sustainability

Article
Which Values Matter Most to Romanian Consumers?
Exploring the Impact of Green Attitudes and Communication
on Buying Behavior
Răzvan-Andrei Corbos, , Ovidiu-Iulian Bunea * , Monica Triculescu and Sorina Ioana Mis, u

Faculty of Management, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010374 Bucharest, Romania

* Correspondence: ovidiu.bunea@man.ase.ro

Abstract: The increasing commitment to sustainable consumption has intensified the scholarly focus
on the determinants of environmentally friendly consumer behavior. This investigation provides
an insight into the intricate interplay between green consumer values, functional (FV), conditional
(CV), social (SV), and emotional (EV), and their impact on buying behavior (BB). Using survey
data, we scrutinized the mediating roles of attitudes toward purchasing green products (APGP) and
receptivity to green communication (RGC). Using partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM), the empirical analysis yielded a mix of supported and unsupported claims about the
mediation effects on the relationship between consumer values and buying behavior. Direct effects of
FV on BB were significant, but the indirect effect through APGP was not, suggesting that APGP does
not mediate the relationship between FV and BB, and that consumers’ functional value perceptions
influence their buying behavior independently of their attitudes toward green products. Both direct
and indirect effects of EV and FV on BB through APGP and RGC were significant, suggesting partial
mediation. The results suggest that APGP and RGC partially mediate the effects of EV and FV on BB
but do not mediate the effects of CV and SV on BB. Comparing these findings with previous research,
we observe some parallels and divergences. Our study confirms the significant direct effect of FV
Citation: Corbos, , R.-A.; Bunea, O.-I.; on buying behavior, consistent with previous studies that underscore the importance of tangible
Triculescu, M.; Mis, u, S.I. Which benefits in influencing consumer decisions. Furthermore, the significant direct and indirect effects of
Values Matter Most to Romanian EV on BB and APGP in our results are consistent with previous research, suggesting that emotional
Consumers? Exploring the Impact of factors play a decisive role in green purchasing behaviors. However, factors such as CV and SV were
Green Attitudes and Communication found to have no impact in our research compared to previous studies. These discrepancies suggest
on Buying Behavior. Sustainability that while CV influences attitudes, it may not strongly influence purchasing behavior through the
2024, 16, 3866. https://doi.org/
mediating constructs in our model. Furthermore, the results imply that social factors may influence
10.3390/su16093866
attitudes but do not necessarily translate into actual purchasing behavior in our context. Our study
Academic Editors: Iosif Botetzagias, also reveals that RGC plays a substantial role in influencing buying behavior, indicating a significant
Eftichios Sartzetakis and total effect greater than indicated in previous research. These insights illuminate the complex
Antonis Skouloudis mechanisms by which consumer attitudes and communication receptivity shape eco-conscious
Received: 12 April 2024 purchasing choices. Theoretical contributions enrich the discourse on green consumer behavior,
Revised: 1 May 2024 while practical implications guide marketers in crafting communication strategies that resonate with
Accepted: 2 May 2024 consumer values and attitudes, thus fostering sustainable consumption patterns.
Published: 5 May 2024
Keywords: green consumer behavior; sustainable purchasing decisions; attitudes toward green
products; green communication receptivity; structural equation modeling

Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
1. Introduction
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
The environmental degradation which is caused by producing and consuming non-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// sustainable products and services has led to increasing awareness of environmental issues
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ mainly because of its far-reaching implications which affect not only the natural environ-
4.0/). ment but also the health and ultimately the well-being of the worldwide population [1].

Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093866 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 2 of 20

Both governments and companies participated in efforts to grow the demand for sustain-
able products, which led to a search for better understanding of consumer behavior [2].
All of these efforts are aimed at changing consumer behavior to be more oriented toward
purchasing green products. This has sparked interest among researchers and marketers
alike, leading to a multitude of studies that aim to understand the factors that influence
consumer attitudes and behaviors toward green products. From an academic perspective,
the study of green consumer behavior is highly relevant as it intersects with various dis-
ciplines, including marketing, psychology, and environmental science [3,4]. It provides
insights into how consumers make decisions and what factors influence their choices, which
can inform the development of strategies to promote sustainable consumption. However,
despite the wealth of research in this area, our understanding of green consumer behavior
remains fragmented and incomplete [5]. Therefore, the study of green consumer behavior
is not only academically relevant but also beneficial for addressing the pressing issue of
environmental sustainability.
One of the key theories that has been used to understand consumer behavior is the
Theory of Consumption Values (TCV) [6]. This theory provides an extensive framework
for understanding why consumers choose certain products over others, based on five
consumption values: functional, conditional, emotional, social, and cognitive. However,
while the TCV has been widely applied in the context of traditional consumer behavior,
its application in the context of green consumer behavior has been limited. In response
to this gap in the literature, our research aims to use part of the TCV in the context of
green consumer behavior. We seek to understand how these consumption values influence
consumer attitudes and behaviors towards green products and, in doing so, contribute to a
greater understanding of green consumer behavior.
However, when it comes to green consumer behavior, the green perceived value (GPV)
has been found to be more prevalent. Chen and Chang [7] applied the GPV construct
to study the enhancement of green purchase intentions and found that GPV has a pos-
itive effect on green trust and green purchase intentions. This suggests that consumers’
perceptions of the value of green products play a key role in their decision to buy these
products. Despite these findings, Chen and Chang [7] used a unidimensional GPV con-
struct, which may not fully capture the complex and multidimensional nature of perceived
value. Recognizing this limitation, subsequent research has suggested handling GPV as a
multidimensional construct and proposed four subconstructs: functional value, conditional
value, social value, and emotional value [8–11].
Our research builds on these findings by extending the GPV construct. We intro-
duce two additional constructs: attitude toward purchasing green products (APGP) and
receptivity to green communication (RGC). These constructs capture positive attitudes
towards buying green products [11] and their receptivity to green marketing communi-
cation [12], respectively. By integrating these constructs into our model, we can examine
how individual perceived values connect with consumer satisfaction, affecting loyalty and
price consciousness.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the mediating roles of APGP and RGC in
the relationship between different consumer values (functional value, emotional value,
conditional value, and social value) and BB toward green products. This study provides
insights from the Romanian market, and as this market is considered, the application of
GPV provides an opportunity to gather valuable insights into the consumption patterns
and preferences of Romanian consumers. While there have been studies that used some
elements specific to the GPV construct in the Romanian context [13–15], they were not
specifically focused on green consumer behavior. However, specific studies applying GPV
to understand green consumer behavior in the Romanian market seem to be limited. There
are studies that have explored sustainable consumer behavior in Romania [16,17], but they
do not explicitly apply GPV. Therefore, applying GPV to study green consumer behavior
in the Romanian market represents the added value of this study by filling a gap in the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 3 of 20

existing literature and providing a more nuanced understanding of the factors influencing
green consumer behavior in Romania.
Research on green consumer behavior is important in the Romanian market as it is
particularly relevant given the increasing awareness of environmental sustainability and
the major shifts in sustainable consumer behavior observed in Romania [16]. Moreover,
given Romania’s status as a member of the European Union (EU) and its commitment to the
sustainability goals outlined by the EU, such as achieving net zero emissions, understanding
consumer behavior towards green products becomes imperative. Romania, as part of
the EU, is subject to various regulations and initiatives [18–20], including promoting
sustainability and reducing environmental impact. Therefore, studying consumer attitudes
and behaviors regarding green products within this context is important for aligning
marketing strategies with both national and EU sustainability objectives.
Our research builds on the TCV and GPV, both of which are well-established frame-
works in the field of consumer behavior as they have been validated by numerous stud-
ies [11,12,21]. This research not only builds on the TCV and GPV but also extends them
by considering additional factors that are specific to the context of green products, thus
contributing to its originality. With the aim of contributing to a more extensive understand-
ing of green consumer behavior, the research also provides a robust and credible scale to
examine consumer behavior toward green consumption. This, we believe, will pave the
way for more effective marketing strategies and contribute to the larger goal of promoting
sustainable consumption in Romania.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: we continue with Section 2,
containing a thorough review of the literature, dividing it into empirical and theoretical
components. The empirical review examines recent studies on green consumer behavior,
focusing on the dimensions of GPV. Following this, the theoretical review explores the
foundational concepts underpinning our hypothesis development, which follows. Moving
forward, Section 3 represents the methods and details our data collection strategy, ana-
lytical approach using PLS-SEM, and our efforts to mitigate potential common method
biases. Subsequently, Section 4 presents the results of our empirical analysis in the results
section. Finally, the discussion and conclusions sections synthesize the theoretical and
practical implications of our findings while also addressing limitations and suggesting
future research directions.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Empirical Review
Based on GPV and the foundational work of Woo and Kim [11], who elucidated the
profound impact of GPV on consumer attitudes and purchase intentions, further studies
have fortified this understanding. For example, Huang [22] demonstrated that consumer
perceptions and attitudes toward green building housing products significantly influence
purchase intentions and willingness to pay. Similarly, Zhuang et al. [23] conducted a
meta-analysis that revealed that GPV, along with attitude and green trust, considerably
affects green purchase intentions, with cognitive factors, individual characteristics, and
social factors playing an important role. Furthermore, Mahama Braimah et al. [24] found
that consumers’ perceptions of the environmental friendliness of a product significantly
influenced their willingness to pay a premium for green products. Additionally, another
study [25] revealed that consumers’ perceptions of the social value of green products played
an important role in shaping their purchase intentions.
Furthermore, research by Lin and Zhou [26] corroborates the idea that consumers’
perceptions of green value positively affect their intentions to buy green products. These
studies collectively affirm that the multifaceted dimensions of GPV, which encompass
functional, conditional, social, and emotional values, are integral in shaping consumer
attitudes and subsequent purchase behaviors towards green products.
There are several studies that found that consumer buying behavior is influenced
by functional value [27]. This suggests that the functional attributes of green products,
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 4 of 20

such as their quality, durability, and performance, play an important role in the shaping
of consumer purchase decisions. Consumers often prefer green products over non-green
products when their product qualities are similar [28]. This indicates that the functional
value of green products extends beyond their tangible attributes and includes intangible
benefits, such as contributing to environmental sustainability. Furthermore, a recent meta-
analysis by Mason et al. [21] found that consumption values, including functional value,
have a positive significant and moderate effect on consumer behavior. Another study by
Kremel [29] found that functional value characteristics, such as convenience and price,
were the core of sustainable consumption.
The price of green products should be appropriate in relation to value for money [30].
Recent research [31] found that pricing has a significant effect on the buying behavior of
consumers. This implies that consumers evaluate the cost of green products against their
perceived benefits, which can include both the functional benefits of the product and the
added value of contributing to environmental sustainability. Further research has shown
that conditional value can significantly influence consumer buying behavior. For example,
a study by Sharma et al. [32] found that product-related factors such as price, availability
of green products, and conditional value can negatively affect the intention/behavior of
green purchases.
Supporting environmental issues makes consumers more socially attractive [33]. This
indicates that consumers who purchase green products and support environmental causes
are perceived more positively by others, which can enhance their social value. This aligns
with the findings of a study by Caniëls et al. [34], which found that the green buying
behavior of young people who perceive the high inconvenience of buying green products
is largely influenced by the social value attached to buying green products. Furthermore,
Mason et al. [21] found that while emotional value is the most influential predictor of
consumer behavior, social value is the weakest.
Supporting environmental protection makes consumers feel meaningful and spe-
cial [35]. This suggests that the emotional value of green products is not just about the
individual emotional satisfaction they provide but also about the broader emotional benefits
associated with supporting environmental sustainability. Further research has shown that
emotional value can significantly influence consumer purchasing behavior. For example,
a study by Wijekoon and Sabri [36] found that emotional value, along with other factors,
influences the purchase intention of green products. This suggests that marketers must
consider the emotional value of their green products and ensure that they evoke positive
emotions in consumers. Furthermore, a study by Li et al. [37] revealed that altruistic and
biospheric values had a significant positive impact on the intention of purchasing a green
product, while egoistic values had a negative impact. This indicates that the emotional
value of green products is influenced not only by the product itself but also by the broader
values and beliefs of consumers.
Consumers are willing to pay more for a product if they know that its producer is
environmentally friendly [38,39]. This indicates that consumers’ attitudes towards green
products are influenced not only by the products themselves but also by the practices
of the companies that produce them [40]. Furthermore, consumers also persuade others
not to purchase certain products harmful to the environment [41,42]. This indicates that
consumers’ purchasing behavior is influenced not only by their personal preferences
but also by their desire to influence the purchasing behavior of others towards more
environmentally friendly choices.

2.2. Theoretical Review

The TCV is a fundamental concept in the research of marketing and consumer behav-
ior. It provides information on the motivation for consumer consumption behavior through
consumption values [6]. The theory suggests that the choice of products is influenced by
five consumption values: functional, conditional, emotional, social, and epistemic [43]. The
TCV has been applied to various fields, including marketing, tourism, and management. It
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 5 of 20

has been used to explain consumer behavior on a large scale, and a significant amount of the
literature has focused on investigating how consumption values influence consumer behav-
iors. However, in the realm of green consumer behavior, GPV (functional value, conditional
value, social value, and emotional value) has become a more prevalent construct.
Functional value (FV) is part of the consumer perception of green products as offering
good value for money, reasonably priced, well made to reduce environmental distortion,
and maintaining an acceptable standard of quality [9]. This is particularly relevant in
today’s market, where consumers are becoming more and more aware of the environmental
impact of their consumption choices.
Conditional value (CV) refers to the circumstances that could influence the purchase
of green products. Consumers may be more inclined to purchase green products if they
are offered at a discount, come with promotional incentives, or are readily available [44].
Therefore, the conditional value of green products is not just about the circumstances under
which they are purchased but also about the conditions that make them more appealing
to consumers.
Social value (SV) refers to the social benefits that consumers derive from purchasing
green products. Buying these products can create a positive impression on others, improve
how consumers are perceived by others, contribute to feeling accepted by others, and
provide social approval [45].
Emotional value (EV) is related to the emotional satisfaction consumers get from pur-
chasing green products. Consumers can derive enjoyment, feel relaxed, and experience a
sense of well-being from buying these products [43,46].
Attitudes toward purchasing green products (APGP) refers to the positive attitudes con-
sumers have towards purchasing green products. Consumers can view purchasing these
products as valuable, positive, and beneficial behaviors [27]. This suggests that the attitude
towards green products is not just about the environmental benefits they provide but also
about the perceived value they offer to consumers. Green products are products that aim to
protect or enhance the environment during their production, use, or disposal by conserving
resources and minimizing the use of toxic agents, pollution, and waste [47]. Durif et al. [48]
argue that the definition of green products is still unclear and lacks a commonly accepted
definition. They suggest that the concept of green products should be viewed from three
different perspectives: academic, industrial, and consumer.
From an academic perspective, green products are those that cause less environmental
problems than conventional products and, in fact, contribute to solving environmental
problems [49]. From an industrial perspective, green products are those that meet increased
consumer demand and increased supply by companies and offer consumer and environ-
mental protection [50]. From a consumer perspective, green products are those that are
perceived as being environmentally respectful and are associated with expenditures related
to products and services [51]. For this particular research, we will approach the consumer
perspective to understand a green product.
Therefore, the attitude towards green products is not only about the environmental
benefits they provide but also about the perceived value they offer to consumers. This
value is multifaceted, encompassing the tangible benefits of the product, such as its quality
and performance, and the intangible benefits, such as its contribution to environmental
sustainability. This understanding of green products further reinforces the importance of
APGP in influencing consumer behavior toward these products.
Buying behavior (BB) encapsulates the actions that consumers take towards buying
products. In the context of our research, we study the green buyer behavior which is not
just about the act of buying but also the conscious choices and efforts made in the process.
Consumers can make an effort to purchase energy-efficient products and appliances, steer
clear of products with excessive packaging, opt for products that minimize pollution, and
switch products or brands for ecological reasons [12,52]. This suggests that the buying be-
havior toward green products extends beyond the act of purchasing and includes conscious
choices and efforts by consumers in their buying process.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 6 of 20

Receptivity to green communication (RGC) refers to the positive response of consumers

to green marketing communication. Consumers who are receptive to green communication
endorse brands that advocate for environmental causes [53]. They tend to pay attention
to advertising messages that address environmental issues and respond positively to
brands that incorporate green messages in their advertising [54]. The inclusion of green
messages in advertisements influences their attitude towards those advertisements. These
consumers believe that green advertising has value and consider it to be an essential form of
promotion [55]. They are open to purchasing products that are marketed as environmentally
friendly and respond favorably when brands use green messages in their ads.

2.3. Hypothesis Development

Drawing from the recent literature, our hypotheses are informed by the profound
impact of FV, CV, SV, and EV on consumers’ attitudes and intentions towards green products
as well as the role of APGP in mediating these relationships. Although Woo and Kim [11]
studied the relationship between FV, CV, SV, and EV on APGP, together with the influence
of APGP on purchase intention, revealing significant and positive relationships between
these variables, we believe that the mediating role of APGP between the relationships
between FV, CV, SV, and EV and BB may reveal new mechanisms by which buyers consider
them when adopting a particular purchase behavior. In addition, we will explain the
rationale that led to the hypotheses of the study.
FV is part of the consumer perception of green products as offering good value for
money [9]. This is relevant because consumers often prefer green products over non-green
products when their qualities are similar [28]. We assume that when consumers perceive
green products as offering good value for money and environmental benefits, this leads
to positive attitudes (APGP) towards these products and, consequently, influences their
buying behavior (BB). Therefore, we hypothesize:

H1. The relationship between FV and BB is mediated by APGP.

CV refers to the circumstances that could influence the purchase of green products [44].
Consumers may be more inclined to purchase green products if they are offered at a
discount. We assume that favorable conditions such as discounts and availability of green
products [32,44] lead to positive APGP, which in turn influences consumers’ green purchase
behavior (BB). Therefore, we hypothesize:

H2. The relationship between CV and BB is mediated by APGP.

SV refers to the social benefits that consumers derive from purchasing green prod-
ucts [45]. We assume that consumers’ desire for the social approval and positive perceptions
associated with purchasing green products [34,45] leads to positive APGP, driving their
green buying behavior (BB). Therefore, we hypothesize:

H3. The relationship between SV and BB is mediated by APGP.

EV is related to the emotional satisfaction consumers obtain from purchasing green

products [43]. We assume that emotional satisfaction derived from purchasing green
products [36,43] influences positive APGP, which in turn affects consumers’ decisions to
engage in green purchase behavior (BB). Therefore, we hypothesize:

H4. The relationship between EV and BB is mediated by APGP.

Furthermore, based on the recent literature, we propose hypotheses that incorporate

the mediating role of RGC in the relationships between FV, CV, SV, EV, and BB. These
hypotheses are informed by the understanding that consumers’ responsiveness to green
communication influences their attitudes toward green products, which in turn affects their
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 7 of 20

purchase behavior. In their proposal for a new model of green consumer behavior, Do
Paco et al. [12] identified the fact that responsiveness to green communication statistically
influences purchase behavior, but this influence is below the minimum value of 0.2, there-
fore indicating that responsiveness to green communication is not relevant. However, our
research instead considers the mediating role of RGC in the relationship between FV, CV,
SV, EV, and BB. The rationale behind approaching RGC as a mediator will be explained in
more detail below.
Consumer perception of the functional benefits and environmental value of green
products [9,28] may be influenced by their receptivity to green communication (RGC),
which refers to the positive response of consumers to green marketing communication [53].
This, in turn, affects their decision-making process towards green purchase behavior (BB).
Therefore, we hypothesize:

H5. The relationship between FV and BB is mediated by RGC.

Conditions such as discounts and availability [32,44] might be communicated through

green marketing efforts. Consumers who are receptive to such messages (RGC) are more
likely to consider these factors when making green purchase decisions (BB). Therefore, we
hypothesize:

H6. The relationship between CV and BB is mediated by RGC.

Consumers’ perceptions of the social benefits associated with green products [34,45]
might be reinforced through green communication efforts. RGC could mediate how these
social values translate into actual green purchase behavior (BB). Therefore, we hypothesize:

H7. The relationship between SV and BB is mediated by RGC.

Emotional satisfaction derived from purchasing green products [36,43] may be influ-
enced by how green communication evokes emotions related to sustainability. RGC serves
as a mediator, linking emotional value (EV) with green buying behavior (BB). Therefore,
we hypothesize:

H8. The relationship between EV and BB is mediated by RGC.

Overall, the literature review underscores the significant influence of GPV on con-
sumer behavior toward green products. GPV, which encompasses various dimensions,
shapes consumer attitudes and purchase intentions. In particular, consumers perceive
green products to offer tangible and intangible benefits, which affects their willingness to
pay a premium and their purchasing decisions. The mediating roles of APGP and RGC
expand the research avenue in consumer choices for environmentally friendly products.
Our hypotheses propose that APGP and RGC mediate the relationships between GPV di-
mensions and BB, emphasizing the importance of consumers’ attitudes and responsiveness
to green messaging in their green purchase behavior. This forms the foundation for further
exploration in our subsequent research.

3. Methods
Data for this investigation were acquired through a structured questionnaire. The
questionnaire was meticulously crafted not only to collect information relevant to the
validation of the proposed hypotheses but also to familiarize the respondents with the
study theme. The constructs, their elements, the content, and the references used to
determine the scales are presented in Appendix A.
The questionnaire was built on the Google Forms platform, renowned for its user-
friendly interface that facilitates the creation of clear and concise questions and response
choices. The digital dissemination of the questionnaire occurred between January 15 and
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 8 of 20

February 23 2024, through a shared access link via Facebook, LinkedIn, and WhatsApp.
The criterion for participant selection was at least one previous purchase of an eco-friendly
product (as defined in the literature review section). On completion of the survey, 200
complete and valid responses were compiled. The sample structure is presented in Table 1.
The sample structure reflects a diverse representation across different age groups and
educational levels. Most of the respondents, 49.5%, were in the 20–24 age range, indicating
a significant portion of the younger participants. Regarding the gender distribution, women
represented 59.4% of the sample, showing a slight gender imbalance. In terms of education,
the highest proportion of respondents, 52.0%, had a bachelor’s degree, followed by 27.5%
with a master’s degree and 10.7% with a doctorate. This varied educational background
suggests a diverse range of perspectives within the sample, which enhances the robustness
of the study findings.

Table 1. Study sample structure.

Age Group Frequency Gender Frequency Education Level Frequency

20–24 49.5% Female 59.4% High School 9.8%
25–29 13.0% Male 40.6% Bachelor’s Degree 52.0%
30–34 10.4% Master’s Degree 27.5%
35–39 3.9% Doctorate 10.7%
40+ 23.1%

The study strictly adhered to robust ethical procedures throughout data collection and
handling. As the research collected information from participants in Romania through a
quantitative survey form, participants were provided with an information letter, which
they received and read. They were also given the chance to ask any questions regarding
the study and were assured of their right to withdraw at any point. It was ensured that
they comprehended the overall objectives, potential risks, and methodologies involved
in the research. Also, before responding to the questionnaire, participants were informed
that the data collected will be used only for the purposes of this research project. Their
consent, expressed by completing the questionnaire, granted the research team permission
to collect and use the information for scientific study. Maintaining the utmost confidentiality,
measures are in place to safeguard participants’ privacy, ensuring that no individual’s
identity will be disclosed in any document.
The primary analytical instrument used in this study was the partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Esteemed for its robustness, PLS-SEM is capable
of analyzing complex interrelations among multiple observed variables simultaneously.
This method is particularly suited to our research due to its ability to handle sophisticated
models with numerous mediators and its compatibility with both formative and reflective
constructs [56]. The choice of PLS-SEM was informed by several factors: its component-
based nature allows for the modeling of complex relationships between observed and latent
variables; its tolerance for non-normality, which aligns with our data characteristics; and its
efficacy with small to medium sample sizes, typical of social science research. The analysis
was carried out using SmartPLS version 4.0.9.6.
To address the potential for common-method bias (CMB), which can arise when the
same method is used to measure different constructs within a study, several strategies
were employed. These included ensuring anonymity to reduce social desirability bias
and implementing reverse-coded items to minimize acceptance bias. Moreover, temporal
separation between measurements of different constructs was employed [57] by measuring
predictor variables between 15 and 31 January 2024 and the outcome variables between 1
and 23 February 2024. Additionally, the use of the Harman single-factor test and a marker
variable technique was applied to assess and control for any variance in the method. The
results indicated that no single factor accounted for most of the variance. Specifically, the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 9 of 20

total variance explained by one factor did not exceed the threshold of 50%, suggesting that
common-method bias is not a significant concern in our data set. These measures are in line
with recommended practices to mitigate CMB and enhance the validity of survey-based
research findings.

4. Results
Table 2 illustrates the robustness and precision of the indicators used for the various
constructs in our study. The loadings in the table denote the strength of the relationship
between each indicator and its corresponding construct. A higher loading value indicates
a stronger relationship, with a set threshold of 0.7 [58], which all indicators surpass. This
suggests satisfying the reliability of the indicator.

Table 2. Construct reliability and validity measures for the indicators used in the study.

Construct Indicator Construct Loadings

APGP_1 0.847
APGP_2 0.844
APGP_3 Attitudes toward Purchasing Green Products 0.823
Attitudes toward Purchasing
(APGP)—(α = 0.892; rho_a = 0.957; rho_c = 0.962;
Green Products (APGP) APGP_4 0.855
AVE = 0.652)
APGP_5 0.787
APGP_6 0.774
RGC_1 0.786
RGC_2 0.891
RGC_3 0.824
Receptivity to Green RGC_4 Receptivity to Green Communication 0.910
Communication RGC_5 (RGC)—(α = 0.955; rho_a = 0.899; rho_c = 0.918; 0.915
(RGC) AVE = 0.737)
RGC_6 0.856
RGC_7 0.859
RGC_8 0.818
RGC_9 0.860
BB_1 0.776
BB_2 0.781
BB_3 0.807
BB_4 0.838
Buying Behavior
Buying Behavior BB_5 0.817
(BB)—(α = 0.918; rho_a = 0.931; rho_c = 0.933;
(BB)
BB_6 AVE = 0.585) 0.837
BB_7 0.894
BB_8 0.747
BB_9 0.816
BB_10 0.859
FV_1 0.808
FV_2 0.742
Functional Value FV_3 Functional Value (FV)—(α = 0.850; rho_a = 0.859; 0.823
(FV) rho_c = 0.893; AVE = 0.627)
FV_4 0.859
FV_5 0.718
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 10 of 20

Table 2. Cont.

Construct Indicator Construct Loadings

CV_1 0.821
CV_2 0.834
Conditional Value Conditional Value (CV)—(α = 0.873;
(CV) CV_3 rho_a = 0.902; rho_c = 0.912; AVE = 0.722) 0.910
CV_4 0.830
SV_1 0.828
SV_2 0.905
Social Value
Social Value SV_3 0.909
(SV)—(α = 0.931; rho_a = 0.939; rho_c = 0.948;
(SV)
SV_4 AVE = 0.784) 0.892
SV_5 0.889
EV_1 0.871
EV_2 0.919
Emotional Value EV_3 Emotional Value (EV)—(α = 0.936; rho_a = 0.939; 0.894
(EV) EV_4 rho_c = 0.950; AVE = 0.759) 0.878
EV_5 0.836
EV_6 0.825
Note: α = Cronbach’s Alpha; AVE—Average Variance Extracted; rho_c—composite reliability.

The table also presents several measures of reliability and validity for each construct:
Cronbach’s Alpha (α), rho_a, rho_c, and Average Variance Extracted (AVE).
Cronbach’s Alpha values above 0.7 are generally considered acceptable [59], and all
the constructs listed in the table exceed this threshold, indicating high reliability. Similarly,
rho_a and rho_c, measures of composite reliability, also exceed the 0.7 benchmark for all
constructs, further confirming their reliability.
AVE, a measure that indicates the proportion of variance captured by the construct
relative to the measurement error, is considered strong if it exceeds 0.5 [60]. In this table, all
the constructs used for this investigation show AVE values greater than 0.5, demonstrating
solid convergent validity.
To further assess the validity of the measurement model, Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA) was conducted using the indicators for each construct. The factor loadings presented
in Table 2 indicate the strength of the relationship between the latent constructs and their
respective indicators. A check for potential cross-loadings was performed by examining
the differences between the first and second loadings for each indicator. A difference of less
than 0.2 suggests potential cross-loadings [61]. The results indicated that for most indicators,
the differences were greater than 0.2, indicating that there were no significant cross-loads.
However, some indicators showed differences close to 0.2, including APGP_1 and APGP_2
(0.003), BB_1 and BB_2 (−0.005), CV_1 and CV_2 (−0.013), and EV_1 and EV_2 (−0.048).
Accounting for the fact that these indicators were used in previous studies [11,12] and they
are important for the theory and the interpretability of the constructs, we considered that
these small differences do not significantly impact the overall model, but they are noted for
transparency in the analysis.
Table 3 offers an evaluation of the discriminant validity of the constructs, employing
the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio and the Fornell–Larcker criterion as benchmarks.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 11 of 20

Table 3. Evaluation of construct discriminant validity.

HTMT Ratio
Constructs APGP BB CV EV FV RGC SV
APGP
BB 0.757
CV 0.513 0.398
EV 0.791 0.745 0.448
FV 0.790 0.692 0.514 0.774
RGC 0.788 0.685 0.425 0.708 0.788
SV 0.518 0.482 0.165 0.629 0.636 0.486
Fornell–Larcker Criterion
Constructs APGP BB CV EV FV RGC SV
APGP 0.807
BB 0.696 0.765
CV 0.463 0.358 0.850
EV 0.717 0.692 0.416 0.871
FV 0.701 0.621 0.466 0.702 0.792
RGC 0.731 0.647 0.403 0.674 0.719 0.859
SV 0.476 0.445 0.160 0.588 0.570 0.471 0.885

For the HTMT ratio values, a standard cutoff of 0.85 is typically used to determine
discriminant validity, with values below this indicating a clear distinction between valid
and invalid pairs of latent variables [62]. The HTMT ratio values listed in Table 3 fall below
this cutoff, suggesting robust discriminant validity.
The Fornell–Larcker criterion posits that the square root of the AVE of a construct
should surpass the correlation with any other construct [63]. In Table 3, the diagonal entries
under the Fornell–Larcker section denote the square roots of the AVE for each construct.
These figures exceed the off-diagonal correlations, further confirming the discriminant
validity of the constructs.
An in-depth analysis of the structural model was performed to assess concerns of
collinearity and its predictive efficiency. Given that the variance inflation factor (VIF) scores
for each variable were significantly below the threshold of 3, the possibility of collinearity
was considered minimal.
Figure 1 illustrates the result of the structural model. It is observed that 57.5% of the
variance in RGC can be explained by FV, CV, SV, and EV, as the R-square value is 0.575.
Furthermore, 74.0% of the variance in APGP can be explained by the same constructs
along with RGC, as can be observed from the R-square value of 0.740. Finally, 52.5% of the
variance in BB can be explained by RGC and APGP with an R-square value of 0.525.
 scores for each variable were significantly below the threshold of 3, the possibility of col-
linearity was considered minimal.
Figure 1 illustrates the result of the structural model. It is observed that 57.5% of the
variance in RGC can be explained by FV, CV, SV, and EV, as the R-square value is 0.575.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 Furthermore, 74.0% of the variance in APGP can be explained by the same constructs 12 of 20
along with RGC, as can be observed from the R-square value of 0.740. Finally, 52.5% of
the variance in BB can be explained by RGC and APGP with an R-square value of 0.525.

Figure 1. The structural model.

Figure 1. The structural model.
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
The study analyzes the relationship between green consumer values—FV, CV, SV,
EV—and their influence on BB among Romanian consumers. Through an analysis of
survey data and employing PLS-SEM, the research aimed to uncover the mediating roles of
APGP and RGC. The findings revealed a nuanced picture of supported and unsupported
hypotheses about the mediation effects on the connection between consumer values and
buying behavior. Table 4 presents the results of the test of eight hypotheses (H1 to H8) on
the relationships between the research variables.

Table 4. Indirect effects for hypotheses testing.

Hypotheses Relationships Beta Coef. SD T Statistics Decision Type of Mediation

FV → BB (de) 0.250 ** 0.048 5.174 Direct effect only
H1 FV → APGP → BB (ie) 0.052 0.035 1.516 Not supported (No mediation)
CV → BB (de) 0.060 0.036 1.689 No effect
H2 CV → APGP → BB (ie) 0.039 0.023 1.689 Not supported (No mediation)
SV → BB (de) −0.023 0.033 0.674 No effect
H3 SV → APGP → BB (ie) −0.026 0.022 1.156 Not supported (No mediation)
EV → BB (de) 0.404 ** 0.055 7.336 Complementary
H4 EV → APGP → BB (ie) 0.267 ** 0.051 5.190 Supported (Partial mediation)
FV → BB (de) 0.250 ** 0.048 5.174 Complementary
H5 FV → RGC → BB (ie) 0.137 * 0.044 3.125 Supported (Partial mediation)
CV → BB (de) 0.060 0.036 1.689 No effect
H6 CV → RGC → BB (ie) 0.015 0.017 0.886 Not supported (No mediation)
SV → BB (de) −0.023 0.033 0.674 No effect
H7 SV → RGC → BB (ie) 0.002 0.019 0.123 Not supported (No mediation)
EV → BB (de) 0.404 ** 0.055 7.336 Complementary
H8 EV → RGC → BB (ie) 0.095 * 0.033 2.902 Supported (Partial mediation)
Note: ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; de—direct effect, ie, that is, indirect effect; SD—standard deviation.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 13 of 20

Empirical analysis conducted on the proposed hypotheses has yielded a mix of sup-
ported and unsupported claims about the mediation effects on the relationship between
consumer values and buying behavior.
The direct effect of FV on BB was significant, but the indirect effect through APGP was
not, suggesting that APGP does not mediate the relationship between FV and BB and that
consumers’ functional value perceptions influence their buying behavior independently of
their attitudes toward green products.
The direct and indirect effects of CV and SV on BB through both APGP and RGC were
not significant, indicating that neither APGP nor RGC mediate the relationships between
CV, SV, and BB. This suggests that neither conditional nor social values have a significant
indirect impact on buying behavior through attitudes toward green products or receptivity
to green communication.
Both direct and indirect effects of EV and FV on BB through APGP and RGC were
significant, suggesting a partial mediation, where both direct path and path through the
mediator (APGP and RGC) are significant. Similarly to H4 and H5, both direct and indirect
effects of EV on BB through RGC were significant, indicating partial mediation. Therefore,
the results suggest that APGP and RGC partially mediate the effects of EV and FV on BB
but do not mediate the effects of CV and SV on BB.
Previous research [11] presented a model that demonstrates the significant influence
of GPV on consumer attitudes and purchase intentions for green products. Their findings
align with the broader literature [22,23,26], confirming that functional, conditional, social,
and emotional values that construct GPV are key determinants of consumer attitudes
towards green products, which in turn significantly affect purchase intentions. When
comparing these findings with the results of our research, we observe some parallels and
divergences. Woo and Kim [11] found a strong effect of FV on consumer attitudes, which is
consistent with the significant direct effect of FV on buying behavior in this study, as both
studies underscore the importance of tangible benefits in influencing consumer decisions.
Furthermore, the significant direct and indirect effects of EV on BB and APGP in our results
are consistent with previous research [11]. This suggests that emotional factors play a
decisive role in green purchasing behaviors. However, factors such as CV and SV were
found to have no impact in our investigation compared to Woo and Kim [11]. These dis-
crepancies might suggest that while CV influences attitudes, it may not strongly influence
purchasing behavior through the mediating constructs in our model. Additionally, the
results imply that social factors can influence attitudes but do not necessarily translate into
actual purchasing behavior in the context of our research. Additionally, this finding indi-
cates that factors beyond the scope of this study could have a more pronounced influence
on the green purchasing decisions, such as personal preferences, product availability, or
competing priorities. Moreover, the rejection of these hypotheses suggests that CV and SV,
while influential in other contexts, do not directly translate into green purchase behavior in
the Romanian market.
Furthermore, in our study, RGC has a significant total effect on BB, which is higher
than the effect indicated by Do Paco et al. [12]. This suggests that, in our context, receptivity
to green communication plays a more substantial role in influencing buying behavior.
This study enriches the existing literature on green consumer behavior by offering
a nuanced examination of the mediating roles of APGP and RGC in the relationship
between consumer values and BB. Thus, the research contributes novel insights into several
key areas.
Unlike previous studies that often aggregate green values into broader categories, our
study dissects them into distinct constructs: functional value (FV), emotional value (EV),
conditional value (CV), and social value (SV). This granular approach allows for a more
detailed understanding of how each value uniquely influences consumer behavior.
In addition, we extend the conversation around green marketing by highlighting the
significant mediating role of RGC. Our findings suggest that RGC is not just a channel of
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 14 of 20

influence but a powerful force in shaping consumer behavior, more so than indicated in
prior research [12].
By demonstrating that the impact of CV and SV on BB is not significant, our study
suggests that the influence of these values may be context dependent. This adds a new di-
mension to the conversation initiated by Woo and Kim [11], proposing that the effectiveness
of these values in driving green behavior may vary across different cultural and market
contexts. Our research corroborates and expands on the findings of Woo and Kim [11] by
not only confirming the importance of EV but also quantifying its direct and indirect effects
on BB. This dual path influence underscores the complex interplay between emotional
engagement and green purchasing decisions.
By exploring the direct effects of green values on BB, our study offers a counterpoint
to the findings of Mazar and Zhong [64], who observed a paradoxical relationship between
green product consumption and prosocial behavior. Our results suggest that green values
can have a straightforward and positive influence on BB, challenging the notion of a
paradox in green consumerism.
Echoing the concerns of White et al. [65], our study addresses the elusive green con-
sumer by examining the gap between stated preferences and actual purchasing behavior.
By identifying the mediating factors that bridge this gap, we provide actionable insights
for marketers to better align green marketing strategies with consumer behavior. FV is
found to be of key importance, as it encapsulates the consumer’s perception that green
products are economically sensible, reasonably priced, and effective in mitigating environ-
mental impact while maintaining quality standards. This value proposition is crucial when
consumers weigh green products against their non-green counterparts, especially when
product qualities are analogous. In addition, EV emerges from the personal gratification
and tranquility consumers experience through green purchases, which enhances their
sense of well-being and fulfillment by contributing to environmental conservation. This
emotional involvement is a powerful driver that can transform environmental concern into
tangible consumer action.
According to the emphasis of Yalley and Twum [66] on green consumer behavior
in emerging economies, our study suggests that factors that influence green purchasing
decisions may differ significantly in these markets. Our findings encourage marketers to
consider local values and communication strategies when promoting green products in
emerging economies.

6. Conclusions
6.1. Summary of Theoretical Implications
The findings of this research contribute to the theoretical understanding of green
consumer behavior in several ways. By dissecting green values into distinct constructs,
this study offers a refined theoretical framework that can be used to better understand the
specific drivers of green purchasing behavior. This granularity allows for more targeted
hypotheses and nuanced theoretical models in future research.
Furthermore, the significant mediating role of RGC identified in this study suggests
the need to revise existing theories on green marketing communication. It calls for a
theoretical expansion that takes into account the persuasive power of green communication
beyond its traditional role as a mere message conduit.
The lack of significant effects of CV and SV on BB challenges the universality of the in-
fluence of these constructs in different contexts. This finding invites theoretical exploration
of the situational factors that can moderate the impact of these values on consumer behavior.
Furthermore, the dual-path influence of EV on BB, both direct and mediated, underscores
the complex interplay between emotional engagement and consumer decision-making.
This contributes to the theoretical discourse on the role of emotions in ethical consumption.
By identifying the mediating factors that bridge the gap between stated preferences
and actual purchasing behavior, this study contributes to a theoretical understanding of
how to better predict consumer behavior in the realm of sustainability. First, the attitude
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 15 of 20

toward purchasing green products reflects the consumer’s belief in the intrinsic value of
green products, viewing them as a positive and beneficial choice. A pro-environmental
stance, coupled with a willingness to invest more in eco-friendly producers, indicates that
price is not the sole deciding factor. Second, the endorsement of brands that advocate for
environmental causes and their attention to green advertising messages suggest a change
in attitudes influenced by green marketing. Positive reactions to green-branded messages
underscore the importance of integrating environmental themes into advertising strategies.

6.2. Summary of Practical Implications

For practitioners, the insights from this study offer several actionable strategies. First,
marketers must develop communications that resonate with the specific values that drive
green purchasing behavior. Messages should be tailored to highlight the functional and
emotional benefits of green products.
Given the mediating role of RGC, marketers should invest in green communication
strategies that not only inform but also persuade and engage consumers on an emotional
level. Additionally, products must be positioned to emphasize their functional and emo-
tional value, leveraging these as key selling points to appeal to environmentally conscious
consumers.
Marketers should be aware of the cultural and contextual factors that influence the
effectiveness of different consumer values. Strategies must be adapted to local contexts,
especially in emerging markets. Finally, companies must focus on reducing the inten-
tion–behavior gap by aligning their marketing strategies with the mediating factors iden-
tified in this study, such as enhancing the perceived value and credibility of green com-
munication. By highlighting these results, our study provides a lens through which the
elusive green consumer becomes more discernible, allowing marketers to craft strategies
that resonate with the values and attitudes driving green purchasing behaviors.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although this study contributes valuable information on green consumer behavior,
it is not without limitations. One notable limitation is the reliance on self-reported data,
which can introduce response bias and social desirability bias. Future research could benefit
from employing more diverse and objective measures, such as observational studies or
experimental designs. Furthermore, this study focused on a specific demographic and
cultural context, which can limit the generalizability of the findings. Future studies should
aim to explore the behavior of green consumers in various demographic groups and cultural
contexts and also examine the intersection of financial constraints and green purchasing
behavior to provide a more complete understanding.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.-A.C., O.-I.B., M.T. and S.I.M.; Data curation, O.-I.B.;
Formal analysis, R.-A.C. and O.-I.B.; Funding acquisition, O.-I.B.; Investigation, R.-A.C. and O.-I.B.;
Methodology, R.-A.C. and O.-I.B.; Project administration, R.-A.C. and O.-I.B.; Resources, O.-I.B.;
Software, O.-I.B.; Supervision, R.-A.C.; Validation, R.-A.C., M.T. and S.I.M.; Visualization, R.-A.C.
and O.-I.B.; Writing—original draft, R.-A.C., O.-I.B., M.T. and S.I.M.; Writing—review and editing,
R.-A.C., M.T. and S.I.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study as
our institution does not have an Institutional Review Board. We affirm that the study was conducted
according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made
available by the authors on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 16 of 20

Appendix A. Research Constructs and Indicators

Construct Indicator Content References

I consider purchasing green products to be a valuable
APGP_1
behavior.
APGP_2 I view purchasing green products as a positive behavior.
I believe purchasing green products is a
APGP_3
Attitude toward Purchasing beneficial behavior.
[11,38]
Green Products (APGP) I choose to buy products that are
APGP_4
environmentally friendly.
I am willing to pay more for a product if I know that its
APGP_5
producer is environmentally friendly.
Price is not the most important criterion for me when
APGP_6
purchasing products.
RGC_1 I endorse brands that advocate for environmental causes.
I tend to give heed to advertising messages that address
RGC_2
environmental issues.
The inclusion of green messages in advertisements
RGC_3
influences my attitude toward those ads.
I react positively to brands that incorporate green
RGC_4
Receptivity to Green messages in their advertising.
Communication I am the type of consumer who responds favorably when [12]
(RGC) RGC_5
brands utilize green messages in their ads.
RGC_6 I believe that green advertising holds value.
I consider green advertising to be an essential form
RGC_7
of promotion.
I am the type of consumer who is open to purchasing
RGC_8
products marketed as environmentally friendly.
RGC_9 I tend to pay attention to messages in green advertising.
I make an effort to purchase energy-efficient products
BB_1
and appliances.
BB_2 I steer clear of products with excessive packaging.
When there is a choice, I opt for the product that
BB_3
minimizes pollution.
BB_4 I have switched products or brands for ecological reasons.
I go to great lengths to buy paper products crafted from
Buying Behavior BB_5
recycled paper. [12,67]
(BB)
BB_6 I use environmentally friendly soaps and detergents.
I have persuaded members of my family or friends not to
BB_7
purchase certain products harmful to the environment.
Whenever possible, I opt for products packaged in
BB_8
reusable containers.
BB_9 I make an effort to buy products that can be recycled.
BB_10 I purchase high-efficiency light bulbs to conserve energy.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 17 of 20

Construct Indicator Content References

FV_1 Purchasing a green product offers good value for money.
FV_2 Green products are reasonably priced.
Green products are well-made for reducing
Functional Value FV_3
environmental distortion. [11,68]
(FV)
Green products maintain an acceptable standard
FV_4
of quality.
I prefer green products over non-green products when
FV_5
their product qualities are similar.
I would be inclined to purchase a green product if offered
CV_1
at a discount.
I would consider purchasing a green product if offered
CV_2
Conditional Value with promotional incentives.
[11,68]
(CV) I would opt for a green product when it is
CV_3
readily available.
The price for green products should be appropriate in
CV_4
relation to the value for money.
Purchasing a green product would create a positive
SV_1
impression on others.
Buying a green product would enhance how I am
SV_2
perceived by others.
Social Value Choosing a green product would contribute to feeling
SV_3 [11]
(SV) accepted by others.
Opting for a green product would provide me with
SV_4
social approval.
Supporting environmental issues makes me more
SV_5
socially attractive
EV_1 I derive enjoyment from purchasing green products.
EV_2 I feel relaxed after making a green product purchase.
The purchase of green products brings me a sense
EV_3
of well-being.
Emotional Value Supporting environmental protection makes me
EV_4 [11,68]
(EV) feel meaningful.
I would say I am emotionally involved in environmental
EV_5
protection issues.
Supporting environmental protection makes me
EV_6
feel special.

References
1. Blas Riesgo, S.; Lavanga, M.; Codina, M. Drivers and barriers for sustainable fashion consumption in Spain: A comparison
between sustainable and non-sustainable consumers. Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2023, 16, 1–13. [CrossRef]
2. Meng, Q.; Li, M.; Liu, W.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J. Pricing policies of dual-channel green supply chain: Considering government subsidies
and consumers’ dual preferences. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 1021–1030. [CrossRef]
3. Öztürk, B.N. The Environmentalist Movement in the World and Environmental Studies in the Marketing Literature. J. Mark.
Consum. Behav. Emerg. Mark. 2021, 12, 37–54. [CrossRef]
4. Wang, S.; Liu, M.T.; Pérez, A. A bibliometric analysis of green marketing in marketing and related fields: From 1991 to 2021. Asia
Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2023, 35, 1857–1882. [CrossRef]
5. Haba, H.F.; Bredillet, C.; Dastane, O. Green consumer research: Trends and way forward based on bibliometric analysis. Clean.
Responsible Consum. 2023, 8, 100089. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 18 of 20

6. Tanrikulu, C. Theory of consumption values in consumer behaviour research: A review and future research agenda. Int. J.
Consum. Stud. 2021, 45, 1176–1197. [CrossRef]
7. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. Enhance green purchase intentions: The roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green
trust. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 502–520. [CrossRef]
8. Kashif, U.; Hong, C.; Naseem, S.; Khan, W.A.; Akram, M.W.; Rehman, K.U.; Andleeb, S. Assessment of millennial organic food
consumption and moderating role of food neophobia in Pakistan. Curr. Psychol. 2023, 42, 1504–1515. [CrossRef]
9. Sangroya, D.; Nayak, J.K. Factors influencing buying behaviour of green energy consumer. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 151, 393–405.
[CrossRef]
10. Tahir, M. The impact of green perceived value and its additional multidimensional expanded variables effect on customer attitude
and purchasing intention for buying green food products: A case of Pakistan. J. Organ. Bus. 2021, 2, 24–42.
11. Woo, E.; Kim, Y.G. Consumer attitudes and buying behavior for green food products: From the aspect of green perceived value
(GPV). Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 320–332. [CrossRef]
12. Do Paco, A.; Shiel, C.; Alves, H. A new model for testing green consumer behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 998–1006. [CrossRef]
13. Dabija, D.C.; Bejan, B.M. A cross-generational perspective on Green Loyalty in Romanian Retail. In Civil Society: The Engine for
Economic and Social Well-Being: The 2017 Griffiths School of Management and IT Annual Conference on Business, Entrepreneurship and
Ethics (GMSAC); Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1–23.
14. Danciu, V. The Changing Focus of Green Marketing: From Ecological to Sustainable Marketing (III). Rom. Econ. J. 2018, 21,
121–144.
15. Lakatos, E.S.; Nan, L.M.; Bacali, L.; Ciobanu, G.; Ciobanu, A.M.; Cioca, L.I. Consumer satisfaction towards green products:
Empirical insights from romania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10982. [CrossRef]
16. Purcărea, T.; Ioan-Franc, V.; Ionescu, Ş.-A.; Purcărea, I.M.; Purcărea, V.L.; Purcărea, I.; Mateescu-Soare, M.C.; Platon, O.-E.; Orzan,
A.-O. Major shifts in sustainable consumer behavior in Romania and retailers’ priorities in agilely adapting to it. Sustainability
2022, 14, 1627. [CrossRef]
17. Roman, T.; Bostan, I.; Manolică, A.; Mitrica, I. Profile of green consumers in Romania in light of sustainability challenges and
opportunities. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6394–6411. [CrossRef]
18. Popa, I.; Olariu, A.A.; Breazu, A.; Nica, C.B. Are EU member states resilient to new crises? In Proceedings of the 17th International
Management Conference: Management Beyond Crisis: Rethinking Business Performance, Bucharest, Romania, 2–3 November
2023; pp. 10–16.
19. Raiu, C.; Mina-Raiu, L. How to cope with counter-performance in public administration. The case of freedom of religion or belief
during the pandemic. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2022, 18, 81–98. [CrossRef]
20. Raiu, C.; Mina-Raiu, L. Who Runs Public Administration? A Longitudinal Study of Technocratic Ministerial Appointments in
Post-Communist Romania (1991–2021). Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2023, 19, 109–127. [CrossRef]
21. Mason, M.C.; Oduro, S.; Umar, R.M.; Zamparo, G. Effect of consumption values on consumer behavior: A Meta-analysis. Mark.
Intell. Plan. 2023, 41, 923–944. [CrossRef]
22. Huang, M.Y. Effects of consumer perception, attitude, and purchase intention on the willingness to pay for green building
housing products. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2023, 38, 1559–1583. [CrossRef]
23. Zhuang, W.; Luo, X.; Riaz, M.U. On the factors influencing green purchase intention: A meta-analysis approach. Front. Psychol.
2021, 12, 644020. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Mahama Braimah, S.; Amoako, G.K.; Abubakari, A.; Ampong GO, A.; Ofori, K.S. Green perceived value and consumer attitudes
in the light of the SDGs: A replication study from a developing economy. Soc. Bus. Rev. 2023, 18, 345–362. [CrossRef]
25. Ahmed, R.R.; Streimikiene, D.; Qadir, H.; Streimikis, J. Effect of green marketing mix, green customer value, and attitude on
green purchase intention: Evidence from the USA. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 11473–11495. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Lin, J.; Zhou, Z. The positioning of green brands in enhancing their image: The mediating roles of green brand innovativeness
and green perceived value. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2022, 17, 1404–1424. [CrossRef]
27. Barbu, A.; Catană, S, .A.; Deselnicu, D.C.; Cioca, L.I.; Ioanid, A. Factors influencing consumer behavior toward green products: A
systematic literature review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16568. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Varshneya, G.; Pandey, S.K.; Das, G. Impact of social influence and green consumption values on purchase intention of organic
clothing: A study on collectivist developing economy. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2017, 18, 478–492. [CrossRef]
29. Kremel, A. Consumer Behaviour in a Circular System—How Values Promote and Hinder the Participation of Young Adults in
the Swedish Deposit-Refund System for Beverage Packaging. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2023, 1–20. [CrossRef]
30. Lin, P.C.; Huang, Y.H. The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green products based on the theory of consumption
values. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 22, 11–18. [CrossRef]
31. Zhao, H.; Yao, X.; Liu, Z.; Yang, Q. Impact of pricing and product information on consumer buying behavior with customer
satisfaction in a mediating role. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 720151. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Sharma, K.; Aswal, C.; Paul, J. Factors affecting green purchase behavior: A systematic literature review. Bus. Strategy Environ.
2023, 32, 2078–2092. [CrossRef]
33. Dagher, G.K.; Itani, O. Factors influencing green purchasing behaviour: Empirical evidence from the Lebanese consumers. J.
Consum. Behav. 2014, 13, 188–195. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 19 of 20

34. Caniëls, M.C.; Lambrechts, W.; Platje, J.J.; Motylska-Kuźma, A.; Fortuński, B. Impressing my friends: The role of social value in
green purchasing attitude for youthful consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 303, 126993. [CrossRef]
35. Kumar, R.; Kumar, K.; Singh, R.; Sá, J.C.; Carvalho, S.; Santos, G. Modeling Environmentally Conscious Purchase Behavior:
Examining the Role of Ethical Obligation and Green Self-Identity. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6426. [CrossRef]
36. Wijekoon, R.; Sabri, M.F. Determinants that influence green product purchase intention and behavior: A literature review and
guiding framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6219. [CrossRef]
37. Li, G.; Yang, L.; Zhang, B.; Li, X.; Chen, F. How do environmental values impact green product purchase intention? The
moderating role of green trust. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 46020–46034. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Průša, P.; Sadílek, T. Green consumer behavior: The case of Czech consumers of generation Y. Soc. Mark. Q. 2019, 25, 243–255.
39. Sriwaranun, Y.; Gan, C.; Lee, M.; Cohen, D.A. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic products in Thailand. Int. J. Soc. Econ.
2015, 42, 480–510. [CrossRef]
40. Hoang Yen, N.T.; Hoang, D.P. The formation of attitudes and intention towards green purchase: An analysis of internal and
external mechanisms. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2023, 10, 2192844. [CrossRef]
41. Jaini, A.; Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J.; Hussin, N. “I buy green products, do you. . .?” The moderating effect of eWOM on green
purchase behavior in Malaysian cosmetics industry. Int. J. Pharm. Healthc. Mark. 2020, 14, 89–112. [CrossRef]
42. Ottman, J.A.; Stafford, E.R.; Hartman, C.L. Avoiding green marketing myopia: Ways to improve consumer appeal for environ-
mentally preferable products. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2006, 48, 22–36. [CrossRef]
43. Khan, S.N.; Mohsin, M. The power of emotional value: Exploring the effects of values on green product consumer choice behavior.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 150, 65–74. [CrossRef]
44. Kumari, R.; Verma, R.; Debata, B.R.; Ting, H. A systematic literature review on the enablers of green marketing adoption:
Consumer perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 366, 132852. [CrossRef]
45. Chwialkowska, A.; Bhatti, W.A.; Bujac, A.; Abid, S. An interplay of the consumption values and green behavior in developed
markets: A sustainable development viewpoint. Sustain. Dev. 2024; Epub ahead of printing. [CrossRef]
46. Maccioni, L.; Borgianni, Y.; Basso, D. Value perception of green products: An exploratory study combining conscious answers
and unconscious behavioral aspects. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1226. [CrossRef]
47. Bhardwaj, A.K.; Garg, A.; Ram, S.; Gajpal, Y.; Zheng, C. Research trends in green product for environment: A bibliometric
perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8469. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Durif, F.; Boivin, C.; Julien, C. In search of a green product definition. Innov. Mark. 2010, 6, 25–33.
49. Dangelico, R.M.; Pontrandolfo, P. From green product definitions and classifications to the Green Option Matrix. J. Clean. Prod.
2010, 18, 1608–1628. [CrossRef]
50. Wandosell, G.; Parra-Meroño, M.C.; Alcayde, A.; Baños, R. Green packaging from consumer and business perspectives. Sustain-
ability 2021, 13, 1356. [CrossRef]
51. Kamalanon, P.; Chen, J.-S.; Le, T.-T.-Y. “Why do we buy green products?” An extended theory of the planned behavior model for
green product purchase behavior. Sustainability 2022, 14, 689. [CrossRef]
52. Cao, Y. “Green products”: A review with the Consumer Buying Process framework. J. Environ. Manag. Tour. 2023, 14, 52–66.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Tewari, A.; Mathur, S.; Srivastava, S.; Gangwar, D. Examining the role of receptivity to green communication, altruism and
openness to change on young consumers’ intention to purchase green apparel: A multi-analytical approach. J. Retail. Consum.
Serv. 2022, 66, 102938. [CrossRef]
54. Chang, H.; Zhang, L.; Xie, G.X. Message framing in green advertising: The effect of construal level and consumer environmental
concern. Int. J. Advert. 2015, 34, 158–176. [CrossRef]
55. Grimmer, M.; Woolley, M. Green marketing messages and consumers’ purchase intentions: Promoting personal versus environ-
mental benefits. J. Mark. Commun. 2014, 20, 231–250. [CrossRef]
56. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.-M. “SmartPLS 4.” Oststeinbek: SmartPLS GmbH. 2022. Available online: https://www.
smartpls.com (accessed on 1 March 2024).
57. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Hair, J.F. Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In Handbook of Market Research; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 587–632. [CrossRef]
59. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM),
2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2024.
60. Hair, J.F.; Hult GT, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 3rd ed.;
Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022.
61. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult GT, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Danks, N.P.; Ray, S. Evaluation of reflective measurement models. In Partial
Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 75–90.
62. Hair, J.F.; Astrachan, C.B.; Moisescu, O.I.; Radomir, L.; Sarstedt, M.; Vaithilingam, S.; Ringle, C.M. Executing and interpreting
applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2021, 12, 100392. [CrossRef]
63. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3866 20 of 20

64. Mazar, N.; Zhong, C.B. Do Green Products Make Us Better People? Psychol. Sci. 2010, 21, 494–498. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. White, K.; Hardisty, D.J.; Habib, R. The elusive green consumer. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2019, 11, 124–133.
66. Yalley, A.A.; Twum, K.K. Green consumer behaviour. In Green Marketing in Emerging Markets: Strategic and Operational Perspectives;
Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 61–92.
67. Zhao, H.H.; Gao, Q.; Wu, Y.P.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, X.D. What affects green consumer behavior in China? A case study from Qingdao.
Journal of Cleaner Production 2014, 63, 143–151. [CrossRef]
68. Kumar, P.; Ghodeswar, B.M. Factors affecting consumers’ green product purchase decisions. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2015, 33, 330–347.
[CrossRef]

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.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.