Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A compelling question that constantly arises in our society today is “How do we build a healthy brand that is closely associated with environmental activities?” Enhancing green brand equity is among the answers. This article integrates consumer environmental values with brand knowledge and brand relationships to arrive at an integrated view of how green brand equity can be maximized. Our research employs a questionnaire-based survey to collect data from consumers of electronics products in Ho Chi Minh City using a cluster sampling method. A structural equation modeling method was used to validate the hypothetical relationships. Our analysis suggests that (a) attitudes toward green products and the environmental concern affect consumer’s associations with the green brand, followed by green brand equity and (b) an eco-friendly image and trust in the brand’s green commitments drive a competent green brand. Our article broadens the current understanding of green consumers’ behavior by providing a theoretical model that investigates the associations between brand relationships and consumers’ personal motives which are closely connected with green brand management. Altogether, this study presents a broad picture of green branding mechanisms.

Keywords

attitudes toward green products green brand equity environmental concerns green brand image green trust Vietnam

Introduction

Modern economic activities have severely deteriorated the quality of the environment, posing serious problems worldwide (Chen, 2008). Many companies are adopting green marketing in response to rigorous regulations as well as a shift in consumer preferences (Chen et al., 2006; Grant, 2008). The benefits gained from joining the green movement inspired many firms to embrace eco-friendliness as a guiding principle of their businesses (Mourad & Serag Eldin Ahmed, 2012). There are a great number of reasons for promoting the implementation of a more eco-friendly business, such as motivations to achieve the firm’s goals, authority requirements, social responsibility, and competitive advantage (Polonsky, 1994). Economic benefits can eventually be generated and social responsibilities can be fulfilled by green initiatives (Mourad & Serag Eldin Ahmed, 2012). No firms can ignore green marketing if they want to remain competitively important in the marketplace (Chen, 2010; Ha, 2020; Ha & Trinh, 2021).

Commonly believed to describe just the promotion of green product attributes such as “eco-friendly” and “recyclable,” the term “green marketing” actually covers a full range of green initiatives observed in all business activities (Chen, 2010; Ha, 2020; Ha & Trinh, 2021; Polonsky, 1994). When competition grows high, businesses must focus on establishing a competent green brand that can make all marketing mix dimensions become green (Kang & Hur, 2012; Polonsky, 1994). In addition to developing environmentally friendly products without offsetting traditional characteristics, businesses also have to respond to the increasing challenge of creating positive customer perceptions of the corporate attempts to sustain the environment (Ng et al., 2014). Therefore, establishing a brand that is solidly eco-friendly in consumers’ minds requires considerable contributions from both organizations and academians. This primary purpose is closely linked to “green brand equity” (GBE) development, that is, the intangible assets of a brand related to its environment-related activities that may produce additional values to its products and services (Chen, 2010; Ha, 2020; Ha & Trinh, 2021; Keller, 1993; Yoo et al., 2000). Brand equity (BE) brings financial benefits as well as nonfinancial advantages to the firm, including competitively enhancing strengths and creating a range of options for an extension of a brand (Kang & Hur, 2012; Yoo et al., 2000). Furthermore, BE provides managers with insightful understanding into the desires and preferences of the customers (Mohd Yasin et al., 2007). It also functions as a connection between the previous and prospective marketing efforts. In other words, BE is built on past marketing efforts, which in turn forms a baseline to guide later actions (Keller, 1993).

There have been several attempts, including those by Ha (2020), Ng et al. (2014), and Chen (2010), to discover the determinants which constitute GBE. However, the previous research mostly examines green brands without considering consumers’ personal factors. They introduced many concepts, including green satisfaction (GSA), green brand image (GBI), and green trust (GTR), although none included the internal processes of consumers. The synthesis by Chamorro et al. (2009) revealed that green marketing research consists of two prominent branches: behavior perspective and communication perspective. The former is concerned with general patterns of green behaviors that can be explained by theories of consumers’ values, beliefs, and attitudes (Bamberg, 2003; Butt et al., 2016; Joshi & Rahman, 2015; Lin & Huang, 2012; Stern et al., 1999). The latter, on the contrary, primarily revolves around the impacts of brand building activities on consumers’ environmentally responsible actions (Bekk et al., 2016; Butt et al., 2016; Chen, 2010; Ha, 2020; Ha & Trinh, 2021; Kang & Hur, 2012; Ng et al., 2014). The issue arises when most scholars address these two strands of research in isolation. Green brand frameworks completely neglected the role of consumers’ motivations, which may be the cause of failure in discerning the connection between environmental values and actual eco-friendly behaviors (Butt et al., 2016). Brands and consumers exist in a close-knit interdependent relationship. Green brands act as a means for consumers to carry out their intended actions (Butt et al., 2016). Kotler and Keller (2016, p. 351) contended that “there are no brands without customers and there are no customers without brands.” Thus, the most appropriate method to examine the nature of green marketing is to link personal values with models of brand associations and relationships (Butt et al., 2016; Ng et al., 2014).

By linking personal drivers, including attitudes toward green products, and environmental concerns, with concepts of brand (BE, trust, satisfaction, and brand image), this article aims at establishing an integral strategy to explain the determinants of GBE. Several theories, including the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), image congruence theory (Hogg et al., 2000), and means-end theory (Gutman, 1982), are employed to justify the relationship between environmental concerns and how customers evaluate a green brand. The formulation of antecedents of GBE is primarily based on the “associative network memory model” (Keller, 1993, p. 2) and theories of brand relationships (Blackston, 1993; Esch et al., 2006; Fournier, 1998). This article makes an important contribution by establishing and verifying a model that investigates the connections between consumers’ personal motives and brand relationships which are closely connected with green brand management to maximize GBE. In addition, this article is among the very few studies which add values to the increasing literature of green brand management. This helps to systematically and comprehensively broaden our understanding of the behavior of green consumers.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

GBE

A construction of a powerful brand is a strategically critical mission for every business (Kang & Hur, 2012). Having strong BE provides financial benefits to a company while also providing nonfinancial benefits such as enhancing competitiveness and creating potentials for the extension of a brand (Kang & Hur, 2012; Yoo et al., 2000). Furthermore, it acts as a link between marketing efforts in the past and future events. It is built on past marketing efforts, which in turn forms a benchmark for guiding forthcoming activities (Keller, 1993). In addition, BE provides decision makers with useful knowledge into the interests and preferences of consumers (Mohd Yasin et al., 2007).

This body of research has resulted in a number of different definitions of BE. In the case of BE, it has been proposed by a number of academicians that it may be characterized as the added value that the brand generates (Chen, 2010; Farquhar et al., 1991; Kamakura & Russell, 1993; Mohd Yasin et al., 2007). Another school of thought asserted that BE is the change in the total brand value and the total value of its tangible assets (Yoo et al., 2000). The majority of works may be divided into three types of main paths: those that are strictly financial in nature (Simon & Sullivan, 1993), those that are purely customer in nature (Keller, 1993; Yoo & Donthu, 2001), and those that are a combination of the two (Dyson et al., 1996; Motameni & Shahrokhi, 1998). This research studies BE as a consumer-centric liability, hence providing a basis for the integration with consumer decisions and consumer values.

Customer-based brand equities are intangible assets of a brand resulting from marketing activities that differentiate it from its rivals even though they offer no distinction any feature other than brand name (Bekk et al., 2016; Keller, 1993; Yoo et al., 2000). BE is a multifaceted concept that includes “brand associations,” “brand loyalty,” and “perceived quality” (Aaker, 1996, p. 105). Later, Yoo et al. (2000, p. 201) coined these terms as “overall brand equity.” Chen (2010, p. 310) characterizes it as “a set of brand assets and liabilities about green commitments and environmental concerns linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service.”

GBI and Brand—Consumer Relationships

As a relational asset, GBE is driven mainly by associations with stakeholders outside the control of the business. To be specific, BE is the final outcome of the interplay between a brand and its customers where trust and satisfaction are key drivers. Together, all of these factors are provoked by brand knowledge (Esch et al., 2006). With respect to this view, this study proposes three fundamental antecedents of BE, including GBI, GSA, and GTR.

GBI

Keller (1993, p. 2) characterizes “brand knowledge” as a critical component of BE and is crucial as it influences “what come to mind when a consumer thinks about a brand.” Keller (1993, p. 3) further characterizes “brand image” as the “perception about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer’s memory,” and asserts that it is essential to “brand knowledge.” Green brands differentiate themselves from their competitors through notable green benefits, thereby achieving the affection of environmentally conscious customers (Grant, 2008). Chen (2010, p. 309) characterizes GBI as “a set of perceptions of a brand in a consumer’s mind that is linked to environmental commitment and environmental concerns.”

Appropriate marketing strategies, such as product quality or price, can improve brand image (Theotokis et al., 2012). When marketing strategy is inspired by environmental consciousness, a corporate’s GBI is expectedly elevated (Joshi & Rahman, 2015). Green brands differentiate themselves from their competitors by significant environmental benefits, thereby attracting environmentally conscious consumers (Grant, 2008). Green brand imaging is known as possibly being able to influence customers’ buying behaviors (Rahmi et al., 2017).

The perceptions of customers, particularly those who are committed to the environment, constitute a GBI (Ha, 2020; Ha & Trinh, 2021; Mourad & Serag Eldin Ahmed, 2012). To be considered “green,” a brand should trigger significant environmental attitudes, perceptions, and practices of consumers (Ng et al., 2014). Moreover, GBI pertains to both green product and the behavior of firms toward the environment. GBI can be measured through some criteria such as performance, reputation, benchmarks, trustworthiness, and environmental issues (Chen, 2010; Ha, 2020). Various studies have postulated that brand image positively affects and substantially strengthens BE (Bekk et al., 2016; Butt et al., 2016; Chen, 2010; Faircloth et al., 2001; Ha, 2020; Ha & Trinh, 2021; Namkung & Jang, 2013; Ng et al., 2014). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): GBI will be significantly associated with GBE.

Brand–consumer relationships: GSA and GTR

Brand image on its own is sometimes inadequate for distinguishing one brand from another because it only reflects customers’ superficial perceptions of a brand’s features whereas brand association goes more deeply into consumers’ evaluations of a brand’s attitudes (Blackston, 1993). Brand relationship theories contend that the engagement of consumers with certain brands is comparable to that of their interpersonal relationships (Blackston, 1993; Esch et al., 2006). The connection with a brand influences consumers’ emotions and thoughts, thus constituting a close-knit bond between the brand and customers (Esch et al., 2006; Fournier, 1998). Eventually, as relationship-based assets, brand relationships can be considered crucial contributing to BE (Esch et al., 2006).

Esch et al. (2006) posit that brand–consumer relationships can have two defining characteristics. The first is trust that resembles the collective dimension of a connection in which one individual has some sentiments about the other. The second is satisfaction that is the product of the sharing dimension in an association in which the attitude of an individual centers around comparing what is given and what is received (Esch et al., 2006).

Trust seems to be a commonly discussed subject in several fields such as marketing and psychology (Chen, 2010; Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005; Ha, 2020; Ha & Trinh, 2021). It reflects the trust in the brand’s ability to convey its promises (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005). In addition, trust can be considered to be one of the primary drivers of a brand-consumer tie (Chen, 2010; Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005; Flavián et al., 2005; Ha, 2020; Ha & Trinh, 2021). The theory of social exchange implies that people behave according to their assumptions about the incentives they earn (Blau, 1986; Cook et al., 2013). Mistrust, according to the fundamental reciprocity rule, creates distrust, and leads to a decline in long-term commitment (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Furthermore, signaling theory posited that asymmetric information exists on the market because only businesses are certain of the quality of the product, whereas customers cannot fully assess it (Erdem & Swait, 1998; Stiglitz, 2002). Under these circumstances, the brand name is a promise of quality.

Trust becomes far more prominent in the context of growing environmental concerns, where customers are wary of a brand’s commitment to environmental sustainability as a result of greenwashing (Chen & Chang, 2013). The dishonesty of self-declared green brands in the long run will damage the trust of customers in not only certain brands but also the whole green market (Chen et al., 2014). Prior studies back up the idea that a higher level of trust in green marketing can increase GBE (Akturan, 2018; Butt et al., 2016; Chen, 2010; Ha, 2020). Consequently, we formulate the hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): GTR will significantly influence GBE.

Oliver (2010, p. 8) characterizes “satisfaction is the consumer’s fulfillment response. It is a judgment that a product/service feature, or the product or service itself, provided a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment.” GSA reflects a consumer-related state of happiness when a brand fulfills the environmental demands and desires of consumers (Chang & Fong, 2010; Chen, 2010). Previous works confirmed how satisfaction leads to customers’ behavioral loyalty (for example, word of mouth and the desire to repurchase) (Hallowell, 1996), and attitudinal loyalty (e.g., brand attachment) (Esch et al., 2006; Hallowell, 1996). Customers are expected to remember the products or items that please them more than other rival brands (Chen, 2010). Those results are indicative of BE as it is a reflection of the customer’s favorable attitude and purchasing behaviors (Mohd Yasin et al., 2007). Pappu and Quester (2006) further posited that happy users should have solid and positive relationships with a brand. In a similar vein, numerous studies have reported that satisfaction positively influences GBE accordingly (Bekk et al., 2016; Chen, 2010; Kim et al., 2008; Pappu & Quester, 2006). Therefore, we formulate the hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): GSA will positively impact on GBE.

Fundamentally, satisfaction is an essential component of trust because trust stems from past interactions and brand awareness (Esch et al., 2006; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). When it comes to trust, interactive experience, either indirect (e.g., brand communication or word of mouth) or direct (e.g., consumption), has the greatest impact because it generates the most legitimate and intimate relationships (Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005). In turn, a successful affirmation of success of a brand would improve customer interest in the competence and trustworthiness of that brand, thereby creating a high trust level (Lankton et al., 2010). In other words, how much customers are satisfied decides how much they trust a brand (Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005). The affirmation is also supported by previous studies in green brand management (Ha, 2020; Kang & Hur, 2012; Wang et al., 2018). Therefore, we formulate the hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): GSA will be positively correlated with GTR.

Brand relationships emerge from brand image as consumers cannot create brand relationships unless they have a brand image in their minds (Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005). Furthermore, trust may also be judged on the basis of consumer assessment by either direct or indirect exposure of brand associations (Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005). Consumer trust is increased by virtue of a positive corporate image (Flavián et al., 2005). Businesses marketing themselves as green may take into account the need of developing a trustworthy image as it will increase certainty and reduce the cost of information discovery for consumers (Erdem & Swait, 1998). This claim has been supported by various studies as well (see, for example, Bekk et al., 2016; Butt et al., 2016; Chen, 2010; Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005; Esch et al., 2006). In a similar vein, brand image and satisfaction are expected to correlate each other. Brand image is considered to be an account of previous behaviors which can be used to predict potential brand experiences (Martenson, 2007). As a consequence, brand image shapes consumer preferences, which in turn affects satisfaction. It was found that brand image affects consumer satisfaction in various sectors, including retail (Ha, 2020; Martenson, 2007), green marketing (Bekk et al., 2016; Chen, 2010), telecommunication (Yeboah-Asiamah et al., 2016), and tourism (Chi & Qu, 2008). Thus, we posit the hypotheses as follows:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): GBI positively affects GTR.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): GBI positively affects GSA.

Attitudes Toward Green Products and Environmental Concern

Various attempts have been made to precisely explain environmental concern (Bamberg, 2003). Fransson and Gärling (1999) reviewed literature in this field and asserted that environmental concern has been primarily conceptualized under two approaches: (a) an evaluation or attitude toward a specific object or behavior that concerns the environmental well-being and (b) a general value orientation. This study employs the second approach that treats the concept under the broader scope of a value system. Environmental concern, in the context of this study, encompasses a person’s general perception, feelings, attitude, and values relating to environmental issues (Bamberg, 2003; Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Fransson & Gärling, 1999; Maloney & Ward, 1973; Weigel & Weigel, 1978). Environmental concern is a key element in determining consumer eco-friendly behaviors. Extensive research has shown that environmental concern is among the most critical drivers of environmental-friendly actions (Balderjahn, 1988; Bamberg, 2003; Czap & Czap, 2010; Fransson & Gärling, 1999; Roberts & Bacon, 1997).

In a similar vein, it was found that value, attitude, and behavior create a sequence that explains how a person performs an action (Homer & Kahle, 1988). Specifically, value guides the formulation of attitude, then attitude inclines a person to act accordingly. Three different levels occur in which value is the most abstract; behavior is the most tangible; and attitude is in between the two extremes. This approach explains how environmental concerns, attitudes toward green products, and consumer perceptions of eco-friendly brands interact with each other.

Value is the core component that shapes human thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes (Rokeach, 1973; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999). Environmental values influence consumer actions by framing our perception of a specific situation. Such a perception affects consumer attitude, behavioral control, and subjective norms, all of which are antecedents of actual behaviors (Bamberg, 2003; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Furthermore, image congruence theory implies that attitude serves a “value expressive” function as one tries to meet internalized standards and accomplish self-worth (Hogg et al., 2000, p. 643). Accordingly, green consumers expected to have favorable attitudes regarding green brands to maintain a harmony between their internal environmental values and their consumption patterns (Butt et al., 2016). Attitude then also acts as a “filter” on a person’s perception of an object (Lutz, 1991). Brand attitude is among the most critical components which affect brand images, so a favorable attitude toward eco-friendly products may stimulate a favorable perception of eco brands (Keller, 1993). In addition, a favorable attitude toward a product group is likely to produce a preference for brands belonging to that group (Shamim & Butt, 2013; Walgren et al., 1995).

Value-Belief-Norm theory (VBN) proposed that beliefs and values in regards to environment serve as a major driver of pro-environmental behaviors (Stern et al., 1999). Lee (2008) found environmental concern was the second most influential factor that affects Hong Kong’s millennial green consumption behaviors. Similarly, consumers who care about the well-being of the environment are more likely to consume renewable energy (Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2012). As TPB posits, attitude is a reliable precedent of behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Therefore, environmentally sustainable consumption is expected to positively associate with attitude toward green brand and products. Thus, it is reasonable to formulate the hypothesis as below:

Hypothesis 7 (H7): Environmental concern has a significant association with attitude toward green products.

Means-end theory speculates that consumers make decisions based on the consequences that an action may yield (Gutman, 1982). As a result, consumers may find a brand beneficial if it satisfies their personal values (Dibley & Baker, 2001). Those who are concerned about the environment often assume that eco-friendly brands benefit them in such a way that their environmental values can be met, thus associating them with positive images (Butt et al., 2016). Image congruence theory also implies that choices of products are motivated by the desire to maintain and strengthen their self-concepts (Grubb & Grathwohl, 1967). Consumers tend to navigate toward purchasing products that adhere to their images to promote self-consistency (Sirgy, 1982). If an individual is pro-environmental, his or her choice of brands should fall into the eco-friendly range.

Environmental values influence how consumers perceive a green brand through their ability to stimulate adjustment or modification in buyers’ attitudes (Bamberg, 2003). In particular, values affect consumer behavior indirectly by framing their perception of a given situation. Such a perception affects consumer attitude, behavioral control, and subjective norms which are antecedents of actual behaviors (Bamberg, 2003; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Besides, brand attitude is also one of the most important components influencing brand images (Keller, 1993), so a positive attitude toward green brands would give these brands a favorable perception. It also acts as a “filter” on a person’s perception of an object (Lutz, 1991). Research proposed that environment-conscious consumers generally hold positive perceptions toward eco-friendly brands (Butt et al., 2016; Ottman et al., 2006). Therefore, we propose the hypotheses as follows:

Hypothesis 8 (H8): Environmental concern and GBI are positively correlated.

Hypothesis 9 (H9): Attitude toward green products and GBI are positively correlated.

Figure 1 presents a hypothesized model of this article that shows the interrelationships among the variables of interest.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model.

Methodology

Data Collection and Sampling

To validate the proposed hypotheses, our research adopted a questionnaire-based survey design. Respondents for this study are customers who purchased electronics products in HCMC, the busiest city in Southern Vietnam. Domestic appliances, which are the objects of this study, consist of refrigerators, air conditioners, washing machines, televisions, stoves, freezers, dishwashers, and so on. These products were selected as a vast majority of customers regularly use them in their daily lives, and environmental technologies were used intensely. Such commodities are also subject to very strict international environmental laws and regulations, including Kyoto Protocol, Vienna Convention, Montreal Convention, and the like, so consumers need to buy environmentally friendly domestic appliances and electronic products to meet their environmental needs (Chen, 2010; Chen et al., 2006). A group of 15 participants each participated in a face-to-face interview for a pretest (Malhotra & Dash, 2016). The objective of the pretest was to find out and eradicate possible errors as regards wording, content, sequencing, and question difficulty (Malhotra & Dash, 2016). The responses to the pretest questionnaire provided valuable feedback that helped to improve the construct validity of the questionnaire (Shadish et al., 2002).

Data were collected by trained third-year students using a face-to-face interview technique. The use of this technique can decrease the probability of nonsampling errors in data collection (Malhotra & Dash, 2016). The cluster sampling method was used (Malhotra & Dash, 2016; Trochim et al., 2016) to choose five districts out of a total 24 in HCMC at random, and then 400 customers who purchased electronics products at big electronics product stores in these five randomly selected districts at both weekends and weekdays, various time slots of the day to prevent noncoverage problems and periodicity (Pappu & Quester, 2008). The application of the cluster sampling method contributes to generalizability of the findings (Shadish et al., 2002). Data gathering took place during December 2019 and January 2020 which was the peak time for shopping during the year in Vietnam as customers prepared their homes for Tet holidays in the lunar calendar. Data screening returned 302 valid responses ready for analysis, yielding a high response rate of 75.5%, and this decreases the probability of response bias (Colton & Covert, 2007). All respondents are aged between 25 and 60. Females account for 71.2% of the respondents, and males account for 28.8%.

Measure of Constructs

The questionnaire used existing scales adapted from previous research to establish content validity (Trochim et al., 2016). The scale for attitude toward green products was adapted from Butt et al. (2016); the scale for environmental concern was adapted from Butt et al. (2016) and Lee (2008); the scale for GBE was adapted from Chen (2010) and Yoo et al. (2000); the scale for GSA was taken from Chen (2010) and Wang et al. (2018); the scale for GTR was taken from Butt et al. (2016) and Chen (2010); and the scale for GBI was taken from Chen (2010) and Huang et al. (2014). Likert-type scales (5-point) from “1” (“strongly disagree”) to “5” (“strongly agree”) were used to assess the measures. Table 1 exhibits all constructs and measures.

Table 1.

Constructs, Measures, Reliability, and Convergence Validity Testing Results.

Constructs	Code	Description	Standardized regression weights (SRW)	SMC	Cronbach’s alpha (α)	AVE	CR
Green brand image (GBI)	GBI1	This brand is related to environmental protection	0.818***	0.669	0.918	0.653	0.919
	GBI2	This brand remains relevant due to its good reputation of environmental benchmarking	0.833***	0.694
	GBI3	This brand is achieving success in promoting environmental sustainability	0.809***	0.654
	GBI4	This brand has a good reputation in sustaining the environment.	0.804***	0.646
	GBI5	This brand understands the importance of preserving the environment.	0.809***	0.655
	GBI6	This brand can be trusted to care for the environment	0.775***	0.600
Green trust (GTR)	GTR1	This brand is committed to protecting the environment	0.926***	0.858	0.931	0.822	0.933
	GTR2	The brand is trustworthy	0.879***	0.773
	GTR3	This brand is determined to commit to environmental protection	0.914***	0.835
Green satisfaction (GSA)	GSA1	I am glad to have chosen the brand, as it can be trusted in preserving the environment	0.875***	0.766	0.895	0.684	0.896
	GSA2	I support the idea that this brand should be purchased for its consistency in trying to preserve the environment	0.883***	0.779
	GSA3	Generally, I am happy to be associated with a brand that promotes environmental sustainability	0.821***	0.674
	GSA4	I appreciate the brand owners for showing interest in protecting the environment	0.718***	0.515
Green brand equity (GBE)	GBE1	It is reasonable to be associated with this brand, as it shows concern for the environment	0.823***	0.677	0.875	0.643	0.878
	GBE2	Despite the fact that other brands could emerge, I am loyal to this brand as a result of its commitments to the environment	0.833***	0.694
	GBE3	In case another brand emerges, I’d prefer to be associated with that brand because of its environmental commitments	0.733***	0.537
	GBE4	In case another brand emerges, this option emerges smarter owing to the fact that the owners acknowledge the significance of environmental sustainability	0.815***	0.664
Environmental concern (ECO)	ECO1	The mere thought of environmental pollution caused by industries aggravates me	0.764***	0.583	0.941	0.684	0.928
	ECO2	The mere thought of how pollution harms plants and animals irritates me	0.854***	0.729
	ECO3	Environmental degradation worries me	0.889***	0.790
	ECO4	I deeply care about the environment	0.832***	0.692
	ECO5	I am emotionally engaged in protecting the environment	0.843***	0.710
	ECO6	I often think of environmental improvement activities	0.810***	0.656
	ECO7	I would, without hesitation, stop purchasing items from companies that commit environmental crimes	0.856***	0.732
Attitude toward green products (AGP)	AGP1	It feels great to purchase products which are environmentally friendly	0.663***	0.439	0.831	0.564	0.837
	AGP2	The availability of environmentally friendly brands for the product types that I want to purchase excites me	0.778***	0.605
	AGP3	The environmentally friendly brand is always the optimal choice from the various product categories	0.798***	0.636
	AGP4	I always feel a great satisfaction from getting the best deal when purchasing products from an environmentally friendly brand	0.757***	0.573

Note. SRW = standardized regression weights; SMC = squared multiple correlations; AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability; GBI = green brand image; GTR = green trust; GSA = green satisfaction; GBE = green brand equity; ECO = environmental concern; AGP = attitude toward green products. *** indicates significant at p < .001.

Source. Author’s own findings.

Data Analysis

We employed IBM AMOS version 24 to analyze data using a two-step procedure (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The first is to assess a measurement model, including evaluation of model fit, reliability, and validity. The reliability test used composite reliability (CR), which should surpass a threshold of 0.70 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Then, both convergence validity and discriminant validity are verified. The convergence validity test verified SRW that must be statistically significant for all items (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The SMC (squared multiple correlations) must be greater than 0.40 for all items (Bollen, 1989); and the AVE (average variance extracted) must be larger than 0.50 for all latent variables or constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The discriminant validity test achieves when the square root of the AVEs for each construct is larger than the variance of any of the interconstruct correlations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Ultimately, goodness-of-fit indices were used to evaluate the model fit for both the measurement and structural models, respectively. These include comparative fit index (CFI) or Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Results

Evaluation of Measurement Model

Initially, there are two key assumptions to be handled. This means that there should be no outliers in the data set and the data are normally distributed (Byrne, 2016; Kline, 2015). Data screening detected and eliminated a total of four outliers. The normality assessment was carried out by employing kurtosis and a skewness test. It is confirmed that, if the kurtosis is smaller than 7.0, and skewness is smaller than 3.0 in an absolute value, then the data are normally distributed (Byrne, 2016; Kline, 2015). Furthermore, no missing data were found in the data set.

Table 1 presents the SRW, SMC of all indicators, and the CR and AVE of all constructs in our measurement model. We can see that all SRWs are significant at p ≤ 0.001 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), and were >0.50 (Hair et al., 2019). All SMCs were well above the threshold value of 0.40 (Bollen, 1989). All CRs (ranging from 0.837: AGP to 0.933: GTR) were well above the cut-off value of 0.70, and all AVEs (ranging from 0.564: AGP to 0.822: GTR) were > 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), implying that our model met the convergence criteria. All α were from 0.831 (AGP) to 0.941 (ECO), implying that the measures are reliable and exceeded 0.70 threshold (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

The discriminant validity was further assessed. Table 2 shows that no violation of discriminant validity can be found following Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criteria. Model fit statistics showed an excellent fit. Specifically, χ² = 658.695 (df = 335, p = .000), CMIN/df = 1.966, SRMR = 0.042, CFI = 0.950, TLI = 0.943, and RMSEA = 0.057 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Therefore, the constructs’ validity and reliability are confirmed.

Table 2.

Discriminant Validity Results.

Constructs	Square root of AVE	AGP	ECO	GBI	GSA	GBE	GTR
ECO	0.836	1
GBI	0.808	0.743***	1
GSA	0.827	0.537***	0.522***	1
GBE	0.802	0.456***	0.493***	0.313***	1
AGP	0.751	0.551***	0.536***	0.385***	0.401***	1
GTR	0.907	0.708***	0.687***	0.633***	0.533***	0.612***	1

Note. AVE = average variance extracted; AGP = attitude toward green products; ECO = environmental concern; GBI = green brand image; GSA = green satisfaction; GBE = green brand equity; GTR = green trust. ***significant at p < .001 level.

Source. Author’s own findings.

Evaluation of Structural Model

After CFA, a structural analysis was performed. Table 3 entails the results of hypothesis testing. Except H3, all remaining hypotheses are significant at ρ ≤ 0.05. The subsequent procedure involves an estimation that uses maximum likelihood method to validate all the hypothesized relationships postulated from the research model (Byrne, 2016). Model fit measures revealed that χ² = 720.698, p = .000 with 341 df. With the χ²/df (2.113) within the thresholds of 1 and 3, the model was proved to be parsimonious. The SRMR was 0.064, and RMSEA was 0.061, while CFI was 0.941. Overall, all findings revealed that our model renders absolute and incremental goodness of fit from acceptable to excellent level (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Hair et al., 2019). All associations apart from H3 were significant as their probability values were below 0.01. The results of model testing are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Hypothesis Testing Results.

Hypothesis	Relationship	Expectation	Estimate	Remarks
H1	GBE←GBI	Positive	0.276***	Supported
H2	GBE←GTR	Positive	0.277***	Supported
H3	GBE←GSA	Positive	−0.062^ns	Not supported
H4	GTR←GSA	Positive	0.368***	Supported
H5	GTR←GBI	Positive	0.739***	Supported
H6	GSA←GBI	Positive	0.705***	Supported
H7	AGP←ECO	Positive	0.480***	Supported
H8	GBI←ECO	Positive	0.607***	Supported
H9	GBI←AGP	Positive	0.214***	Supported

Note. GBE = green brand equity; GBI = green brand image; GTR = green trust; GSA = green satisfaction; AGP = attitude toward green products; ECO = environmental concern. *** ρ < 0.001; ^ns Not significant at ρ < 0.05.

Source. Author’s own findings.

Furthermore, a mediation analysis employing a bootstrapping method was performed to fully understand the cause–effect associations between the variables of interest (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). A 95% level of bias-corrected confidence interval was set, and the analysis performed 2,000 bootstrap samples. Our findings indicated that GBEs are strongly influenced by GTR and GBI. In addition, our study also revealed a partial mediation of (a) GTR in the positive association between GBE and GBI, (b) GSA in the positive association between GTR and GBI, and (c) attitudes toward green products in the interrelationship between environmental concerns and GBI. The association between GBE and GSA was fully mediated by GTR. Therefore, with the exception of H3 all hypothetical relationships were confirmed. Table 4 exhibits the mediation analysis results.

Table 4.

Products of Mediation Analysis.

Relationship	Estimate	Probability	Conclusion
ECO–AGP–GBI	0.103	.001	Partial mediation
GBI–GSA–GBE	−0.044	.231	No indirect effects
GBI–GTR–GBE	0.205	<.001	Partial mediation
GSA–GTR–GBE	0.102	<.001	Full mediation
GBI–GSA–GTR	0.259	.001	Partial mediation

Note. ECO = environmental concern; AGP = attitude toward green products; GBI = green brand image; GSA = green satisfaction; GBE = green brand equity; GTR = green trust. ** ρ < 0.001; (ns) non-significant at ρ < 0.05.

Source. Author’s own findings.

Discussion and Implications

Discussion

A growing interest in green marketing requires a better insight into the issue so that firms may improve their performance using this as a competitive advantage (Chen, 2010). Our study is among the very few studies contributing to the growing literature by validating the model that investigates the relationship between brand relationships and consumers’ personal motives that are connected in green brand management. It is confirmed that BE is driven by a complicated sequence of various components coming from both consumer values and elements of the brand structure. All eight hypotheses were validated, except for hypothesis H3. Our study characterizes the dynamics between the important constructs of brand management and consumers’ personal concerns.

Consistent with previous literature conducted on BE (see, for example, Butt et al., 2016; Chen, 2010; Esch et al., 2006; Ha, 2020), GBI is found to have a positive effect on GBE. GTR is also an impactful determinant of GBE, as postulated by theories of brand relationship (Blackston, 1993; Esch et al., 2006; Fournier, 1998; Ha, 2020). In addition, both attitudes and environmental concerns toward green products assert positive influences on GBI. However, GSA, a dimension of the brand-consumer association, does not affect GBE. Consequently, GBI has a direct impact on GBE (Ha, 2020). This result shows that it is not GSA which inspires customers to endorse a certain green brand. They would instead rely on brand performance evaluations to assess whether or not the brand is trustworthy. Ultimately, trust determines whether an individual tends to engage in a green brand. The association between brand relationship elements is verified because satisfaction helps to build consumer trust. In addition, GBI contributes greatly to consumer’s satisfaction and trust (Chen, 2010; Ha, 2020). This finding is consistent with well-established research that relationships of brand arise from brand knowledge (Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005). Generally, an overview is provided on how various brand elements interact. It suggests that BE, relationships, and knowledge are interconnected and influence each other in a close network.

With regards to consumer values (hypotheses H7–H9), our findings demonstrate that environmental concerns are associated with the attitude toward green products, which is consistent with behavioral theories (Ajzen, 1991; Dietz et al., 2005; Stern et al., 1999). Through the connections portrayed by the Value-Attitude-Behavior model, these consumer-centric concepts were demonstrated to have a connection with how a green brand is perceived (Homer & Kahle, 1988). Consequently, it strengthens the argument of Butt et al. (2016), which states that GBE is constituted by a variety of factors from both the brand side and the consumer side.

Implications

Our work offers significant implications for firms seeking to develop a powerful green brand. First, the value of a competent green image should be realized by firms. GBI could provide a brand with substantial added value through proper positioning and communication, particularly those specialized in targeting the new or emerging market. Positive and eco-friendly associations are also a powerful source for increasing consumer satisfaction as well as trust.

Second, our study emphasizes the significant role that trust plays in the eco-friendly movement. As regards green brands, a firm’s pro-environmental promise is a truly fundamental element for forming consumer expectations. Communication efforts and eco-friendly commitments alone are inadequate if the firm cannot prove that they can deliver as promised. Thus, gaining customers’ trust in corporate green initiatives is crucial. Our study offers a useful way to build trust by also providing favorable performances that surpass customer expectations. Green consumers appraise the credibility of brand messages through their experience and are keen to commit to that brand.

Finally, customers’ green attitudes and values deserve significant attention as they are influential factors of GBE. Specifically, polishing a brand image is equivalently important to educating the public as well as adjusting their beliefs regarding environmental challenges. As a result, firms must escape the pitfall of running marketing programs which are not informed by customers’ insights.

Limitations and Future Research Avenues

A change in behavior could not be identified as data were collected using the survey design. Therefore, a longitudinal design may be employed to capture changes in consumer preferences or patterns in future studies. An insightful understanding of the consumer’s patterns or preferences may provide firms with effective interventions. In addition, future work may take a qualitative or mixed methodology to investigate the subject. The use of a qualitative approach, such as exploring various options which promote green brand preferences, may reveal a more informative and deeper understanding, which the quantitative approach could not explain. Finally, BE consists of different elements about which this study is unable to detect the full significance, since it considers only one aspect of the concept. The incorporation of other aspects of BE, including financial performance and loyalty, into the model could therefore provide a more holistic insight.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author sincerely thanks all survey respondents and IU students who took part as interviewers for their commitment, time, and input.

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 iD

Minh-Tri Ha

References

Aaker

D. A.

(1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review, 38(3), 102–120.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Akturan

(2018). How does greenwashing affect green branding equity and purchase intention? An empirical research. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36(7), 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-12-2017-0339

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Balderjahn

(1988). Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal of Business Research, 17(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(88)90022-7

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.

Bekk

Spörrle

Hedjasie

Kerschreiter

(2016). Greening the competitive advantage: Antecedents and consequences of green brand equity. Quality & Quantity, 50(4), 1727–1746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0232-y

Blackston

(1993). Relationships, beyond brand personality: Building brand relationships. In Aaker

D. A.

Aaker

A. L.

(Eds.), Brand equity & advertising: Advertising’s role in building strong brands (pp. 113–124). Psychology Press.

Blau

P. M.

(1986). Exchange and power in social life (2nd printing). Transaction Books.

10.

Bollen

K. A.

(1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.

11.

Butt

M. M.

Mushtaq

Afzal

Khong

K. W.

Ong

F. S.

P. F.

(2016). Integrating behavioral and branding perspectives to maximize green brand equity: A holistic approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 507–520.

12.

Byrne

(2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Routledge.

13.

Chamorro

Rubio

Miranda

F. J.

(2009). Characteristics of research on green marketing. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(4), 223–239.

14.

Chang

N.-J.

Fong

C.-M.

(2010). Green product quality, green corporate image, green customer satisfaction, and green customer loyalty. African Journal of Business Management, 4(13), 2836–2844.

15.

Chaudhuri

Holbrook

M. B.

(2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255

16.

Chen

Y.-S.

(2008). The driver of green innovation and green image—Green core competence. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(3), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9522-1

17.

Chen

Y.-S.

(2010). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0223-9

18.

Chen

Y.-S.

Chang

C.-H.

(2013). Greenwash and green trust: The mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 489–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0

19.

Chen

Y.-S.

Lai

S.-B.

Wen

C.-T.

(2006). The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9025-5

20.

Chen

Y.-S.

Lin

C. L.

Chang

C. H.

(2014). The influence of greenwash on green word-of-mouth (green WOM): The mediation effects of green perceived quality and green satisfaction. Quality & Quantity, 48(5), 2411–2425.

21.

Chi

C. G. Q.

(2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management, 29(4), 624–636.

22.

Colton

Covert

R. W.

(2007). Designing and constructing instruments for social research and evaluation. John Wiley.

23.

Cook

K. S.

Cheshire

Rice

E. R. W.

Nakagawa

(2013). Social exchange theory. In DeLamater

Ward

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 61–88). Springer Science + Business Media.

24.

Czap

N. V.

Czap

H. J.

(2010). An experimental investigation of revealed environmental concern. Ecological Economics, 69(10), 2033–2041.

25.

Delgado-Ballester

Luis Munuera-Alemán

(2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601058

26.

Dibley

Baker

(2001). Uncovering the links between brand choice and personal values among young British and Spanish girls. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 1(1), 77–93.

27.

Dietz

Fitzgerald

Shwom

(2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 335–372.

28.

Dunlap

R. E.

Van Liere

K. D.

(1978). The “new environmental paradigm.” The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10–19.

29.

Dyson

Farr

Hollis

N. S.

(1996). Understanding, measuring, and using brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(6), 9–21.

30.

Erdem

Swait

(1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_02

31.

Esch

Langner

Schmitt

Geus

(2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(2), 98–105.

32.

Faircloth

J. B.

Capella

L. M.

Alford

B. L.

(2001). The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(3), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2001.11501897

33.

Farquhar

P. H.

Han

J. Y.

Ijiri

(1991). Recognizing and measuring brand assets (Working Paper Series, no. 91-119). Marketing Science Institute.

34.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

35.

Flavián

Guinalíu

Torres

(2005). The influence of corporate image on consumer trust. Internet Research, 15(4), 447–470.

36.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

37.

Fournier

(1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1086/209515

38.

Fransson

Gärling

(1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0141

39.

Garbarino

Johnson

M. S.

(1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299906300205

40.

Grant

(2008). Green marketing. Strategic Direction, 24(6), 25–27.

41.

Grubb

E. L.

Grathwohl

H. L.

(1967). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior: A theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing, 31(4), 22–27.

42.

Gutman

(1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298204600207

43.

(2020). Investigating green brand equity and its driving forces. Management Science Letters, 10(10), 2385–2394. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.2.026

44.

T. M.

Trinh

D. V.

(2021). Green brand equity and COVID-19 post-pandemic: The case of the world’s first coffee face mask in Vietnam. In Lee

Han

S. H.

(Eds.), The future of service post-COVID-19 pandemic, Volume 2 (pp. 65–86). Springer.

45.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2019). Multivariate data analysis (8 ed.). Cengage Learning.

46.

Hallowell

(1996). The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability: An empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(4), 27–42.

47.

Hartmann

Apaolaza-Ibanez

(2012). Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1254–1263.

48.

Hogg

M. K.

Cox

A. J.

Keeling

(2000). The impact of self-monitoring on image congruence and product/brand evaluation. European Journal of Marketing, 34(5/6), 641–667. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560010321974

49.

Homer

Kahle

(1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 638–646.

50.

L. t.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

51.

Huang

Y.-C.

Yang

Wang

Y.-C.

(2014). Effects of green brand on green purchase intention. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32(3), 250–268. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-10-2012-0105

52.

Joshi

Rahman

(2015). Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research directions. International Strategic Management Review, 3(1), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ism.2015.04.001

53.

Kamakura

W. A.

Russell

(1993). Measuring brand value with scanner data. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 9–22.

54.

Kang

Hur

W.-M.

(2012). Investigating the antecedents of green brand equity: A sustainable development perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(5), 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.281

55.

Keller

K. L.

(1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101

56.

Kim

K. H.

Kim

Kang

(2008). Brand equity in hospital marketing. Journal of Business Research, 6(1), 75–82.

57.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.

58.

Kotler

Keller

K. L.

(2016). Marketing management (15th global ed.). Pearson.

59.

Lankton

N. K.

Wilson

E. V.

Mao

(2010). Antecedents and determinants of information technology habit. Information & Management, 47(5–6), 300–307.

60.

Lee

(2008). Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(6), 573–586.

61.

Lin

P. C.

Huang

Y. H.

(2012). The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green products based on the theory of consumption values. Journal of Cleaner Production, 22(1), 11–18.

62.

Lutz

R. J.

(1991). The role of attitude theory in marketing. Center for Marketing Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.

63.

Malhotra

N. K.

Dash

(2016). Marketing research: An applied orientation. Pearson.

64.

Maloney

M. P.

Ward

M. P.

(1973). Ecology: Let’s hear from the people: An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 28(7), 583.

65.

Martenson

(2007). Corporate brand image, satisfaction and store loyalty: A study of the store as a brand, store brands and manufacturer brands. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(7), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550710755921

66.

Mohd Yasin

Nasser Noor

Mohamad

(2007). Does image of country-of-origin matter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420710731142

67.

Morgan

R. M.

Hunt

S. D.

(1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302

68.

Motameni

Shahrokhi

(1998). Brand equity valuation: A global perspective. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(4), 275–290.

69.

Mourad

Serag Eldin Ahmed

(2012). Perception of green brand in an innovative emerging market. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(4), 514–537.

70.

Namkung

Jang

S. C.

(2013). Effects of restaurant green practices on brand equity formation: Do green practices really matter? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 85–95.

71.

P. F.

Butt

M. M.

Khong

K. W.

Ong

F. S.

(2014). Antecedents of green brand equity: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(2), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1689-z

72.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.

73.

Oliver

R. L.

(2010). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Routledge.

74.

Ottman

J. A.

Stafford

E. R.

Hartman

C. L.

(2006). Avoiding green marketing myopia: Ways to improve consumer appeal for environmentally preferable products. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 48(5), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.48.5.22-36

75.

Pappu

Quester

(2006). Does customer satisfaction lead to improved brand equity? An empirical examination of two categories of retail brands. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 15(1), 4–14.

76.

Pappu

Quester

P. G.

(2008). Does brand equity vary between department stores and clothing stores? Results of an empirical investigation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17: 425–435.

77.

Polonsky

(1994). An introduction to green marketing. Electronic Green Journal, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.5070/G31210177

78.

Preacher

Hayes

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

79.

Rahmi

D. Y.

Rozalia

Chan

D. N.

Anira

Lita

R. P.

(2017). Green brand image relation model, green awareness, green advertisement, and ecological knowledge as competitive advantage in improving green purchase intention and green purchase behavior on creative industry products. Journal of Economics, Business, & Accountancy Ventura, 20(2), 177–186.

80.

Roberts

J. A.

Bacon

D. R.

(1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 79–89.

81.

Rokeach

(1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.

82.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

T. D.

Campbell

D. T.

(2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton, Mifflin and Company.

83.

Shamim

Butt

M. M.

(2013). A critical model of brand experience consequences. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(1), 102–117.

84.

Simon

C. J.

Sullivan

M. W.

(1993). The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A financial approach. Marketing Science, 12(1), 28–52.

85.

Sirgy

M. J.

(1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1086/208924

86.

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

Abel

Guagnano

G. A.

Kalof

(1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6, 81–97.

87.

Stiglitz

J. E.

(2002). Information and the change in the paradigm in economics. American Economic Review, 92, 460–501.

88.

Theotokis

Pramatari

Tsiros

(2012). Effects of expiration date-based pricing on brand image perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 88(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2011.06.003

89.

Trochim

W. M. K.

Donnelly

J. P.

Arora

(2016). Research methods: The essential knowledge base. Cengage Learning.

90.

Vaske

J. J.

Donnelly

M. P.

(1999). A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society & Natural Resources, 12(6), 523–537.

91.

Walgren

Ruble

Donthu

(1995). Brand equity, brand preference and purchase intention. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25–40.

92.

Wang

Xue

Wang

(2018). Green image and consumers’ word-of-mouth intention in the green hotel industry: The moderating effect of Millennials. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.250

93.

Weigel

(1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environment and Behavior, 10(1), 3–15.

94.

Yeboah-Asiamah

Nimako

S. G.

Quaye

D. M.

Buame

(2016). Implicit and explicit loyalty: The role of satisfaction, trust and brand image in mobile telecommunication industry. International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets, 8(1), 94–115. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEM.2016.073402

95.

Yoo

Donthu

(2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00098-3

96.

Yoo

Donthu

Lee

(2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), Article 195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282002

Optimizing Green Brand Equity: The Integrated Branding and Behavioral Perspectives

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

GBE

GBI and Brand—Consumer Relationships

GBI

Brand–consumer relationships: GSA and GTR

Attitudes Toward Green Products and Environmental Concern

Methodology

Data Collection and Sampling

Measure of Constructs

Data Analysis

Results

Evaluation of Measurement Model

Evaluation of Structural Model

Discussion and Implications

Discussion

Implications

Limitations and Future Research Avenues

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References