Bus.
Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [CrossRef]
69. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
70. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981, 18, 39–51. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 132 20 of 20

71. Seyal, A.H.; Rahman, M.N.A.; Rahim, M.M. Determinants of academic use of the Internet: A structural equation model. Behav. Inf.
Technol. 2002, 21, 71–86. [CrossRef]
72. Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980,
88, 588–606. [CrossRef]
73. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA, 1998.
74. Klein, L.R. Evaluating the potential of interactive media through a new lens: Search versus experience goods. J. Bus. Res. 1998,
41, 195–213. [CrossRef]
75. Davari, A.; Strutton, D. Marketing mix strategies for closing the gap between green consumers’ pro-environmental beliefs and
behaviors. J. Strateg. Mark. 2014, 22, 563–586. [CrossRef]
76. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985.
77. Waterman, A.S. Personal expressiveness: Philosophical and psychological foundations. J. Mind Behav. 1990, 11, 47–74.

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.