Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Although China has enjoyed great economic growth in the past several years, environmental problems have not attracted enough attention, especially for the young Chinese population (Generation Z consumers). Based on the theory of planned behavior, this work aims to analyze the mediation role of product attributes, perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE), and environmental awareness in eco-label–informed purchase for Gen Z consumers in China. According to the result, it shows (a) eco-label–informed purchase could significantly increase two threads of PCE and product attributes, (b) those two threads intermediate the eco-labeling and environmental awareness positively, and (c) eventually lead to purchase behavior for Chinese Generation Z. For theoretical contribution, this article tries to have a more comprehensive investigation on green consumption, and to explore the theoretical relationship among product attributes, PCE, and environmental awareness in the context of Chinese Gen Z. Relevant managerial implications and practical guides are also discussed in this article.

Keywords

eco-label environmentally friendly product Chinese generation sustainable consumption perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE)

Introduction

Although China has experienced unprecedented economic growth in the last decades, environmental issues have only gained attention in recent years (Wong, 2003). The young Chinese generation has performed as a large consumer group to conduct sustainable behavior and environmental protection (R. Y. K. Chan & Lau, 2000) because they are willing to spend their disposable income (Fogel & Schneider, 2011) and are considered to have an active social responsibility, not only concerning the present but also considering the future impact (France, 1998). According to the Chinese population report, almost one third of the Chinese population are people less than 24 years old (The Statistics Portal, 2018). Such a young adult consumer group, generally referred to as Generation Z following the generation theory, has been found to possess a higher propensity to be socially and economically involved in the society: They have revealed a greater interest to actively participate in social issues, especially compared with Generation Y (Xinhua, 2019). To specify, Generation Z, as a concept shared by both Eastern and Western cultures, refers to the population succeeding millennials and preceding Generation Alpha (Dabija et al., 2019; Kadić-Maglajlić et al., 2013). Researchers (Dabija et al., 2019; Turner, 2015; Williams & Page, 2011) and popular media (Xinhua, 2019) use the mid- to late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years. Therefore, educating this cohort of Chinese consumers about the green purchase is important for green business targeting the younger adult consumer segment in green marketing.

Within green marketing, consumer education with sustainable consumption has been ever more urgent in recent years as environmental deterioration continues to pose severe threats to the world population (Esteves et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2019; Razzaq et al., 2018). To communicate with consumers directly about environmental concerns (Fiksel, 2009; Taufique et al., 2014), products with eco-labels (referred to further in this article as eco-labels or eco-labeling) have rapidly become a practical tool to promote green economy (Ackermann, 1976; Finisterra do Paço & Raposo, 2010; Haga, 2018; Kanchanapibul et al., 2014; Pirog, 2003), shape consumer behavior (Grankvist et al., 2004; Minkov et al., 2018; Sammer & Wüstenhagen, 2006; Shen, 2008; Thøgersen, 2000), and improve environmental ethics (Dietz et al., 2002), especially within the young generation (Hill & Lee, 2012; Kanchanapibul et al., 2014; Lee, 2008; Teisl et al., 2002). According to Global Ecolabelling Network (2019), a specific eco-label can identify products or services that are confirmed environmentally friendly by an impartial third party. Thus, eco-labels work as an information tool to assure consumers of the authentic environmental claims attached to the product (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014).

Although the evaluation and estimation regarding the effectiveness and practice of eco-labeling have been conducted worldwide (Gutiérrez et al., 2012; Sörqvist et al., 2013; Streletskaya et al., 2019; Waechter et al., 2015), the mediating factors of eco-labels–related consumption remain ambiguous in current research (Esteves et al., 2017; Loureiro et al., 2002). For example, prior studies have identified and discussed the mediating environmental awareness within the process of eco-label–informed consumer behavior, which is mainly measured by environmental concern (Bamberg, 2003) and environmental attitude (Milfont & Duckitt, 2010). However, they might relatively focus on one single perspective rather than a holistic view of environmental awareness (Berger & Corbin, 1992; Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995; Tang et al., 2004). Moreover, limited research has addressed how eco-labeling could influence green consumption by other influential factors relevant to green consumption, such as perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) and product attributes evaluation (Minkov et al., 2018). It appears that the lack of knowledge makes it misleading to conclusively design further managerial policies and strategic practice (Qin & Song, 2020; Song et al., 2019).

Taking the prominence of eco-labels–related green consumption (Hume, 2009; Kanchanapibul et al., 2014; Yadav & Pathak, 2016) and placing it in the context of the rapidly developing Chinese consumer market provides significant theoretical and practical advancements. However, to-date studies on eco-labeling and Chinese Generation Z are lacking. Besides, more recent literature reveals that young people would also show a higher tendency to doubt eco-information (Albayrak et al., 2013; Bailey, 2007; Goh & Balaji, 2016; Hume, 2009; Mohr et al., 1998; Sullivan & Heitmeyer, 2008).

The current research fills this research gap by empirically examining the in-depth effects and the underlying mechanism of eco-label–informed green purchase (referred to further in this article as a green purchase) from the perspective of Chinese Gen Z. The significant contribution of this article contains the following: (a) Our study provides preliminary evidence of Chinese Gen Z to enrich the theoretical relationship between eco-label marketing and generation theory, (b) make a clear distinction of different constructs of environmental awareness and the interaction among these constructs in eco-labeling, and (c) extend the existing literature by discussing the relationship between eco-labels and PCE, which is largely neglected by previous studies.

In the following section, we first discussed the theoretical background and relevant hypotheses. Next, we conducted a survey study to address the research question and further empirically validated the theoretical framework. Last, we summarized the results, compared the conclusions with previous studies, and discussed the limitation and future directions.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Eco-Labeled Product and Product Attributes

Regarding the complexity in the product industry, not only consumers could not figure out where their product comes from or how it was cultivated, but also product procurement agencies cannot differentiate the environmentally friendly product from numerous delicate marketing claims (Ackermann, 1976). Thus, perceptions of eco-labels are one of the essential green advertising and strategic tools to express products’ environmentally friendly consciousness to consumers, and it has been increasingly adopted by corporations or organizations to show their corporate social responsibility toward the environment (Bougherara & Combris, 2009; Clemenz, 2010). Eco-labeling has worked as one of the most recognizable attributes of green products. Eco-labels could increase the level of transparency with its environmental friendliness claim (McKenzie-Mohr, 2002; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002) as consumers often find it difficult to recognize green products. By reducing such information asymmetry between producers and consumers, eco-labels help consumers to get a better understanding of products’ intangible attributes, including the manufacturing process and the value of selecting this product (Cai et al., 2017; Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2016; Rex & Baumann, 2007).

There are some other studies arguing that eco-labels might not be a sufficient indicator to communicate recognizable environmental claim in green products, such as quality that would have a significant impact on consumer purchase intention (Aertsens et al., 2011; D’Souza et al., 2006; Tsakiridou et al., 2008). For example, Smith and Paladino (2010) suggest that the perceived functionality of environmental products is positively associated with consumer product attitude. Furthermore, Magnusson et al. (2003) explain the inconsistency of purchase selection by identifying different consumer preferences: A consumer who values environmental obligation to the society would have a higher probability of choosing eco-labeled products, whereas consumers who value individual satisfaction tend to choose functionally oriented products.

Besides, previous literature has discussed the positive relationship between perceptions of product attributes (hereinafter referred to as product attributes) and environmental awareness (Pohjolainen et al., 2016). Zhang et al. (2015) reveal that environmental awareness increases order quantity of environmentally friendly products when compared with traditional products. Indeed, environmentally friendly products share a collective description that includes nutritional benefits, health values, social contributions, and environmental considerations (Ackermann, 1976). For example, common green product claims include antibiotic free, no hormones added, free range, or pure natural. Although product attributes have been argued as an antecedent for consumers to form specific awareness and belief (Bergstrom et al., 1990; Cameron & Englin, 1997; R. Y. K. Chan & Lau, 2000; Wan et al., 2016), the antecedents of environmentally friendly product attributes are limited. Given this, eco-labels are argued for improving environmental awareness because it works as an educative medium to give consumers necessary environmental information (Tang et al., 2004).

Regarding the above controversial observations, it would be necessary to examine the relationship between eco-labels, product attributes, and environmental awareness. If people tend to perceive a higher level of product attributes when showed with an eco-labeled product, it would be reasonable to anticipate that product attributes would positively contribute to environmental awareness. According to previous literature, environmental awareness is further divided into three constructs, namely, environmental attitude, ecological affection, and environmental concern. To be more specific, environmental attitude refers to a cognitive tendency expressed by evaluation process of nature with some extent of favor or disfavor (Milfont & Duckitt, 2010); the environmental concern is considered to be more associated with individual fundamental values of environmental problems (Schultz, 2000; Stern et al., 1995). Whereas, compared with environmental, attitudinal awareness, ecological affection is found to be more related to the consequential behavioral reaction. For example, some previous research has argued a strong relationship between ecological affection and purchase behavior and further suggests an average correlation between these two variables is .37 (R. Y. K. Chan & Lau, 2000; Kanchanapibul et al., 2014).

Therefore, to scrutinize how eco-labels–informed product attributes affect environmental awareness, we have the following hypotheses based on the discussion above:

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Eco-label has a positive impact on product attributes.

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Product attributes have a positive impact on environmental attitude.

Hypothesis 3a (H3a): Product attributes have a positive impact on ecological affection.

Hypothesis 4a (H4a): Product attributes have a positive impact on environmental concern.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Product attributes mediate the effect of eco-label on environmental attitude.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Product attributes mediate the effect of eco-label on ecological affection.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Product attributes mediate the effect of eco-label on environmental concern.

PCE

PCE was first introduced by Kinnear et al. (1974) in 1974 and then developed based on the concept of self-efficacy in social cognition theory (Schunk, 1989), referring to the degree to which a consumer believes that they could play a significant role in preventing and solving the environmental issue (Ellen et al., 1991). Different from environmental concern or attitude, which represents an evaluation of environmental problems, PCE has been defined as the inner evaluation process that an individual could contribute to the environmental issue (Berger & Corbin, 1992; Kim & Choi, 2005).

PCE makes an essential contribution to environmental research, such as prosocial behavior. The relationship between PCE and environmental awareness has long attracted scholarly attention (Cho et al., 2013; Tan, 2011). Previous research into this relationship has focused on improving environmental awareness through PCE. For example, Vermeir and Verbeke (2006) show that PCE could have a significant positive impact on the environmental attitude. Similarly, Tan and Lau (2011) suggest that consumers with high PCE are more likely to exhibit positive attitudes toward the environment than those with lower PCE. Furthermore, Laskova (2007) argues that PCE could positively contribute to a positive outcome for environmental concern. In this view, we might expect that PCE predicted by eco-labeled products would have a positive impact on environmental awareness.

Although eco-labels work as one of the essential tools to communicate environmental knowledge, prior research has largely neglected the useful role of eco-label in improving PCE in the context of green consumption (Taufique et al., 2016). Previous literature mainly presents that environmental knowledge could influence PCE directly or indirectly because it provided the necessary information for consumers to make an environment-related decision (Cerri et al., 2018; Tan, 2011; Zuraidah et al., 2012). Also, Taufique et al. (2017) suggest that consumers are sensitive to eco-labels and understand its meaning and significance to environmental protection. Because eco-label, as one of the significant environmental knowledge resources, could provide sufficient environmental information to help consumers to internalize their external influences on the environmental issue (Bougherara & Combris, 2009). In other words, based on their understanding of eco-labels, consumers could realize that their action, to some degree, protects the environment. Hence, we assume that an eco-labeled product could also have an influential impact on PCE, helping consumers to adapt their environmental behavior (Cho et al., 2013).

Therefore, based on the above theoretical observations, we present the following hypothesis aiming to understand the effects of the eco-labels on PCE better, and the effects of PCE on environmental awareness:

Hypothesis 5s (H5a): Eco-label has a positive impact on PCE.

Hypothesis 6a (H6a): PCE has a positive impact on environmental attitude.

Hypothesis 7a (H7a): PCE has a positive impact on ecological affection.

Hypothesis 8a (H8a): PCE has a positive impact on environmental concern.

Hypothesis 4b (H4b): PCE mediates the effect of eco-label on environmental attitude.

Hypothesis 5b (H5b): PCE mediates the effect of eco-label on ecological affection.

Hypothesis 6b (H6b): PCE mediates the effect of eco-label on environmental concern.

Environmental Awareness

Consumer’s environmental awareness plays an essential role in the research of sustainability and environmental issue because it emphasizes people’s general attitude, concern, or affection toward environmental problems (D’Souza et al., 2006; Hines et al., 1987). It is highly associated with environmentally conscious reactions, such as recycling motivation, environmentally orientated consumer behavior, and consumer cognitive and affective interaction (Gadenne et al., 2009; Littledyke, 2008). Although prior literature has suggested the useful role of environmental awareness in promoting consumer purchase behavior (Song, Qin, & Yuan, 2019), limited literature has addressed the difference within the constructs of environmental awareness (Littledyke, 2008). The relationship between different constructs within environmental awareness remained ambiguous (Littledyke, 2008). In other words, how the abovementioned constructs of environmental attitude, ecological affection, and environmental concern interact with each other remains unclear (details can be seen in the section “Eco-Labeled Product and Product Attributes”).

According to the physiological determinants of emotional state (Schachter & Singer, 1962), emotional arousal level was a hierarchical model of value–attitude–behavior (Follows & Jobber, 2000; Song & Qin, 2019a). Whereas environmental attitude was an antecedent emotional state, environmental concern was more associated with people’s fundamental values or beliefs of environmental ethics (Schultz, 2000; Stern et al., 1995), which are positively affected by altruistic beliefs and negatively influenced by egoistic beliefs. Consequently, environmental attitude and environmental concern were all belonging to the attitude level of emotional state (Follows & Jobber, 2000; Schachter & Singer, 1962), affection might be regarded as the consequence after environmental information and emotional processing (Hoffman, 1975; Laird, 1974).

Hypothesis 9a (H9a): The environmental attitude has a positive impact on ecological affection.

Hypothesis 10a (H10a): The environmental concern has a positive impact on ecological affection.

Hypothesis 11a (H11a): The environmental attitude has a positive impact on green purchases.

Hypothesis 12a (H12a): The environmental concern has a positive impact on green purchase.

Hypothesis 13a (H13a): Ecological affection has a positive impact on green purchase.

Hypothesis 7b (H7b): Environmental attitude mediates the effect of product attributes on green purchase.

Hypothesis 8b (H8b): Environmental attitude mediates the effect of PCE on green purchase.

Hypothesis 9b (H9b): Ecological affection mediates the effect of product attributes on green purchase.

Hypothesis 10b (H10b): Ecological affection mediates the effect of PCE on green purchase.

Hypothesis 11b (H11b): Environmental concern mediates the effect of product attributes on green purchase.

Hypothesis 12b (H12b): Environmental concern mediates the effect of PCE on green purchase.

Research Framework

Based on the previous hypotheses, we form a research framework to illustrate the effects of eco-labels on product attributes, PCE, environmental awareness, and the following behavioral reaction. Figure 1 shows the theoretical framework and 13 hypotheses between different variables, answering the research questions above.

Figure 1.

The theoretical framework with hypotheses.

Research Method

In the present research, we used a survey research method to analyze the relationship between eco-label, product attributes, PCE, environmental awareness, and green purchase behavior.

Measurements

The survey questionnaires were adapted from previously related literature on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to agree strongly. Table 1 shows the details of the definitions, measurement items, and the sources of each construct. Before data collection, a prestudy was employed to make sure whether the questionnaires were designed properly to address the research questions stated before. By recruiting 35 college students to participate in this prestudy, we rephrased the ambiguous questions, deleted the redundant items, and reorganized the logical structure, ensuring the conciseness and clearness of the current survey. In this way, an appropriate survey was developed, which included both the questionnaires and demographic information.

Table 1.

Measures, Definitions, References for the Current Study.

Constructs	Measurement items	References
Product attributes	Eco-friendly designed product looks appealing Eco-friendly designed product looks stylish Eco-friendly product is of good quality	Praxmarer (2011)
Eco-label	If possible, I would like to buy products with the recycling label Marketers must advertise the environmental aspects of their products Government must make eco-labeling mandatory	Nittala (2014)
Ecological affection	It genuinely infuriates me to think that the government does not do more to help control pollution of the environment I become incensed when I think about the harm being done to the plant and animal life by pollution When I think of the ways industries are causing pollution, I get frustrated and angry	R. Y. K. Chan & Lau (2000)
PCE	Each person’s behavior can have a positive effect on society by signing a petition in support of promoting the environment I feel I can help solve natural resource problem by conserving water and energy I can protect the environment by buying products that are friendly to the environment	Kim & Choi (2005)
Environmental attitudes	When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support	Kim (2011)
Environmental concern	I try to buy energy-efﬁcient household appliances I try to buy products that can be recycled To save energy, I drive my vehicle as little as possible	Straughan & Roberts (1999)
Green purchase	I have switched products for ecological reasons When I have a choice between two equal products, I purchase the one less harmful to other people and the environment I make a special effort to buy household chemicals such as detergents and cleaning solutions that are environmentally friendly I have avoided buying a product because it had potentially harmful environmental effects	Kim & Choi (2005)

Note. PCE = perceived consumer effectiveness.

Sampling

According to previous literature (Seemiller & Grace, 2016; Turner, 2015), Gen Z generally refers to people born in the mid to late 1990s. Chinese college students are considered as appropriate for purposive sampling to improve the generalizability of the results as an accurate representation of the Chinese Gen Z consumers to a large extent. Therefore, we began to collect survey responses from major universities in Beijing and Anhui Province from October to November 2018. The reason why we choose these two places is that Beijing, as the capital of China for hundreds of years, is a typical city to get the insight of college students who are more influenced by traditional culture (Song et al., 2008), whereas college students in Anhui, one of the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomerations in the east of China, are believed to be more open-minded because Yangtze River Delta urban agglomerations emerged as one of the economic centers in China (Zhu et al., 2012). Also, college students from Beijing and Anhui came from different parts of China, which would decrease the influence of localization and have a general picture of Chinese college students.

Response Collection

We first retrieved the student list from the academic secretaries of the related universities in Beijing and Anhui, then a total number of 2,516 of survey questionnaires were sent individually and randomly to the college students by the counselors via QQ and Wechat. Last, a total number of 745 of valid responses were recorded, and the response rate was 29.6%.

The demographics of the current sampling is shown in the appendix. In terms of education level, most participants are undergraduate students (98.79%). Regarding age, 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds are the majority of all participants, accounting for 37.45%, 33.69%, and 20.00%, respectively.

Data Analysis

To get a better understanding of an effect of the eco-labeled product, environmental awareness, and consequent behavior, data analysis was introduced by SPSS 22 for windows and AMOS 24 for windows to perform the detailed statistical analysis. To be more specific, SPSS was employed to summarize the demographics of the sampling and confirm the reliability of different constructs and measurement items. AMOS was used mainly for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of different variables and for the structural equation model (SEM) to analyze the model fit and related path coefficients between different variables.

Reliability and Validity

Reliability and validity are the standard tools of the survey to check whether the measurement items employed measure the research constructor. To be more specific, reliability means the degree that a construct measurement should have similar feedback under consistent circumstances. Composite reliability (C.R.) and Cronbach’s alphas are the indices to show the internal consistency of the measurement constructs in the survey. Table 2 shows the results of C.R. and Cronbach’s alphas in the present study. According to Carmines and Zeller (1979), both C.R. and Cronbach’s alphas of the measurement constructs should be above .70. In this way, the current measurement items and scales are considered to be reliable.

Table 2.

Reliability and Unidimensionality of All Different Constructs.

Constructs	Cronbach’s alpha	Variables	Factor loading	C.R. (t value)	SMC	AVE	C.R.
Environmental attitude	.792	Atti1 Atti2 Atti3	.695 .809 .745	−17.840 17.061	0.484 0.664 0.555	.572	.800
Environmental concern	.851	Con1 Con2 Con3	.884 .899 .680	−32.733 21.283	0.781 0.808 0.462	.583	.788
Eco-label	.746	Label1 Label2 Label3	.751 .768 .609	−17.984 14.869	0.564 0.5 0 0.371	.518	.761
PCE	.825	Pce1 Pce2 Pce3	.768 .726 .802	−17.840 17.061	0.590 0.527 0.643	.618	.829
Ecological affect	.799	Aff1 Aff2 Aff3	.674 .808 .774	−17.725 17.318	0.454 0.653 0.599	.578	.804
Product attributes	.855	Attri1 Attri2 Attri3	.888 .895 .673	−28.377 20.447	0.789 0.701 0.453	.682	.864
Green purchase	.887	Gp1 Gp2 Gp3 Gp4	.818 .856 .804 .776	−26.881 24.718 23.564	0.669 0.733 0.496 0.602	.666	.889

Note. C.R. = composite reliability; AVE = averaged variances expected; PCE = perceived consumer effectiveness; SMC = squared multiple correlation.

Besides, construct validity means the degree to which a scale or measurement item measures what it supports to be measuring (Gruber et al., 2010; Novick & Lewis, 1967). It included three specific validity assessments: convergent validity, discriminant validity, and unidimensionality (Gruber et al., 2010). Unidimensionality means the degree that a construct measurement or scale only has one dimension. To address the unidimensionality of the current study, CFA was adopted to confirm whether the construct measurement is referring to our understanding of the nature of the factor (or construct) through maximum likelihood (ML) estimation. Table 2 shows the reliability and unidimensionality of all seven constructs.

Convergent validity mainly means the extent that different measures of the same hypothetical construct should be correlated highly with one another if the construct measurements are valid. Consequently, the standardized factor loadings coefficient should be above .5, and averaged variances expected (AVE) value should be higher than .5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Kwong-Kay Wong, 2013). In the present study, the results showed the minimum value of C.R. in the current study (= 14.869) was much higher than the “2” threshold; minimum standardized factor loading (= 0.695) exceeded the “0.5” threshold. Also, the lowest AVE calculated (= .518) is higher than the threshold, .50. As a result, the convergent validity of the constructs is still adequate.

Discriminant validity is aimed to check whether variables or construct measurements that are not supposed to be related are unrelated. Regarding this, the correlation coefficients of the present study were performed. Table 3 shows the maximum shared variance (MSV) and average shared variance (ASV) to check whether discriminant validity is adequate (threshold: MSV < AVE and ASV < AVE; Byrne, 2013). Table 3 shows that AVE values are all above MSV and ASV values, ensuring that the seven dimensions of this research framework achieved adequate discriminant validity.

Table 3.

Correlation and Discriminant Validity of Different Constructs.

Construct	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	Greenbuy	Label	Attributes	PCE	Attitude	Concern	Affect
Greenbuy	.889	.666	.618	.421	.816***
Label	.761	.518	.472	.330	.627***	.720***
Attributes	.864	.682	.261	.205	.463***	.409***	.826***
PCE	.829	.618	.618	.425	.786***	.640***	.440***	.786***
Attitude	.800	.572	.365	.292	.580***	.430***	.511***	.604***	.756***
Concern	.788	.583	.560	.395	.744***	.687***	.375***	.748***	.510***	.763***
Affect	.804	.578	.413	.359	.643***	.592***	.505***	.635***	.588***	.622***	.760***

Note. C.R. = composite reliability; AVE = averaged variances expected; MSV = maximum shared variance; ASV = average shared variance; PCE = perceived consumer effectiveness.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

The goodness of fit with absolute fit indices and incremental fit indices was also confirmed in the present model. Table 4 shows the results of all the fit indices. To be more specific, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), normed fit index (NFI), incremental fit index (IFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and comparative fit index CFI) were all within the respective thresholds. Therefore, the current framework might achieve an adequate model fit with the responses collected.

Table 4.

The Goodness of Fit in the Current Model.

Category	Measure	Acceptable values	Value
Absolute fit indices	χ²		640.986
	df		196
	χ²/df	1–5	3.270
	GFI	0.90 or above	0.924
	AGFI	0.90 or above	0.902
	SRMR	0.08 or below	0.034
	RMSEA	0.05–0.08	0.055
Incremental fit indices	NFI	0.90 or above	0.933
	IFI	0.90 or above	0.952
	TLI	0.90 or above	0.944
	CFI	0.90 or above	0.952

Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NFI = normed fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index.

Path and Mediation Analysis

The current study tries to analyze the effect of eco-label on product attributes, PCE, and environmental awareness, thus having an impact on green purchase behavior. Regarding the research questions of this study, the path analysis of the SEM was performed to test the relationship between different variables empirically. Figure 2 shows the results of the path analysis, and Tables 5 and 6 show the results of the standard coefficient in path analysis, mediation analysis, and summarizes the hypotheses results.

Table 5.

Path Analysis Result and Hypotheses Testing.

	Path direction	Standardized coefficient	SE	C.R. (t value)	Result
H1a	Eco-label → Product attributes	0.456***	0.080	9.656	Accepted
H2a	Eco-label → PCE	0.736***	0.065	13.223	Accepted
H3a	Product attributes → Environmental attitude	0.320***	0.036	7.808	Accepted
H4a	Product attributes → Ecological affection	0.214***	0.029	5.279	Accepted
H5a	Product attributes → Environmental concern	0.071**	0.019	2.274	Accepted
H6a	PCE → Environmental attitude	0.492***	0.057	10.827	Accepted
H7a	PCE → Ecological affection	0.305***	0.082	3.746	Accepted
H8a	PCE → Environmental concern	0.789***	0.042	15.906	Accepted
H9a	Environmental attitude → Green purchase	0.201***	0.034	5.045	Accepted
H10a	Environmental attitude → Ecological affection	0.188***	0.043	3.542	Accepted
H11a	Environmental concern → Green purchase	0.554***	0.057	11.718	Accepted
H12a	Environmental concern → Ecological affection	0.209***	0.085	2.911	Accepted
H13a	Ecological affection → Green purchase	0.189***	0.046	12.789	Accepted

Note. C.R. = composite reliability; PCE = perceived consumer effectiveness.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Table 6.

Mediation Analysis Result and Hypotheses Testing.

	Mediation direction	Indirect effect	SE	Sobel test	Result
H1b	Eco-label → Product attributes → Environmental attitude	0.145***	0.029	4.798	Accepted
H2b	Eco-Label → Product attributes → Ecological affection	0.097***	0.021	4.510	Accepted
H3b	Eco-label → Product attributes → Environmental concern	0.032***	0.010	3.125	Accepted
H4b	Eco-label → PCE → Environmental attitude	0.362***	0.052	6.864	Accepted
H5b	Eco-label → PCE → Ecological affection	0.224***	0.063	3.533	Accepted
H6b	Eco-label → PCE → Environmental concern	0.580***	0.059	9.697	Accepted
H7b	Product attributes → Environmental attitude → Green purchase	0.064***	0.013	4.922	Accepted
H8b	PCE → Environmental attitude → Green purchase	0.098***	0.020	4.877	Accepted
H9b	Product attributes → Ecological affection → Green purchase	0.040***	0.011	3.589	Accepted
H10b	PCE → Ecological Affection → Green Purchase	0.057***	0.022	2.757	Accepted
H11b	Product attributes → Environmental concern → Green purchase	0.039***	0.012	3.487	Accepted
H12b	PCE → Environmental concern → Green purchase	0.437***	0.049	8.832	Accepted

Note. PCE = perceived consumer effectiveness.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Figure 2.

Path analysis of structural equation model (SEM).

Results and Discussions

Results show that 13 hypotheses were all supported. Our study first verified that eco-labeled products influence the Gen Z’s PCE with a coefficient of 0.736 significantly; in this way, H5a was supported. It can be inferred from previous literature that an eco-labeled product tends to enhance the young generation’s awareness of environmental issues (Cerri et al., 2018; Cho et al., 2013; Tan, 2011). Through interpreting the eco-labels, young adult Chinese consumers may realize the meaning and significance of environmental behaviors (Taufique et al., 2017), because their external impact on environmental improvement is the result of their internal attitudes (Bougherara & Combris, 2009). Our results can further extend Kinnear et al. (1974), and Schunk’s (1989) theory on PCE in the Chinese Gen Z context of eco-label–informed product consumption. Eco-labels with relevant knowledge of environmental behaviors provide the concrete materials for young adult consumers to project the concept of self-efficacy and build the belief of an individual’s contribution to the environmental issue.

Concerning the relationship of eco-label–informed PCE and environmental awareness, our results primarily suggest a detailed structure to understand how environmental attitude, ecological affection, and environmental concern are influenced, respectively. First, ecological affection tends to be influenced by eco-label–informed PCE with a coefficient of 0.305. Thus, H7a was supported. As one of the main thread to investigate environmental awareness, ecological affection is found to be useful to guide consumer behavior (R. Y. K. Chan & Lau, 2000; Kanchanapibul et al., 2014). However, the research on its determinants remains limited, especially in the context of the product purchase. Our result has found that Chinese Gen Z consumers’ PCE tends to influence ecological affection significantly. It suggests that the Chinese Gen Z consumers’ emotions are possibly affected by how they understand the individual’s role in environmental development. Also, our study has verified that the environmental attitude is influenced by eco-label–informed PCE with the coefficient of 0.492, supporting H6a, which can support Thøgersen’s (2000) prior study that PCE tends to strength consumers’ belief and trust in environmental behaviors because the internal individual efforts work as the behavioral indicators to represent attitude (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

Moreover, the environmental attitude and concern are often used as interchangeable constructs within environmental research; our study shows that environmental concern is more closely associated with PCE within the Chinese Gen Z consumers. It is clear that PCE influences environmental concern with the coefficient of 0.789, supporting H8a. This is consistent with Schultz and Zelezny’s (1998) and Stern et al.’s (1995) observation that environmental concern is strongly mirrored by the individual fundamental values on environmental development. In addition, mediation analysis results suggest the mediating role of product attributes and PCE in influencing environmental attitude, ecological affection, and environmental concern. Thus, H1b to H6b were supported.

Ecological affection is influenced by environmental attitude and concern with coefficients of 0.188 and 0.209, respectively, supporting H9a and H10a at the same time. As the previous literature reveals that the current understanding of the structure of attitudinal environmental awareness remains ambiguous (Littledyke, 2008), our result primarily suggests a critical role of ecological affection within environmental awareness from the perspective of Chinese Gen Z consumers. It tends to be inferred that ecological affection is closer to emotions aroused by environmental senses, which belongs to the higher level of human cognition (Helenita et al., 2013). The attitudes and concerns on environmental issues may trigger young consumers’ emotional reflections to improve the current environment toward a more sustainable direction. Also, ecological affection positively influences product purchase directly with the coefficients of 0.189, H13 was verified. Although previous studies suggest a strong relationship between ecological affection and purchase behavior (R. Y. K. Chan & Lau, 2000; Kanchanapibul et al., 2014), our statistical evidence first verified the significant role of ecological affection within the process of an eco-label–informed purchase.

In this study, the perception of product attributes is verified to be influenced by eco-labeling, a path coefficient of 0.456 supported H1a. Prior studies have exerted efforts to understand how eco-label can promote and advertise products’ environmental-friendly traits (Bougherara & Combris, 2009; Clemenz, 2010); however, the views on the indication role of eco-label remain controversial. Our study statistically confirms that eco-labeling tends to be a useful indicator to communicate with the Chinese Gen Z consumers about environmentally friendly product attributes. It is anticipated that young adult consumers would appreciate the product associated with the consideration of environmental improvement.

The influence of eco-label–informed product attributes on environmental attitude, ecological affection, and environmental concern was confirmed within the Chinese Gen Z consumers with coefficients of 0.320, 0.214, and 0.071, respectively. Therefore, H2a, H3a, and H4a were supported. Although previous research (Testa et al., 2015) has proposed that eco-labeling is useful in informing consumers’ environmental attitude and concern, the mediators with all three aspects of environmental awareness are seldom studied together. Our results further verified that product attributes tend to be a prominent mediator to improve the Chinese Gen Z consumers’ environmental attitude, concern, and ecological affection in the context of green consumption. Thus, H7b to H12b were supported. It reveals that the Chinese Gen Z is more likely to notice and realize environmental issues after paying attention to the products with environmentally friendly attributes. These results can extend Simon’s (1992) and K. Chan’s (2000) arguments that products with environmentally friendly attributes are related to consumers’ environmental consciousness, such as saving resources and so forth.

Last, both environmental attitude and concern are prominent predictors of a product purchase, path coefficients of 0.201 and 0.554 are significant to support H11a and H12a. According to previous literature (T. S. Chan, 1996; Gadenne et al., 2009; Simmons & Widmar, 1990), environmental attitude and concern are closely related to environmentally orientated consumer behavior. Our study first verified that the Chinese Generation Z consumers’ product purchase behavior is predicted and guided by the attitude and concern regarding environmental development.

Conclusion

This study focuses on and examines the in-depth structural process of how eco-labeling influences product purchases within Chinese Gen Z consumers. Based on the findings shown above, the two threads of PCE and product attributes both intermediate the eco-labeling and environmental awareness positively, finally influencing the Chinese Gen Z consumers’ purchase behavior.

With respect to theoretical implications, the current study advances several aspects. First, our result reveals the crucial intermediator of product attributes in the eco-label–informed product purchase within the Gen Z consumers. As the mediators within the constructive process from eco-labeling to green purchase remain limited (Cai et al., 2017; Taufique et al., 2017; Teisl et al., 2002), our results reveal the significant mediator of the product attributes. It further contributes to the current understanding of how eco-labels can effectively communicate the environmentally friendly product appeal to the young adult Chinese consumer, and why they are different with other advertising media because Chinese Gen Z consumers are likely to perceive the eco-labels as the specific appeal related to how the product is processed and manufactured with the consideration of environmental development.

Second, our study contributes to the current understanding of the determinants of PCE in the research of environmental issues. The theoretical understanding of PCE has been underpinned by many researches dealing with environmental awareness and behavior (Laskova, 2007; Tan, 2011; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). However, its determinants and predictors in green marketing are seldom investigated. Our results verified that Chinese Gen Z consumers’ PCE trends to be informed by eco-labeled products. It is anticipated that information-based programs can positively enhance young adult consumers’ perceptions of individual power to improve the environment and further encourage future behavioral change.

Third, environmental awareness, as one of the general predictors to understand consumers’ green purchase, has been discussed and studied for a long time. However, its internal structure and effectiveness remain controversial. This study first examined environmental awareness from all three main streams, namely, the environmental attitude, concern, and ecological affection.

Also, our results show that Chinese Gen Z consumers’ ecological affection is predicted by environmental attitude and concern. In other words, young consumers’ purchase behavior is more likely to be influenced directly by ecological affection, compared with the other two. This finding may contribute to an in-depth understanding of environmental awareness and better improve the effectiveness of environmental awareness in the context of generation theory.

Regarding the managerial implications, governments and organizations should integrate and underline the individual images and powers when designing the eco-labels because of the prominent mediator of PCE. Chinese Gen Z consumers are more likely to process the eco-labels with strong clues of PCE into environmental awareness. Moreover, firms and corporations may consider promoting environmentally friendly design and introducing more green manufacture technology as distinctive product attributes.

The current study also has some limitations in sampling. Regarding the colleges, we collected data from two normal universities in which the major gender was female, there would exist an unbalanced gender sampling in the current study. Although the prior study has suggested gender difference might not be a significant factor in influencing environmentally related reactions (Blocker & Eckberg, 1997), it would be more appropriate to recruit a more balanced gender sample addressing this issue. Future studies would try to use comprehensive universities to recruit participants, analyzing the other effects of environmental factors on prosocial behavior.

In addition, more product-related perceptual factors can be integrated into future studies, such as aesthetics (Song & Qin, 2019b), religious belief (Qin, Song, & Jin, 2019), and cultural effects (Qin, Song, & Tian, 2019).

Footnotes

Appendix

Demographics of the Current Study.

Attributes	Value	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	113	15.17
Gender	Female	632	84.83
Age	16–17	25	3.36
	18	279	37.45
	19	251	33.69
	20	149	20.00
	21–34	41	5.50
Education	High school	4	0.54
	Undergraduate	736	98.79
	Postgraduate	5	0.67
Region	Anhui	594	79.73
	Beijing	123	16.51
	Other	28	3.76

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Yao Song

Zhenzhen Qin

References

Ackermann

W. C.

(1976). Soil and water conservation. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 57(10), 708–711. https://doi.org/10.1029/EO057i010p00708

Aertsens

Mondelaers

Verbeke

Buysse

Van Huylenbroeck

(2011). The influence of subjective and objective knowledge on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food. British Food Journal, 113(11), 1353–1378. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701111179988

Albayrak

Aksoy

Ş.

Caber

(2013). The effect of environmental concern and scepticism on green purchase behaviour. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 31(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501311292902

Atkinson

Rosenthal

(2014). Signaling the Green sell: The influence of eco-label source, argument specificity, and product involvement on consumer trust. Journal of Advertising, 43(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.834803

Bailey

A. A.

(2007). Public information and consumer skepticism effects on celebrity endorsements: Studies among young consumers. Journal of Marketing Communications, 13(2), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260601058248

Bamberg

(2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00078-6

Berger

I. E.

Corbin

R. M.

(1992). Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/30000276

Bergstrom

J. C.

Stoll

J. R.

Randall

(1990). The impact of information on environmental commodity valuation decisions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72(3), 614–621. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243031

Blocker

T. J.

Eckberg

D. L.

(1997). Gender and environmentalism: Results from the 1993 General Social Survey. Social Science Quarterly, 78(4), 841–858. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42863735

10.

Bougherara

Combris

(2009). Eco-labelled food products: What are consumers paying for? European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbp023

11.

Byrne

B. M.

(2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.

12.

Cai

Xie

Aguilar

F. X.

(2017). Eco-label credibility and retailer effects on green product purchasing intentions. Forest Policy and Economics, 80, 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2017.04.001

13.

Cameron

T. A.

Englin

(1997). Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33(3), 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1006/JEEM.1997.0995

14.

Carmines

Zeller

(1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985642

15.

Cerri

Testa

Rizzi

(2018). The more I care, the less I will listen to you: How information, environmental concern and ethical production influence consumers’ attitudes and the purchasing of sustainable products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.12.054

16.

Chan

(2000). Market segmentation of Green consumers in Hong Kong. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 12(2), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v12n02_02

17.

Chan

R. Y. K.

Lau

L. B. Y.

(2000). Antecedents of green purchases: A survey in China. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(4), 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760010335358

18.

Chan

T. S.

(1996). Concerns for environmental issues and consumer purchase preferences. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v09n01_04

19.

Cho

Y.-N.

Thyroff

Rapert

M. I.

Park

S.-Y.

Lee

H. J.

(2013). To be or not to be green: Exploring individualism and collectivism as antecedents of environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1052–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2012.08.020

20.

Clemenz

(2010). Eco-labeling and horizontal product differentiation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 45(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9324-2

21.

Dabija

D.-C.

Bejan

B. M.

Dinu

(2019). How sustainability oriented is generation Z in retail? A literature review. Transformations in Business & Economics, 18(2), 140–155.

22.

Dietz

Stern

P. C.

, National Research Council, & (U.S.) Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change. (2002). New tools for environmental protection: Education, information, and voluntary measures. The National Academies Press. https://books.google.com.hk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gqNTAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT95&dq=Thøgersen,+2002&ots=_ul8EXwISu&sig=_qYFLrJxmBcZroNkQeILD1KCyHA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Thøgersen%2C2002&f=false

23.

D’Souza

Taghian

Lamb

Peretiatkos

(2006). Green products and corporate strategy: An empirical investigation. Society and Business Review, 1(2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465680610669825

24.

Eagly

A. H.

Chaiken

(1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-98849-000

25.

Ellen

P. S.

Lyle Wiener

Cobb-Walgren

(1991). The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 102–117.

26.

Esteves

M. C.

Dean

Balzarova

(2017). Assessment of building products attributes—A comparative study between eco-labelled and non-eco-labelled products available in the New Zealand market. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 10, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPC.2017.02.003

27.

Fiksel

(2009). Design for environment: A guide to sustainable product development: Eco-efficient product development (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

28.

Finisterra do Paço

A. M.

Raposo

M. L. B.

(2010). Green consumer market segmentation: Empirical findings from Portugal. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(4), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00869.x

29.

Fogel

Schneider

(2011). Credit card use: Disposable income and employment status. Young Consumers, 12(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/17473611111114740

30.

Follows

S. B.

Jobber

(2000). Environmentally responsible purchase behaviour: A test of a consumer model. European Journal of Marketing, 34(5–6), 723–746. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560010322009

31.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980

32.

France

(1998). “Why should we care?” Young people, citizenship and questions of social responsibility. Journal of Youth Studies, 1(1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.1998.10592997

33.

Gadenne

D. L.

Kennedy

McKeiver

(2009). An empirical study of environmental awareness and practices in SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9672-9

34.

Global Ecolabelling Network. (2019). What is ecolabelling? https://globalecolabelling.net/what-is-eco-labelling/

35.

Goh

S. K.

Balaji

M. S.

(2016). Linking Green skepticism to Green purchase behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 131, 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.04.122

36.

Grankvist

Dahlstrand

Biel

(2004). The impact of environmental labelling on consumer preference: Negative vs. positive labels. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27, 213–230. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023%2FB%3ACOPO.0000028167.54739.94.pdf

37.

Gruber

Heinemann

Brettel

Hungeling

(2010). Configurations of resources and capabilities and their performance implications: An exploratory study on technology ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 31(12), 1337–1356. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.865

38.

Gutiérrez

N. L.

Valencia

S. R.

Branch

T. A.

Agnew

D. J.

Baum

J. K.

Bianchi

P. L.

Cornejo-Donoso

Costello

Defeo

Essington

T. E.

Hilborn

Hoggarth

D. D.

Larsen

A. E.

Ninnes

Sainsbury

Selden

R. L.

Sistla

Smith

A. D. M.

Stern-Pirlot

Williams

N. E.

(2012). Eco-label conveys reliable information on fish stock health to seafood consumers. PLOS ONE, 7(8), Article e43765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043765

39.

Haga

(2018). Eco-label effects in the built environment: Does labeling a light source environmentally friendly influence performance and judgment? SAGE Open, 8(2), 2158244018766977. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018766977

40.

Helenita

R. d. S. T.

Joseacute

A. G. d. S.

Edgard

M. M.

Ghisi

(2013). The relationship between ecological knowledge, ecological concern, ecological affection, subjective norms and the green purchase behavior in Brazil. African Journal of Business Management, 7(34), 3297–3314. https://doi.org/10.5897/ajbm12.1270

41.

Hill

Lee

(2012). Young Generation Y consumers’ perceptions of sustainability in the apparel industry. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(4), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612021211265863

42.

Hines

J. M.

Hungerford

H. R.

Tomera

A. N.

(1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482

43.

Hoffman

M. L.

(1975). Developmental synthesis of affect and cognition and its implications for altruistic motivation. Developmental Psychology, 11(5), 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.11.5.607

44.

Hume

(2009). Compassion without action: Examining the young consumers consumption and attitude to sustainable consumption. Journal of World Business, 45, 385–394. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109095160900042X

45.

Kadić-Maglajlić

Dlačić

Micevski

(2013). Generation Z: Generation of green consumer values. In 23rd Cromar congress: Marketing in a dynamic environment-academic and practical insights, Congress proceedings (p. 188).

46.

Kanchanapibul

Lacka

Wang

Chan

H. K.

(2014). An empirical investigation of green purchase behaviour among the young generation. Journal of Cleaner Production Journal, 66, 528–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.062

47.

Kim

(2011). Understanding green purchase: The influence of collectivism, personal values and environmental attitudes, and the moderating effect of perceived consumer effectiveness.

48.

Kim

Choi

S. M.

(2005). Antecedents of Green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Association for Consumer Research, 32, 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/004057368303900411

49.

Kinnear

Taylor

Ahmed

S. A.

(1974). Ecologically concerned consumers: Who are they? Journal of Marketing, 38, 20–24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1250192

50.

Kwong-Kay Wong

. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e328332f801

51.

Laird

J. D.

(1974). Self-attribution of emotion: The effects of expressive behavior on the quality of emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(4), 475–486. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036125

52.

Laskova

(2007, November). Perceived consumer effectiveness and environmental concerns [Conference session]. 13th Asia Pacific Management Conference, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

53.

Lee

(2008). Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(6), 573–586. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500810902839

54.

Littledyke

(2008). Science education for environmental awareness: Approaches to integrating cognitive and affective domains. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701843301

55.

Liu

(2019). Critical factors influencing the evolution of companies’ environmental behavior: An agent-based computational economic approach. SAGE Open, 9(1), 2158244019832687. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832687

56.

Loureiro

M. L.

McCluskey

J. J.

Mittelhammer

R. C.

(2002). Will consumers pay a premium for eco-labeled apples? Journal of Consumer Affairs, 36(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2002.tb00430.x

57.

Magnusson

M. K.

Arvola

Hursti

U.-K. K.

Åberg

Sjödén

P.-O.

(2003). Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite, 40(2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00002-3

58.

McKenzie-Mohr

(2002). Recycling: Why people participate; Why they don’t. A Barrier/Motivation Inventory: The basis of community-based social marketing. http://www.state.ma.us/dep/recycle/recycle.htm

59.

Milfont

T. L.

Duckitt

(2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2009.09.001

60.

Minkov

Bach

Finkbeiner

(2018). Characterization of the Cradle to Cradle Certified™ products program in the context of eco-labels and environmental declarations. Sustainability, 10(3), 738. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030738

61.

Mohr

L. A.

Eroǧlu

Ellen

P. S.

(1998). The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers’ communications. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(1), 30–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1998.tb00399.x

62.

Nittala

(2014). Green consumer behavior of the educated segment in India. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 26(2), 138–152.

63.

Novick

M. R.

Lewis

(1967). Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measurements. Psychometrika, 32(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289400

64.

Pirog

R. S.

(2003). Ecolabel value assessment: Consumer and food business perceptions of local foods. Iowa State University. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/leopold_pubspapers/134

65.

Pohjolainen

Tapio

Vinnari

Jokinen

Räsänen

(2016). Consumer consciousness on meat and the environment—Exploring differences. Appetite, 101, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.012

66.

Praxmarer

(2011). How a presenter’s perceived attractiveness affects persuasion for attractiveness-unrelated products. International Journal of Advertising, 30(5), 839–865.

67.

Prieto-Sandoval

Alfaro

J. A.

Mejía-Villa

Ormazabal

(2016). ECO-labels as a multidimensional research topic: Trends and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 806–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.06.167

68.

Qin

Song

(2020). The sacred power of beauty: Examining the perceptual effect of Buddhist symbols on happiness and life satisfaction in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2551. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072551

69.

Qin

Song

Jin

(2019). Green worship: The effects of devotional and behavioral factors on adopting electronic incense products in religious practices. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3618. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193618

70.

Qin

Song

Tian

(2019). The impact of product design with Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) on consumer behavior through cultural perceptions: Evidence from the young Chinese generation. Sustainability, 11(2), 426. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020426

71.

Razzaq

Ansari

N. Y.

Razzaq

Awan

H. M.

(2018). The impact of fashion involvement and pro-environmental attitude on sustainable clothing consumption: The moderating role of Islamic religiosity. SAGE Open, 8(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018774611

72.

Rex

Baumann

(2007). Beyond ecolabels: What green marketing can learn from conventional marketing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(6), 567–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2006.05.013

73.

Sammer

Wüstenhagen

(2006). The influence of eco-labelling on consumer behaviour—Results of a discrete choice analysis for washing machines. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 185–199.

74.

Schachter

Singer

(1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69(5), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046234

75.

Schuhwerk

M. E.

Lefkoff-Hagius

(1995). Green or non-Green? Does type of appeal matter when advertising a Green product? Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1995.10673475

76.

Schultz

P. W.

(2000). New environmental theories: Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00174

77.

Schultz

P. W.

Zelezny

L. C.

(1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 540–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198294003

78.

Schunk

D. H.

(1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3618-4_4

79.

Seemiller

Grace

(2016). Generation Z goes to college. John Wiley. https://books.google.ru/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xjDvCQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Generation+Z&ots=7AOoSyfv9l&sig=ohRaZzfJ8aYTeYURdoUFS5OOZDo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=GenerationZ&f=false

80.

Shen

(2008). Understanding the determinants of consumers’ willingness to pay for eco-labeled products: An empirical analysis of the China Environmental Label (OSIPP Discussion Paper: DP-2008-E-001). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/7056402.pdf

81.

Simmons

Widmar

(1990). Motivations and barriers to recycling: Toward a strategy for public education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.9943041

82.

Simon

F. L.

(1992). Marketing green products in the triad. Columbia Journal of World Business, 27(3–4), 268–285.

83.

Smith

Paladino

(2010). Eating clean and green? Investigating consumer motivations towards the purchase of organic food. Australasian Marketing Journal, 18(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUSMJ.2010.01.001

84.

Song

Huang

Liu

Kwan

J. S. H.

Zhang

Sham

P. C.

Tang

S. W.

(2008). Depression in college: Depressive symptoms and personality factors in Beijing and Hong Kong college freshmen. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 49(5), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPPSYCH.2008.02.005

85.

Song

Qin

(2019a). Buddhists care: Examining the impact of religious elements on reducing discriminatory attitudes toward people living with HIV/AIDS. Religions, 10(7), 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10070409

86.

Song

Qin

(2019b). Towards the beauty of Buddhism: The development and validation of a Buddhist Aesthetics Scale. Religions, 10(5), 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10050343

87.

Song

Qin

Yuan

(2019). The impact of eco-label on the young Chinese generation: The mediation role of environmental awareness and product attributes in Green purchase. Sustainability, 11(4), 973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040973

88.

Sörqvist

Hedblom

Holmgren

Haga

Langeborg

Nöstl

Kågström

(2013). Who needs cream and sugar when there is eco-labeling? Taste and willingness to pay for “eco-friendly” coffee. PLOS ONE, 8(12), Article e80719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080719

89.

The Statistics Portal. (2018). China—Statistics & facts. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/

90.

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

Guagnano

G. A.

(1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 723–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276001

91.

Straughan

R. D.

Roberts

J. A.

(1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing.

92.

Streletskaya

N. A.

Liaukonyte

Kaiser

H. M.

(2019). Absence labels: How does information about production practices impact consumer demand? PLOS ONE, 14(6), Article e0217934. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217934

93.

Sullivan

Heitmeyer

(2008). Looking at Gen Y shopping preferences and intentions: Exploring the role of experience and apparel involvement. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(3), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00680.x

94.

Tan

B.-C.

(2011). The roles of knowledge, threat, and PCE on Green purchase behaviour. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(12), p14. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n12p14

95.

Tang

Fryxell

G. E.

Chow

C. S. F.

(2004). Visual and verbal communication in the design of eco-label for Green consumer products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 16(4), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v16n04_05

96.

Taufique

K. M. R.

Siwar

Chamhuri

Sarah

F. H.

(2016). Integrating general environmental knowledge and eco-label knowledge in understanding ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30090-9

97.

Taufique

K. M. R.

Siwar

Talib

Sarah

F. H.

Chamhuri

(2014). Synthesis of constructs for modeling consumers’ understanding and perception of eco-labels. Sustainability, 6(4), 2176–2200. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6042176

98.

Taufique

K. M. R.

Vocino

Polonsky

M. J.

(2017). The influence of eco-label knowledge and trust on pro-environmental consumer behaviour in an emerging market. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 25(7), 511–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2016.1240219

99.

Teisl

M. F.

Roe

Hicks

R. L.

(2002). Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence from Dolphin-safe labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43, 339–359.

100.

Testa

Iraldo

Vaccari

Ferrari

(2015). Why eco-labels can be effective marketing tools: Evidence from a study on Italian consumers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(4), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1821

101.

Thøgersen

(2000). Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchase decisions: Model development and multinational validation. Journal of Consumer Policy, 23(4), 285–313. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023%2FA%3A1007122319675.pdf

102.

Thøgersen

Ölander

(2002). Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 605–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00120-4

103.

Tsakiridou

Boutsouki

Zotos

Mattas

(2008). Attitudes and behaviour towards organic products: An exploratory study. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(2), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550810853093

104.

Turner

(2015). Generation Z: Technology and social interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 71(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1353/jip.2015.0021

105.

Vermeir

Verbeke

(2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude—Behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3

106.

Waechter

Sütterlin

Siegrist

(2015). Desired and undesired effects of energy labels—An eye-tracking study. PLOS ONE, 10(7), Article e0134132. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134132

107.

Wan

E. W.

Chen

R. P.

Jin

(2016). Judging a book by its cover? The effect of anthropomorphism on product attribute processing and consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1008–1030. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw074

108.

Williams

K. C.

Page

R. A.

(2011). Marketing to the generations. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 3, 37–53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242760064

109.

Wong

K.-K.

(2003). The environmental awareness of university students in Beijing, China. Journal of Contemporary China, 12(36), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560305472

110.

Xinhua. (2019, January 31). China’s Generation Z outshines global peers in boosting consumption: Report. China Daily. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201901/30/WS5c516e21a3106c65c34e760f.html

111.

Yadav

Pathak

G. S.

(2016). Young consumers’ intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: Extending the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 732–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.120

112.

Zhang

Wang

You

(2015). Consumer environmental awareness and channel coordination with two substitutable products. European Journal of Operational Research, 241(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.043

113.

Zhu

Xia

(2012). Perceptions and aspirations for car ownership among Chinese students attending two universities in the Yangtze Delta, China. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTRANGEO.2012.03.011

114.

Zuraidah

Nor Hashima

Wan Yahya

Mohamad

S. A.

(2012). Environmental conscious behaviour among male and female Malaysian consumers. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(8), 55–64.

Green Marketing to Gen Z Consumers in China: Examining the Mediating Factors of an Eco-Label–Informed Purchase

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Eco-Labeled Product and Product Attributes

PCE

Environmental Awareness

Research Framework

Research Method

Measurements

Sampling

Response Collection

Data Analysis

Reliability and Validity

Path and Mediation Analysis

Results and Discussions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References