Factors influencing consumers green purchase decision in Vietnam

Based on these theories, individual factors (value, emotion, knowledge), situational factor (perceived product efficacy, perceived behavior control), social factors (reference[r]

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY

DO MINH HANH

FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMERS’

GREEN PURCHASE DECISION

MASTER’S THESIS

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY

DO MINH HANH

FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMERS’

GREEN PURCHASE DECISION

MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

of my VJU journey To Hino sensei and Hương-san, thank you for always being at the office, and for supporting us

Secondly, I am so grateful for all of my friends at VJU, MBA fellows, MAS pals, MCCD pals, Nano pals, VJU officers and MIE pals, have being by my side and support me during these school years So glad to have friends like you

And, in this journey, I have received supports from YNU IPO staffs also, Sakakibara-san, Mizuno-san, and Maeda-san, Matsui sensei, Morita sensei, Kodo sensei, Heller sensei, Guo sensei and other Professors and generous friends from YNU

Yours sincerely,

Do Minh Hanh

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Research background 1

1.2 Research objectives 4

1.3 Research scope 4

1.4 Research structure 5

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1 Green Purchase Inconsistency and related definitions 6

2.1.1 Green product 6

2.1.2 Green purchase 7

2.1.3 Green purchase decision 9

2.1.4 Green purchase Inconsistency 11

2.2 Theories examined 14

2.2.1 Streams of research 14

2.2.2 Frameworks examined on buyer purchase decision process 15

2.2.3 Social dilemma and Self-control theories in Green purchase 20

2.3 Factors influencing on Green Purchase Decision - Hypothesis development 24

2.3.1 Reference Group’s Influence 24

2.3.2 Expectation to Other’s Cooperation 26

2.3.3 In-group identity 27

2.3.4 Value – Altruism and Egotism 28

2.3.5 Hedonic motive - Novelty Seeking 30

2.3.6 Environmental Knowledge 32

2.3.7 Perceived Behavior Control 32

2.3.8 Perceived Product Efficiency 33

2.4 Research conceptual model 36

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 37

3.1 Research Approach and Research Design 37

3.2 Constructs Operationalization 39

3.3 Questionnaire and Pilot Testing 43

3.4 Data collection 44

3.4.1 Secondary data 44

3.4.2 Primary data 44

3.5 Data analysis 45

3.5.1 Cronbach’s Alpha measurement 46

3.5.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) 46

3.5.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) 48

3.5.4 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 49

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS 50

4.1 Descriptive Analysis 50

4.2 Measurement Model Test 53

4.2.1 Cronbach’s Alpha measurement 53

4.2.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) 57

4.2.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) 59

4.3 Structural Model Test 65

4.3.1 Natural Product 67

4.3.2 Reused Product 69

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 72

5.1 Discussion on Findings 72

5.2 Implication 76

5.3 Limitations and future research direction 77

5.4 Conclusion 78

REFERENCES 80

APPENDIX 1 Literature Review of Empirical Researches on Green purchase Inconsistency 85

APPENDIX 2 Online Survey 89

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Factors on Green Purchase 18

Table 2.2 Research streams on Green Purchase and foundation researches 20

Table 2.3 Factors on Green Purchase Decision and related theories 24

Table 2.4 List of Hypotheses 35

Table 3.1 Measurement of Social Factors 39

Table 3.2 Measurement of Individual Factors 40

Table 3.3 Measurement of Situational Factors 41

Table 3.4 Measurement of Green Purchase Decision 42

Table 3.5 Statistical Analysis Procedure 46

Table 3.6 Requirement for EFA result 47

Table 3.7 Model Fit Requirement 48

Table 3.8 Reliability of construction, Convergent validity and Discriminant validity 49

Table 4.1 Respondents’ demographic information 50

Table 4.2 Cronbach’s Alpha result 1 53

Table 4.3 Factor Analysis for PBC variable 54

Table 4.4 Excluded and changed items 55

Table 4.5 Cronbach’s Alpha result 2 56

Table 4.6 EFA result 1 57

Table 4.7 Rotated component – EFA result 1 58

Table 4.8 Rotated component – EFA result 2 60

Table 4.9 Model Fit result 62

Table 4.10 Reliability, Convergent validity and Discriminant validity 63

Table 4.11 Latent variables and Observed variables 64

Table 4.12 Model fit value of conceptual framework 65

Table 4.13 Natural product: Interaction between latent variables 67

Table 4.14 Hypotheses test for Natural product 68

Table 4.15 Reused product: Interaction between latent variables 69

Table 4.16 Hypotheses test for Reused Product 70

Table 4.17 Differences of hypotheses testing between 2 sorts of green product 71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Buyer Decision Process 10

Figure 2.2 Factors on Purchase behavior for Green personal care products 19

Figure 2.3 Conceptual Model 36

Figure 3.1 Research Procedure 38

Figure 4.1 Frequency of Green Purchase 51

Figure 4.2 Monthly Expense for Green Purchase 52

Figure 4.3 Place to buy Green Product 52

Figure 4.4 Hypotheses Structural Equation Modeling 66

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research background

Environmental issues are one of the biggest challenges in the 21th century (Edgar G.Hertwich, 2010) The emission to the air, land and water is not only caused by natural system processes anymore Nowadays, human activities emit and alter the natural system more quickly than nature can adapt, recycle and purify (Nicolaisen et al., 1991)

Thus, the Earth’s ecology system has been changed significantly: extreme weathers occur; natural resources are depleted and degraded; living creatures suffers unhealthy altered habitat, biodiversity loss occurs, human being’s health problems increases This is not affect living standard of the present creatures but also of the future generation

It is conceivable that human activities have been creating such adverse effects on environment tragically Population, How we consume and How we produce things are 3 elements of human’s impact on the planet (George Monbiot, 2013) Humankind has induced environment degradation via excessive and polluted producing and consuming process, the increase of population requires higher resource consumption as well Fossil fuel use (for transportation, production of manufacturing goods, etc.) and food consumption (agriculture and fishery) are said

to have made significantly negative impacts on the Earth system’s balance In most countries, household consumption takes account up to 60% or more of final consumption’s effects on ecosystem Food and housing have most influence on greenhouse gas emission, in emerging countries (Edgar G.Hertwich, 2010)

In additions, humankind activities’ impacts tend to increase in the future as usual scenario, especially regards in economic activities (Edgar G.Hertwich, 2010) In particularly, the higher economic, income and population growth, the higher level

of CO2 emission Besides, according to the United Nation, with the current trend, global population would be 9.6 billion in 2050 To sustain resource demand of current lifestyle for that significant number of population, 3 planets like the Earth

are in needed (United Nation website) If patterns of production and consumption are not changed, creatures will face more extreme effects (UNEP, George Monbiot)

Since negative impacts on environment of excessive producing and consuming have increased tremendously, sustainable development has been emerged Sustainable development supports development which reduces adverse influence on the ecology and society (Joshi & Rahman, 2015) Sustainable production and consumption are two components of sustainable development Firstly, sustainable production encourages on environmental sustainability practices at all processes of goods and services creation Secondly, sustainable consumption indicates consideration of consumers on their buying, using and disposing products and services, how these things impact on environment

Sustainable development has become global level, both in developed countries and developing economies There has been an increase in the number and scope of environmental regulations by many governments Approximately 100 countries are actively implementing policies and indicators to promote sustainable consumption and production (Groening et al., 2018) Green brands is indicated to grow rapidly at global level (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017) European Commission reported that green product’s global market size is around $6 trillion, grow rate is around 13% annually (Goh & Balaji, 2016) Green products have developed in a wide range of industries: food, construction, energy, automobiles, hospitality, tourism, home appliance, etc

In Vietnam, sustainable development is concerned in recent years To promote sustainable production and consumption, Vietnam government has introduced several regulations, takes part in international program and commitment, and is supported by international organizations In terms of business sectors, not only big companies (Unilever, Metro, Big C, etc.) join in this segment, there are enterprises start to provide green products such as Aneco, producer of bio compostable kitchen appliances (Thuy Ho Thanh, 2018) Even small business like café, restaurants, retail stores, their awareness for providing environmental friendly products and services has increased They supply cane container, biodegradable or paper bag for food and beverage products, bamboo and rice straw for drinks, reducing price for customers

who bring their own jars to buy products The variety of green products has been broaden, besides traditional green products like energy saving electronic appliances, companies provide a wide range of organic foods and beverage, natural component cosmetic, home appliance, green construction, ecotourism, etc Vietnamese consumers also show their interest in green products and services As Nielsen Vietnam reported, Vietnamese consumers are concerned on “green”, “clean” issues and willing to pay higher for brands which commits on environmental friendly products and services (Thuy Ho Thanh, 2018)

However, other polls show contrast results with the above positive patterns, both in the context of Vietnam and global (Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Goh & Balaji, 2016; Shao & Ünal, 2019; Joshi & Rahman, 2015; Gleim et al., 2013) Actually, green products accounts for a small part of global demand, about 1-3% of the total market, green product sales seem to be trending downward (Goh & Balaji, 2016)

Regarding to consumer, there is group of consumer does not trust in green claims of the products to be accurate (Goh & Balaji, 2016) There is another group who even shows their concern for environment or preference attitude for green product, but does not willing to obtain or pay a premium price for sustainable product (Gupta & Ogden, 2009), even there is the growing popularity of green products on retail shelves (Gleim et al., 2013) This result is similar with what written in Jing Shao’s study (Shao & Ünal, 2019): Almost 50% of respondents showed preference when being asked about buying hybrid cars, less than 12% of the respondents are predicted to purchase one due to current trade-offs Hence, the positive tendency of consumers’ attitude would not predict accurately for their purchase on green product

These phenomena show that it is challenge for marketer in green products field, there are barriers for consumers to acquire environmental friendly products Besides,

it is essential to have perspective on the demand side Firstly, as Groening said:

“The need to understand green purchasing behavior is especially timely due to environmental, scientific, and communication advances, such as the internet, and social media, and increases in consumer awareness of and concern with environmental issues including population growth and global warming” (Groening

et al., 2018) Secondly, it is advantage for business to capture benefits from green orientation (Gleim et al., 2013)

Hence, to have an insight of green purchase decision is necessary when the pattern

of producing and consuming should be changed toward sustainable development goal for the current as the future generation

1.2 Research objectives

Derived from the context described above, this present research aims to contribute prior studies on identifying factors for purchase decision on green products of consumers

In particularly, the present study examines proposed framework from previous theoretical studies to understand determinants on consumers’ green purchase based

on two theories - social dilemma theory and self-control theory These determinants are categorized into three groups including individual, situation and social factors

- Individual factors are: value (altruism and egoistic), hedonic motivation (novelty seeking), and knowledge

- Situation factors are: perceived behavior control and perceived product efficiency

- Social factors are: reference group’s influence (informative, utilitarian and value expressive influences), in-group identity and expectation to others’ cooperation

This research aim to find answer for research question which is:

- What factors influence on consumers’ green purchase decision?

- To what extend these factors impact on consumers’ green purchase decision?

1.3 Research scope

1.3.1 Content scope: Factors influencing on consumers’ green purchase decision 1.3.2 Place scope: Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City

In Vietnam, due to the fast speed of emerging economy, high rate of urbanization, social changes which led to numerous issues related to environment Thus, many cities in Vietnam are polluted with atmosphere indication and waste problem are urgent recently with the fast pace of living lifestyle Besides, citizens, especially in fast-growing cities like Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City, is considered to concern for green products and services, and also would have chances to approach this product segment

Thus, investigation of green purchase decision, especially in a fast developing cities

as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh city, might give an insight of how consumers decision on green products are influenced

1.3.3 Time scope: October 2019 to May 2020

1.4 Research structure

This research content has 5 chapters:

- The first chapter introduces research background which is circumstance as motivation for this research to be conducted

- The second chapter is on literature review This chapter presents related definitions, gives overview of previous studies on consumers’ green purchase, literature gap, which are foundation for developing hypotheses

- The third chapter is on research methodology, design and procedure, pilot test, survey adjustment, variables measurement, data collection and analysis method

- The fourth chapter is data analysis

- The fifth chapter is discussion on findings, limitations of this research, recommendation for future studies and implications if there is any

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Green Purchase Inconsistency and related definitions

2.1.1 Green product

In Yatish et al.’s study (Joshi & Rahman, 2015), first of all, as function of a product, green product satisfies consumers’ needs, then, does not damage the environment This product is better for environment and has low impact on environment It is made from environment-friendly material It is recyclable and less packaged For examples, green products are: organic, natural products, energy saving electric appliances, etc

Based on characteristic of producing and material, Gleim defines that: “A green product is one that is produced with concern for the physical environment: air, water and land This definition incorporates all facets of green as a marketing strategy, not just a select set of subcomponents (e.g., recycling, organic purchasing, and energy consumption)” (Gleim et al., 2013)

According to Liobikiene and Bernatoniene (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017), green products have negative influence on the ecology and human health less than conventional counterparts They point out these terms “green product”, “sustainable product”, “environmental friendly product” are similar and interchangeable

Expressing on design to reduce impacts on nature, Liobikiene says that green products are designed to reduce required natural resources usage and minimize negative impacts on environment during these products’ life-cycle The author clarifies the main requirements for this product type that the component (or material) should be non-toxic, no chemical and environment friendly package (Liobikiene et al., 2016)

A simplified, widely accepted definition is introduced by Liang: “Green products are typically durable, non-toxic, made of recycled materials, or minimally packaged” (Liang et al., 2019) This author clearly explains that green and non-green products both use energy and resources, make by-product, as well as emission before and during consumers’ consumption and ultimately disposal Thus, green is “relative”

concept, depending on different point of views of consumer and contextual conditions He gives an example that: some people may consider energy saving labeled appliances as green products, but others, with higher strict criteria to evaluate, still believe those products as polluting

2.1.2 Green purchase

In academic literature, “green purchasing”, “ green acquisition” and “adoption of green product” are used to indicate environmental purchase behavior (Joshi & Rahman, 2015)

There are three streams when initial studies define green purchase They are ground on: 1) Sustainable development, 2) Ethical dimension and 3) Pro-environmental behavior These streams to explain green purchase are also related to several terms such as “green consumption”, and “green consumer”, which are also discussed in the following part

Firstly, green purchase is explained based on sustainable development Sustainable

development includes two parts: green production and green consumption As goods and services consumption is growing, green consumption concerns for environmental impact of consumption behavior It does not aim on reducing

consuming but on decreasing its negative impacts on environment, not worsening

the quality of environment (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017; Liobikiene et al., 2016) In Moisander’s paper, green consumption occurs when consumers take into account on environmental influence of their buying, using, and disposing of goods

or using green services Thus, following this perspective, Moisander defines green purchase as a step of green consumption (Joshi & Rahman, 2015) In addition, not only concern for environmental impact, Liobikiene adds one detail which is to lessen impact on damaging human health (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017)

Secondly, green purchase is defined in context of pro-environmental behaviors

Since the 1960s, when environmental movement happened (Choi & Johnson, 2019; Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017), green consumption is perceived as pro-environmental behavior Not only to minimize harm to the environment as much as

possible, pro- environmental behavior also achieve to benefit the environment

According to Liang et al., pro-environmental behavior has two components: pollution avoidance and green purchasing As a passive behavior, pollution avoidance stays away from polluting products (recycle, reuse, reduce), and changes current consumption practice on traditional polluting goods Green purchasing is active behavior which seeks to obtain green products, takes green benefit into consumption decision process (Liang et al., 2019) Following this stream,

Dooyoung Choi illustrates green purchase as pro-environmental behavior which

“occurs when consumers acquire products that do not pollute or deplete natural

resources and that can be recycled or conserved” (Choi & Johnson, 2019)

The third stream of green purchase explanation includes ethical dimension Hsui

defined green purchase as a voluntary behavior for environment friendliness of manufacturing In comparison with purchasing traditional products, Yatish describes green purchase as it is planned and is a responsible purchasing for products which would not damage environment adversely (Joshi & Rahman, 2015) Meanwhile, Gleim compares green consumers versus non-green consumer when explain on green purchase A green consumer is person who takes into account his/her responsibility to society by minimizing the potential negative impact on ecology when he/she decides on purchasing green product Thus, non-green consumer is demonstrated as person does not concern for helping the environment when green products alternatives are available (Gleim et al., 2013)

According to Yatish, green purchase behavior is “a complex form of ethical decision-making behavior and is considered a type of socially responsible behavior

As a socially responsible consumer, the green consumer “takes into account the public consequences of his or her private consumption and attempts to use his or her purchasing power to bring about social change”” (Joshi & Rahman, 2015)

In summary, in this research:

Green product is product concerns for physical environment, does not deplete

natural resources, harm environment and living creatures, is made of recycled, toxic materials or less packaged (Liang et al., 2019)

non-Green consumer is individual acquiring green products Non-green consumer is

person who chooses to use conventional polluting products while green product alternatives are available (Gleim et al., 2013)

Green consumption is a pro-environment behavior, a part of sustainable

development Green consumption is to not reduce consumption while not exploit the environment, but even seek for the sake of environment Green consumption definition is explained in contexts with green production and pollution avoidance

Green purchase is one step in green consumption A person who takes green

purchase behavior, he or she concerns for their adverse influences of behavior on ecology and human health, and achieve to minimize them This is planned, ethical behavior and has social responsibility

2.1.3 Green purchase decision

To the stage when consumer eventually pays for a product, that person often makes

a process of actions This process is called purchase behavior process or the buyer decision process (Kotler, Amstrong, 2011) This process incorporates several steps: need occurs, forming attitude and evaluation, emotion, transforming intention to choose a product to buy, pay for it, then post-purchase (satisfy or not, buy it again

or not, etc.) However, in more routine buying, some steps are skipped or reversed For example, a regular product for daily life, such as milk or eggs, consumers often

go straight to the place which has familiar brands and buy necessary things without too much involvement, skipping information search and evaluation Thus, regarding

of goods without high level of consumers’ involvement, some stages could be skipped

All phrases of consumer’s buying process are illustrated in the buyer decision process of Kotler and Amstrong This purchase behavior incorporates five stages:

Figure 2.1 Buyer Decision Process (Kotler & Amstrong, 2011)

There are several definitions related to purchasing process:

Attitude refers to preferred or not preferred evaluation for a behavior of a person

Usually, in consumer attitude area, a person often behaves consistently with their attitude (Yadav & Pathak, 2016)

Purchase Intention is willingness to acquire of consumers Motives are captured

by intention, then impact on purchase behavior of consumers (Joshi & Rahman, 2015)

Purchase decision is consumer’s choice of which brand to buy (Kotler, Amstrong,

2011) In this research context, purchase decision is consumers’ choice to acquire green product, in comparison to conventional product

According to purchase decision making process, attitude might occur from recognizing need, searching for information or evaluating alternatives; intention forms in the stage of purchase decision; purchase decision - “the actual purchase decision” is at the end of stage 4, after intention is implemented successfully, intention transformed from a plan into action

There are cases that intention would not transform into action successfully The gap between intention and actual purchase happens when the intention is influenced by:

1) Attitude of others (social norm) who is important to the consumer on the product which he/she pretends to buy;

2) Unexpected situational factors disrupt the intention implementation

Recognize

Need

Search for Information

Evaluate alternatives

Decide to Purchase

Post-purchase behavior

In prior studies on attitude-behavior inconsistency and intention-behavior inconsistency, attitude and intention are used under the terms of “express demand for green product”, “motivation-green purchase behavior link”, “willingness to pay more” Purchase decision is used with terms such as “actually purchase”,

“sustainable consumption”, “actual purchase behavior” (Choi & Johnson, 2019;

Joshi & Rahman, 2015; Yadav, 2016) Thus, it could be said that the green purchase inconsistency happens when consumer shows their willingness to

purchase green product but they do not actually buy it The disconnection between what they think and their actual behavior could happen from the moment attitude is formed to when purchase decision is made, or when intention - actual purchase relationship is disrupted

Thus, in this research:

Green purchase decision is actual purchase for choice of green product

Willingness to purchase includes attitude and intention stages, before the consumer

actually buys green product

Green purchase inconsistency is the gap between willingness to acquire and

acquire decision for green product

2.1.4 Green purchase Inconsistency

There is a variety of reasons of green purchase inconsistency

As described above, green products purchasing is behavior considering consumer’s private needs and environmental, social benefits Because they require tradeoff between self- interest versus group (social) benefits, or short versus long term benefits Thus, this behavior includes ethical and risk involvement more than traditional ones And also because many of green products are innovative and higher cost due to materials, certification, hence, these products have higher risk compared to traditional alternatives and consumers are required to adopt new behavior in order to consume Groening has pointed out four deep rooted characteristics that might prevent green purchasing, even in terms of consumers

with positive attitude toward environment: “1) Prioritization of self-interest, 2) Motivation by relative status (vs absolute status), 3) Unconscious social imitation, 4) Focus on the short-term vs long-term, and 5) Low regard for distal or intangible issues” (Groening et al., 2018) Those are features which differentiate purchasing green product from non-green product

Important ethical, environmental and social practices are emerged when consumers decide between green products and traditional alternatives

First of all, based on explanation on personal value orientation of consumer:

In behavior process, people have tendency to avoid personal cost when consider to pursue individual or group (social) In the case of green purchase, collective goal is

to heal the environmental issues (Choi & Johnson, 2019) Hence, in purchasing process, to evaluate costs and benefits, consumers would consider various factors at the same time more than price only, it is also time, efforts, convenience, availability, etc A desirable behavior is embraced, when the perceived ratio of benefits to costs

of green products is greater than that of their counterparts (Gleim et al., 2013; Joshi

& Rahman, 2015; Lu & Miller, 2019; Liobikiene et al., 2016)

With altruism consumers, they put more priority on social benefits Thus they

“practice voluntary self-restraint and adopt greener practices, such as green consumption, to contribute to the society” (Liang et al., 2019) even they see that they need to put efforts in purchasing process Whereas, with egoistic consumers, they might leave their making green call aside after evaluating and realize that personal cost is high if following green purchasing They choose to embrace personal benefits Thus, there is a disconnect between the stated green beliefs and observed green behavior in consumers (Davari & Strutton, 2014)

Besides, not only individual and inter-individual priority is considered, but also intra-individual priority is evaluated which incorporates short and long term benefits (Davari & Strutton, 2014) Sometimes, primarily position of preferable product is based on their ability to bring direct, immediate benefits in consumers’ point of view Therefore, such sort of green products which are organic food and beverage, natural cosmetic, which impact directly on consumers’ health have higher

rate of consumption than other green products need longer using term, such as electric appliances Meanwhile, green products are positioned based on their long-term values deliver ability that embraces environmental benefits and future generation welfares

Secondly, green purchase inconsistence happens due to the lack of knowledge or information (Lu & Miller, 2019; Liobikiene et al., 2016):

Due to not understanding green products, be given incorrect, inadequate information, consumers gain distorted insight of green purchasing This would lead

to the difference between expectations and perceptions of the product This reason

is one main barrier in green purchasing (Shao & Ünal, 2019) Distorted and inadequate information might come from consumer’s information searching phrase

or from corporations – the producers

Many consumers are reluctant in information searching (Gleim et al., 2013), as in changing daily routine with unperceived risks Thus, they would not know there is greener alternatives for traditional ones, how to approach them, how effectiveness

of their performance for environmental and their own benefits are For instance, many consumers see higher prices of energy saving compact light in comparison to traditional light bulb, then, they choose cheaper ones if they do not see the saving energy and saving cost of compact light in long term using

Further, to earn profits based on consumers’ willingness for environmental benefits and improve reputation, some corporations implement green washing which gives false, misleading information on green product or overestimate its efficiency and effectiveness (Groening et al., 2018; Goh & Balaji, 2016)

Thirdly, social pressure and image influence on green purchasing inconsistency

(Liobikiene et al., 2016; Gleim et al., 2013):

Prior studies proved that consumers’ decision making process is impacted strongly

by attitudes and behavior of important people to that individual In case there is a weak encouragement or corporate from influence group, such as not concern with environment, consumer would decrease their pro-environmental behavior, have

little incentive to pursue green purchase Not only directly impacts, there is indirect impacts due to people passive imitate others’ behavior around them Besides, individuals also tend to act consistently with expressed belief of groups they belong

to that means cooperation of others influences on green purchase Further, if expectation on their behavior effectiveness is perceived to be high, consumers’ tendency to purchase green products is higher

In brief, green products consist of innovation and higher risks (i.e due to

consumers feel unfamiliar to green product) than traditional alternatives, due to evaluation on value orientation inter-personal and intra-personal Hence, consumers face barriers and tradeoffs when decide to purchase A combination of various factors - discouragement, weak cooperation from social sector on green purchase (social norm), associates with inadequate, false information, insufficient situational factors (availability, convenience, financial resources, etc.) - would lead to lower engagement in green consumption, even with a consumer who prefers green product

2.2 Theories examined

2.2.1 Streams of research

Due to environmental degradation because of consumption level growing, the late 1960s was the beginning of research about green marketing and green purchase behavior Until 1980, there was the main period of green purchasing studies, and also saw a rise in eco-labeling (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017) Up to now, there are 2 main streams of research regarding on green purchase behavior: 1) Researches identifies different main factors; 2) Researches guided by theories

The first stream is researches focus on identifying different factors underlying

consumers’ green purchase behavior They point out the effects of demography, culture, personality, concern on environment, knowledge (objective, subjective), attitude, values, consciousness, etc on consumers’ attitude and behavior related to green goods and services (Gleim et al., 2013; Magnusson et al., 2003; Makatouni, 2002; Tanner & Kast, 2003; Tsakiridou et al., 2008; Aertsens et al., 2011; Chan & Wong, 2012; Niinimäki, 2010) Nevertheless, this approach only

socio-reaches to a small percentage of the green market, whereas there is lack of knowledge on a significant number of consumers who state to be pro-environmental, but do not buy sustainable products (Gleim et al., 2013) Besides, there are researches investigate on general green products, whereas, there are ones concern

on specifically product types: cosmetic, textile, food or electric appliances

The second stream is researches guided by theories while identifying factors

influence on green purchase Gleim wrote that: “Well-grounded theoretical explanations as to why consumers do, or do not, engage in environmentally sustainable behaviors or purchase green products are rare” (Gleim et al., 2013) Christopher Groening et al, (Groening et al., 2018) made an overview of prior studies on individual – level of consumer’s behavior in green marketing Their work provided a comprehensive, synthesized framework for theories applied in green purchase behavior In the framework, they described clearly position of each theories in the process of forming purchase behavior

Mainly studies were guided by consumption value theory while considering values

of function, condition, society and environment of green purchasing Nonetheless,

in investigating green purchase, Theory of planned behavior is the most widely used theory, which partially including consumption theory as well (Liobikiene et al., 2016)

2.2.2 Frameworks examined on buyer purchase decision process

In the second stream of research on green purchase, a majority of researches explain green purchase behavior based on a behavior process which has similarity with the purchase decision process of Kotler and Amstrong These studies could be divided into two groups: 1) Researches focus on phases from awareness (or attitude) to intention, which assumes that intention leads to behavior For instance, researches apply TRA, TPB theories; 2) Researches focus on phase from intention to behavior

1) Regarding to attitude-intention stage researches:

These researches are guided by Theory of reasoned action (TRA) and Theory of planned behavior (TPB), and take account for a large part of green purchase literature

TRA explains that there are 2 factors determine behavior, including social norm and attitude of individual Individual considers the questioned actions’ implication before decide to take that action or not Attitudes, norms and intentions are created before being translated into behavior However, due to missing control over a person’s action, this theory fails to explain the inconsistency between intention and behavior (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

Thus, to improve that limitation, Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) encompasses a new component, “perceived behavior control” TPB was presented by Ajzen in

1985 This model has three variables: Attitude, Subjective norm (expectations of important people to the person), and Perceived behavior control (the person’s perception on ability to perform behavior) All variables form into behavior Intention, then lead to Behavior (Choi & Johnson, 2019; Yadav, 2016) The center

of this framework is intention, which is a good predictor for behavior Thus, many studies only focus on intention as a mediator of attitude-behavior relationship and generally assume that behavior is performed (Yadav, 2016)

TRA and TPB are often used to explain behavior of consumer: attitude leads to behavior (Gupta & Ogden, 2009) However, when explain green purchase behavior these theories have limitation that they could not explain the disconnection between attitude-behavior A large number of the studies proved there is a weak relationship between positive attitude and behavior in reality of consumers on green purchase (Tanner & Kast, 2003; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006)

Even prior researches, which used these theories, pointed out one of their limitations was that they investigate on intention, not actual purchase (Choi & Johnson, 2019; Yadav, 2016)

There are reasons could explain for these theories limitations:

+ Characteristics of green products: Green products are new Consumers do not have experience, and specific knowledge to use green product which might be

unfamiliar, due to they are innovation or have new feature, in comparison with conventional product Whereas, attitude is said to strongly predict behavior when:

“Attitudes are based on high levels of issue specific knowledge and/or personal experience” (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

+ TPB is not suitable to explain ethical behavior, buying habit behavior of

consumers, influence of situational factors (economic limitations e.g.), cannot

explain consumer’s choice during and future purchase for the product (Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Joshi & Rahman, 2015)

+ Personal (knowledge, attitudes, emotion, etc.) and situational (attractive

alternatives, resources limitations, ease of purchase, etc.) factors may impact environmental attitudes and behavior connection (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

Thus, due to these reasons, a number of studies apply TPB have renewed this theory

by including other factors such as interaction of value and product attribute (perceived value of green product), knowledge and product attribute (confidence in green products)

2) In terms of intention-behavior phase researches:

These researches agree that there is a weakness of attitude/intention’s prediction for actual behavior Hence, these studies concentrate on different factors influencing

on green purchase These researches’ inconsistency measurements and their relationship with green purchase decision are clarified in Appendix 1

However, all two groups of researches above mainly focus on specific values, not a

wide range of determinants Therefore, a broader range of determinants which

include other factors might reduce limitation of two research groups above is proposed in studies of Yatish and Rahman, and Liobiekiene and Bernatoniene (Joshi & Rahman, 2015; Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017)

● Yatish and Rahman’s study (Joshi & Rahman, 2015): As Memery mentions that

a comprehensive study on a wide-range of determinants of green purchase has not been done (Memery et al., 2005), Yatish et al found no study done a review on attitude-behavior gap of green purchase Hence, Yatish et al.’s study reviewed 53 empirical papers (from 2000 to 2014) about consumer green purchase This study identifies a variety of drivers and barriers impact on purchase decision making towards green products, then explains reasons of green purchase inconsistency These factors are categorized into individual factors (those belong to decision maker) and situational factors (those are related to situational in nature) They are summarized as the following table:

Table 2.1 Factors on Green Purchase (Joshi & Rahman, 2015)

Values and personal norms Subjective norm/ Social norm/ Reference

group Emotions Attributes of product, Quality, Price,

Product availability Trust, Perceived consumer effectiveness,

Perceived behavioral control

Brand image, Green label and certification

Other: Habits, Perceived consequences

of green purchase, Variety seeking,

Self-indulgence, Response efficacy

Other: Local environmental involvement

of consumer, Environmental messages media, Regulatory laws

The authors mentioned that: “The identification of various factors (drivers and barriers) has been done on the basis of the outcomes of numerous studies conducted

in various contexts and cultures, and the suitability of these factors should be empirically examined in future research” (Joshi & Rahman, 2015) These factors

are convenient and practical when analyzing factors impact on broad categories of products Besides, other frameworks are encouraged to be proposed by future studies based on their own results, and may use Yatish et al.’s findings as foundation

● Liobikiene and Bernatoniene’s study (Liobikiene et al., 2016): 2 years later, after

reviewing 80 studies on green purchase (published from 2011 to 2017), including Joshi and Rahman’s research, Genovaite Liobikiene and Jurga Bernatoniene (2017) proposed a theoretical framework for analyzing green personal care products purchase This model includes 3 factors: internal factor, social factor and situational factor They suggested that research about green purchase behavior should consider which categories particular green products could belong to, because different determinants impact differently the acquisition of distinct products Hence, they provided a framework for investigating purchase behavior of green personal care products as an example This model includes 3 mutual factors (internal, social and external factors) for any kind of products, and 2 distinct factors for green personal care product (health consciousness and product line’s attributes)

Figure 2.2 Factors on Purchase behavior for Green personal care products and color

cosmetics by Liobikiene et.al (Liobikiene et al., 2016)

Thus, to achieve a comprehensive approach on Green Purchase Decision, this

present research would apply theoretical framework from two researches of Yatish

et al and Liobiekiene et al to investigate on green purchase decision Besides, to

Determinants of product line: quality, brand of colored cosmetic

Internal Factors: values, attitude to

environment issues, environmental

consciousness, attitude to sustainable

consumption

Social Factors: attitude of friends and

family toward purchase behavior, social

pressure, moral responsibility for others

External Factors: price supply,

confidence, environmental knowledge

Determinants of personal care products: health consciousness

Purchase Behavior

explain for determinants of the proposed framework, this research based on two theories, social dilemma and self-control theories which are discussed in next part

Table 2.2 Research streams on Green Purchase Decision and 2 foundation researches

-Awareness (attitude) to Intention phase: assume Intention leads to Behavior; apply TRA, TPB theories

- Intention to Behavior phase

Limitation

● Lack of knowledge about many consumers, who express to be – pro- environmental but not buy green products

● Focus on specific values, not a broad range of determinants

● Limitation of TPB

● Focus on specific values, not a

broad range of determinants

Foundation

studies for

the present

research

● Yatish and Rahman’s (2014)

● Genovaite Liobikiene and Jurga Bernatoniene (2017)

- Proposed comprehensive frameworks consist of 3 factors (internal, social and external factors)

- These theoretical frameworks are suggested to be examined in empirical research

2.2.3 Social dilemma and Self-control theories in Green purchase

Green Purchasing is a complicated ethical behavior, because consumers take into account their private consumptions’ public consequences (Joshi & Rahman, 2015) Besides, consumers’ purchasing decision has power on creating social change

With people who are true believer on their capability on social change by their purchasing behavior, they understand their personal importance to environment

issues Thus, they have high tendency on unconditional, voluntarily participation to collective goal

Otherwise, many consumers, in spite of having positive attitude on environment protection, individuals still have desire on maximizing private benefits Because they perceive that utility obtained from cooperation for group/social benefits is uncertain and cost of cooperation outweigh this risky utility

Therefore, the decision to buy (aim to achieve collective goal and long term goal) or not buy (choose to pursue self-interest and immediate pleasure) green product, in spite of positive attitude on protecting environment, may be conceived as social dilemma and self-control dilemma In green purchase, evaluating trade-off between social benefits versus individual interest is explained by social dilemma theory; and evaluating trade-off between permanent versus instant benefit, in terms of intra-individual, is explained by self-control theory Based on these theories, individual factors (value, emotion, knowledge), situational factor (perceived product efficacy, perceived behavior control), social factors (reference group influence and trust on cooperation) are proposed as determinants of green purchase decision

2.2.3.1 Social dilemma theory

In a society, a person enrolls in different social position, of different groups As a member of a group, a person would pursue mutual goal with others members However, a person would face conflicts between his/her own interest versus his/her group, and conflicts between different groups also could happen as well

Social dilemma is a study on individual and collective rationality (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003) The phenomenon occurs when individuals (consumers), “as

members of a group, face conflict in maximizing personal interests while supporting the actions of a group (i.e., society)” (Gleim et al., 2013) In this

research’s context, action of a group is pursuing green consumption for a better environment While supporting this mutual goal, individual often has to deal with greater cost (such as higher price, low availability, performance risk, etc.) in

comparison to buying conventional products and services Thus, green purchase creates social dilemma for consumers

In social dilemma, since collective goal requires more demanding or costly actions,

it is easier for individual to avoid contribution Since then, individual has a defense reaction, immediately neutralizes moral attitude, denies their responsibility for mutual goal (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003) According to Gupta & Ogden: “The decision to not cooperate stems from their unwillingness to being seen as a “sucker”, while the choice to cooperate leads to personal loss on account of “free riders” (i.e non-cooperators who benefit from others’ cooperation) benefit from individual’s cooperation for collective gain” (Gupta & Ogden, 2009) The reasons might come from risks in green purchasing (premium price, efficiency to environment, functional efficiency, believe in green claim of producers, from advertising, etc.) Hence, trust is an important factor

In social dilemma literature, trust has been studied Persons are different in their willingness to believe in others’ honesty This willingness results in a person’s trust

in others is risky or not This difference in trust has significant effect on a person’s choice to cooperate or not cooperate in social dilemma Meanwhile, a person possesses high trust would have more tendency to cooperate than low-trust persons (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

This is proven in Gupta and Ogden (2009)’s study They wrote that: “Only consumers who are “true believers” in environmental protection can engage in pro-environmental behaviors” They also expressed that: “Consumers who are not “true believers”, tend to experience a social quandary that is, a choice conflict between making a decision beneficial to group interests (e.g being eco-friendly) versus decisions beneficial to one’s self (e.g ease of using disposables)”

Trust has been investigated in green purchase field in variety of forms: Trust in brand image, in eco labeling, in positive consequences, etc (Chen & Chang, 2012; D’Souza et al., 2007; Gleim et al., 2013; Makatouni, 2002) In author’s opinion, those kinds of trust could be divided into 3 main types: trust in one’s self - Perceived Behavior Control, in others - Expectation to others’ cooperation, and in

situation - Perceived Product Effectiveness Trust is like a link of one’s self to their internal ability and external concept -society and situation

2.2.3.2 Self-control theory

“Self-control” is first used by Gottfredson and Hirschi This term explains the ability to not have instant (near term) pleasures (satisfying needs, wants and desires, whatever they may be) which have negative consequences, and to achieve longer-term interests

Self-control concerns on intra-personal dilemma This theory assumes that human nature tends to satisfy individual needs and desires Dapeng Liang wrote: “A self- control dilemma is an internal conflict between different behavioral choices, one of which has greater long-term impacts than the other To achieve long-term goals, people must resist momentarily salient, immediate goals that conflict with the long-term goals” (Liang et al., 2019) In addition, negative consequences of immediate interest are toward individual, who is the subject of the action, whereas social dilemma theory focuses on consequences on society

To apply this theory into green consumption: Conventional consumption obviously provides consumer instant and pragmatic benefits (lower price, less time, less effort, convenience) but bears health safety problems and pollution Whereas, green purchase represents an ethical consumption choice, benefits for health of consumers and social goal, but requires from a person more efforts (Liang et al., 2019) However, prior studies’ findings reveal that environmental concern does not important to purchase decision of consumer and has low connection to actual action Thus, to people who have altruism value, truly believe on environment conversation, they need to resist immediate pleasures (convenience, etc.) which are against the permanent goals (environmental conservation, polluting avoidance) Besides, self-control theory also includes case of egoistic individuals, who choose green products due to preference for their own or family’s health safety, uniqueness of green products more than environment, social benefits

Table 2.3 Factors on Green Purchase Decision and related theories

Social dilemma Self – control dilemma

Social factors Situational factors Individual factors

1 Reference group’s influence:

2 Perceived product efficiency

1 Value:

- Altruism

- Egotism

2 Hedonic: novelty seeking

3 Environmental knowledge

2.3 Factors influencing on Green Purchase Decision - Hypothesis

development

Based on two previous studies of Yatish et al and Liobiekiene et al and perspective

of social dilemma and self- control theories, determinants of green purchase decisions are explained below

2.3.1 Reference Group’s Influence

Reference group is defined, by Gupta & Ogden, as “a person or a group that influences another person’s decision A person uses reference group as a basis of comparison in forming affective and cognitive responses” (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

Reference groups can have effects on behaviors because of the influence role A person is under more pressure to conform, if a group, to which that person belongs

or aspires to belong, behaves congruently to their pro-environmental attitude On the other hand, when reference group discourages pro-environment behaviors, a person has lower tendency to perform behavior Thus, reference group is expected

to influence green purchase (Gleim et al., 2013; Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Liobikienė

& Bernatonienė, 2017; Lu & Miller, 2019)

Reference group and social norm, or subjective norm have examined in many researches on purchase intention and actual intention However, reference group has

a broaden meaning than subjective norm, social norm While social norm is defined

as perceived social pressure of a person to perform or not to perform a behavior, as support or not support a specific behavior comes from important people to that person, influences from reference group not only includes this pressure but also points out specific types or this pressure source

Shruti Gupta and Ogden examined the inconsistency of attitude-behavior in sustainable consumption by social dilemma theory and reference group theory (Gupta & Ogden, 2009) The result shows that belief in others, consumer’s perceived efficacy, in-group identity, and expectation of cooperation have strong influence on distinguishing “non-green” and “green” consumers However, this prior research has not examined product attribute and specific impacts on

consumers’ green purchase of reference group Therefore, this study would

investigate on 3 specific reference group’s influences mentioned in Park & Lessig study (Park & Lessig, 1977), which are: informational, utilitarian and value expressive

- Informational influence: provides information which improves knowledge or

help consumer deal with the environment, such as buying a product

Information from reference group may be used in 2 manners: “One is to actively search for information from opinion leaders or from a group with the appropriate expertise Second, the individual makes an inference by observing the behavior of significant others” (Park & Lessig, 1977)

- Utilitarian influence: happens when rewards and punishments are perceived to be

mediated by reference group If a person believes his/her action will be public, this

is especially effective (Park & Lessig, 1977)

- Value-expressive influence: occurs when a person has incentive to support or

enhance his/her self-concept Reference group is utilized to show or bolster a person’s image and ego Moreover, a person is influenced by value-expressive reference group due to that person likes that group His/her response to reference group (adopts suggestions, e.g.) in spite of the response content is irrelevant to that group (acceptance of suggestions, e.g.) (Park & Lessig, 1977)

A consumer’s behavior can be altered, and the attitude-behavior gap can be strengthen or weaken, due to pressure of these 3 types influence from reference group put on a consumer (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

From these three influences of reference group, three hypotheses are stated as following:

H1: Reference group’s (RF’s) Informative influence to consumer positively

influences consumer’s green purchase decision (GPD)

The more/less information which enhance knowledge/ help consumer cope with green purchase from Reference group, the higher/ lower consumer forming GPD

H2: RG’s Utilitarian influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s GPD

The more/less desire to satisfy RG consumer has, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

H3: RG’s Value Expressive influence to consumer positively influences

consumer’s GPD

The high/low motive for consumer to enhance/support self-concept from RG, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

2.3.2 Expectation to Others’ Cooperation

Social dilemma theory suggests a significant interrelationship between a person’s expectation of group members’ cooperation and his/her decision to collaborate When a person’s expectation on others to do the same thing is high, they tend to cooperate On the other hand, they deny cooperating in order to reduce chance of being a “sucker”

This phenomenon links to influences of reference group Decision-making process

of consumer is influenced strongly by close knit people’s attitudes (friends, family, e.g.) and other important groups If people, whom a person associates with, do not concern with environment, that person’s consumption is unlikely to be sustainable

In contrast, if a person believes his/her fellows are not making pro-environmental behavior, that person would have little motive to pay higher price for, or looking for, sustainable products (Liobikiene et al., 2016; Gleim et al., 2013)

Therefore, it is expected that expectation to others’ cooperation has effect on green purchase decision of consumer

H4: Expectation to Others’ Cooperation positively influences consumers’ GPD

The higher/lower consumer’s expect others also cooperate in GP, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

2.3.3 In-group identity

Cooperation is promoted by increasing in-group identity (Gupta & Ogden, 2009) Taifel proved that salience of group membership enhances members’ cooperation (Morley, 1982) Besides, when individuals tied themselves with a group strongly, their decisions tend to be driven by mutual goals rather than self-benefits (Gupta & Ogden, 2009) Since a group identity increase the altruism of member, individuals tend to be willing to cooperate (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003)

The reason for cooperation of individual who has high in-group identity is that they believe other members are trustworthy and accompanying They feel their behavior represents for group, they fell their self-worth and group’s reputation and outcome become one (Marilynn B.Brewer, 1991) And this would increase their awareness

on their individual choice’s impact, by enhancing connection between personal responsibility and maximizing collective gain Thus, group identity increases a person’s sense of group belonging, and his/her cooperation to collective goal

Furthermore, the more discussion individual has within group, the stronger belonging that person has with group (Lee, 2008) When a person has chance to discuss conflicts with the other members in group, he/she has lower tendency to defect in following self-benefits (Dawes et al., 1977) As Gupta & Ogden pointed out, communication within group improves cooperation because: “1) Establishes group norms and induces conformity pressures, especially to whom feel likely to

defect by stressing on moral values to enhance collective gain; 2) Enhances individual belief that others in the group are committed to cooperate; 3) Builds a sense of group identity among members” (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

H5: In Group Identity positively influences consumers’ GPD

The higher/lower consumer’s ingroup identity consumer has with RG, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

2.3.4 Value – Altruism and Egotism

As Rokeach defines, value is a set of personal standard which is exerted to behave

in situations (Chryssohoidis & Krystallis, 2005)

Connection between values and behavior has been noted in researches (Shrum et al., 1995) Value plays a role as standards in guiding activities and justifying actions (Chryssohoidis & Krystallis, 2005; Groening et al., 2018) Usually conceived as the intersection point between a person and the society, value helps to understand interpersonal world, because value guides that person how to adapt the world (Chryssohoidis & Krystallis, 2005)

In compare with attitude, value is more stable, because value is more centrally linked to a person’s cognitive system Value is a potential explanations for behavior because value is a standard of conducting behavior, “limited in number, universal across cultures, and temporally remarkably stable” (Chryssohoidis & Krystallis, 2005; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002)

Consumers’ social and ethical values have positive interaction with their green consumption (Joshi & Rahman, 2015; Karp, 1996; Schwartz et al., 2001) Meanwhile, individuals who have priority on self-interest and hesitate in changing are unlikely to pursue green purchase (Karp, 1996)

In many research, Environment Concern is considered as a measurement for altruism value: “Environmental concern can be understood as altruistic in nature, as the individual performs these behaviors of protecting the natural environment with

little thoughts of benefits for themselves Environmental concern among individuals

is linked with the altruistic value of consumers or with their altruistic purchase considerations” (Yadav, 2016) Environment Concern is an individual’s consideration on the importance of environment physical elements, issues and protection (Choi & Johnson, 2019; Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017) Individual’s environment concern has various forms, from beliefs to actual actions (recycling, green consumption, reusing, e.g.) (Choi & Johnson, 2019) In green purchase studies, environment concern is the most frequent and essential determinant (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017) However, findings of interaction between environment concern and behavior of consumer have been inconsistent (Choi & Johnson, 2019)

H6.1: Altruism value positively influences consumer’s GPD

The higher/lower consumer value the importance of environment issue, the

higher/lower consumer forming GPD

Further, egoistic motives (i.e self-respect, enjoyment of life, health and safety, pleasure in eating) positively affect green purchase, and well predict for organic food purchase than altruistic incentives (i.e belongings) (Choi & Johnson, 2019; Joshi & Rahman, 2015; Magnusson et al., 2003) This shows attribute of green product influences consumer’s motive for green purchase decision (Young et al., 2010) In other words, each different green product line has distinguished favorable

functional and green (ethical) attributes that attracts distinct groups of buyers

(Aertsens et al., 2011; Cerjak et al., 2010; Joshi & Rahman, 2015) Take an example

of green food: healthy, outstanding quality, and tasty are attractive functional attributes of green food line in view of egoistic buyers, who concern for health, safety and hedonistic values; whereas, unpolluted produce process are ethical attribute which gains preference from altruism buyers, who concern for environment and health of animals

Thus, it is expected that value impacts on consumer making decision while purchasing green product, to choose benefit for individual or collective goal

H6.2: Altruism consumer would focus on Green attribute of green product

The more/less Green contribute green product has, the higher/lower Altruism consumer forming GPD

H7: Egoistic consumer would focus on Functional attribute of green product

The more/less Functional attribute green product has, the higher/lower Egoistic consumer forming GPD

2.3.5 Hedonic motive - Novelty Seeking

Emotion is said to be fundamental mechanism of human’s response to environment Limitation of TPB involves cannot explain fully on human emotion in behavior forming process

Study on hedonic motivations’ role is still limited in number There are research examines positive – negative emotion, direct – indirect factors on emotion Result shows that emotion outweighs cognition, internal value has more impact on external value Especially, individual emotions such as feeling safe, enjoyment of life, uniqueness have strong influence on green purchase

Novelty Seeking is “an individual’s desire to seek new products when purchasing” (Manning et al., 1995) It plays a role as incentive forming purchasing behaviors of consumers

Novelty Seeking is a hedonic motive which is proven underlying green purchase Shrum et al observed that green consumers’ in the U.S are interested in and learned about innovation, they seek and share product information with others, consider themselves as opinion leaders (Shrum et al., 1995) Novelty Seeking is a significant influencer of green purchase, according to Jahanshahi and Jia (Jahanshahi & Jia, 2018): a positive correlation between desire to avoid purchasing similar, common products and frequent purchase of green products Choi and Johnson’s research (Choi & Johnson, 2019) showed a positive effects of novelty seeking on green purchase intention Oliver and Rosen report similar results (Oliver et al., 2016)

In area of self-control dilemma, Novelty Seeking might be considered because of several reasons:

- Green products normally are new to consumers Thus, consumers need time to get familiar with and get information on these products

- Consumers often hesitate to actively search for information, especially new things Therefore, consumers with high novelty seeking level might have more motivation, more active to buy new products Besides, they also influence others and spread out the using of green product

- Consumers may acquire green products simply due to interesting emotion they have in new, unique, or trendy products (Choi and Johnson, 2019), not because they possess high altruism value

- In Vietnam, green products are still new to a large number of consumers and online shopping is widely used Online buyers need to look for their desired product via internet that is a chance for novelty seeking characteristic implement, and a chance for active seeking consumer approach desired products

Novelty Seeking also might be another explanation for the difference between the individual benefit person (prefer functional attribute of the product) and the altruism person (prefer greener attribute of the product), besides motivations from safety or health value

Hence, it could be expected that: Novelty seeking will influence green purchase decision

H8: Novelty Seeking positively influences GPD

The higher/lower desire to seek new product of consumer, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

2.3.6 Environmental Knowledge

Environmental Knowledge is defined as an individual’s “general knowledge of the environment and not specific knowledge regarding green products nor their environmental impact” (Choi & Johnson, 2019; Goh & Balaji, 2016)

Environmental Knowledge has been examined to have correlation with environmental attitude, willingness to pay premium prices for green products, intention of pro-environmental behavioral, pro-environmental behavior and actual purchasing behavior (Choi & Johnson, 2019; Kozar & Connell, 2013; Laroche et al., 2009; Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017) However, result of interaction between knowledge and purchase intention, and with actual purchase has been inconsistent particularly in the last 5 years (Choi & Johnson, 2019)

Environmental knowledge consists of two types: objective and subjective knowledge Objective knowledge is factual knowledge on environment that person has, whereas Subjective knowledge is perceived knowledge on environment of a person These two kinds of knowledge have different impacts on behavior even they can be related A study of Ellen in 1994 proved that: subjective knowledge has strong influence on pro-environmental behavior, meanwhile, objective knowledge degree is low in green consumer (Choi & Johnson, 2019)

H9: Environment Knowledge positively influences GPD

The higher/lower environment knowledge level is, the higher/lower consumer

forming GPD

2.3.7 Perceived Behavior Control

According to Ajzen (1988), Perceived Behavior Control (PBC) is capacity to perform a behavior (Joshi & Rahman, 2015)

This factor demonstrates whether a person easily or difficultly consume a product, the ability to purchase green products (time, money, availability of products) or whether green products are good price (Liobikiene et al., 2016)

PBC is examined into 2 components:

- Convenience: measures green product’s availability, enough supplied, and is related to time, money affordance of consumers (Liobikiene et al., 2016; Young et al., 2010)

- Additional cost: measures consumer’s willingness to pay for premium price of green product Green products’ premium price is derived from raw, safer material, green label, etc Thus green products have higher price than conventional counterpart (Liobikiene et al., 2016) While high price is the main barriers for green purchase, prior studies proved premium price of “green” product would be paid if these products have better quality than conventional alternatives Furthermore, related to price, income is another influencer should be considered Grankvist and Biel showed that income had strong impact on consumers’ tendency to consume organic foods (Liobikiene et al., 2016)

In prior studies from 2011 to 2017, PBC is examined in almost 1/3 of research papers, reviewed by (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017) Thus, PBC, the ability to purchase GPs, is demonstrated as one main motive or barrier in green purchase

H10: Perceived Behavior Control positively influences GPD

The higher/lower consumer perceives their capacity to perform GP, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

2.3.8 Perceived Product Efficiency

In brief, Perceived Product Efficiency is trust on green product’s performance

Products are acquired when they are trusted to meet consumer’s needs and expectations In study of Biswas and Roy (Biswas & Roy, 2015), this expectation is

“consumers’ perception about the product performance as durability, permanence, dependability, reliability, price and quality” When green products meet consumers’

expectation, they would buy afterward It is expected that consumer’s need and expectation meet together when product’s attribute (functional or green facets)