Submitted:
01 May 2025
Posted:
05 May 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
1.1. Research Background
1.2. Literature Review
1.3. Research Objectives
2. Research Hypothesis
3. Research Object and Data Collection
Data Analysis and Results
4.1. Control of Common Method Bias
4.2. Reliability and Validity Test
4.3. Model Matching Degree Test
4.4. Main Effect Test
4.5. Intermediate Effect Test
4.6. Adjustment Effect Test
Conclusion
References
- Al Mamun, A.; Nawi, N.C.; Hayat, N.; Zainol, N.R.B. Predicting the purchase intention and behaviour towards green skincare products among Malaysian consumers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6604.
- Chan, R.Y.; Lau, L.B. Explaining green purchasing behavior: A cross-cultural study on American and Chinese consumers. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2002, 14, 9–40.
- De Pelsmacker, P.; Driesen, L.; Rayp, G. Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. J. Consum. Aff. 2005, 39, 363–385.
- Duan, C.R.; Wang, L.J.; Zhou, X.X.; et al. Environmental information disclosure and information asymmetry in green product market: Mechanism and empirical test. J. Stat. Inf. 2022, 37, 66–77.
- Gong, J.H.; Sun, J. Empirical analysis on influencing effects of green information in green purchasing behavior—Based on the survey data from 538 families in Wuhan, Jinan and Chengdu. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2012,11–16.
- Han, H.; Hsu, L.T.J.; Sheu, C. Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 325–334.
- Hong, Y.; Hu, J.T.; Chen, M.Y.; et al. Motives and antecedents affecting green purchase intention: Implications for green economic recovery. Econ. Anal. Policy 2023, 77, 523–538.
- Jain, V.K.; Gupta, A.; Verma, H. Millennials green consumption behavior and its linkage to firms' marketing competitiveness: Findings from select study in Uttarakhand. J. Asia-Pac. Bus. 2020, 21, 63–84.
- Jaiswal, D.; Kaushal, V.; Singh, P.K.; Biswas, A. Green market segmentation and consumer profiling: A cluster approach to an emerging consumer market. Benchmarking 2020, 27, 2071–2096.
- Kim, Y.; Choi, S.M. Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Adv. Consum. Res. 2005, 32, 592–599.
- Lee, K. Face consciousness and green consumerism: A study of Chinese consumers. Consum. Cult. Theory 2017, 18, 187–199.
- Paul, J.; Modi, A.G.; Patel, J.D. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134.
- Robinson, R.; Smith, C. Psychosocial and demographic variables associated with consumer intention to purchase sustainably produced foods as defined by the Midwest Food Alliance. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2002, 34, 316–325.
- Shukla, S. A study on millennial purchase intention of green products in India: Applying extended theory of planned behavior model. J. Asia-Pac. Bus. 2019, 20, 322–338.
- Teng, Y.M.; Wu, K.S.; Liu, H.H. Integrating altruism and the theory of planned behavior to predict patronage intention of a green hotel. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2015, 39, 299–315.
- Wang, B.; Deng, N.N.; Liu, X.X.; et al. Effect of energy efficiency labels on household appliance choice in China: Sustainable consumption or irrational intertemporal choice? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 169, 105458.
- Young, W.; Hwang, K.; McDonald, S.; et al. Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 20–31.
- Zepeda, L.; Deal, D. Organic and local food consumer behaviour: Alphabet Theory. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2009, 33, 697–705.
- Zhang, M.; Guo, S.; Bai, C.Y.; et al. Study on the impact of haze pollution on residents' green consumption behavior: The case of Shandong Province. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 11–19.


| Variable | Option | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 291 | 55.20% |
| GenderFemale | 236 | 44.80% | |
| Age | ≤20years | 132 | 25.00% |
| Age21 to 30 years | 153 | 29.00% | |
| Age31 to 40 years | 171 | 32.40% | |
| Age41 to 50 years | 53 | 10.10% | |
| Age≥51 years | 18 | 3.40% | |
| Marital Status | Single | 294 | 55.80% |
| Marital Status Married | 187 | 35.50% | |
| Marital Status Divorced | 46 | 8.70% | |
| Education Level | Middle school or below | 30 | 5.70% |
| Education Level High school | 134 | 25.40% | |
| Education Level Bachelor's degree | 217 | 41.20% | |
| Education Level Master's degree | 98 | 18.60% | |
| Education Level Doctoral degree | 48 | 9.10% | |
| Monthly Income Level | ≤6000RMB | 216 | 41.00% |
| Monthly Income Level 6000-10000RMB | 100 | 19.00% | |
| Monthly Income Level 10000-14000RMB | 97 | 18.40% | |
| Monthly Income Level 14000-18000RMB | 50 | 9.50% | |
| Monthly Income Level 18000-22000RMB | 37 | 7.00% | |
| Monthly Income Level 22000-26000RMB | 14 | 2.70% | |
| Monthly Income Level 26000-30000RMB | 9 | 1.70% | |
| Monthly Income Level ≥30000RMB | 4 | 0.80% |
| Variable | Cronbach's α | Number of Items |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Information Disclosure Indicator | 0.892 | 7 |
| Information Communication Channel Indicator | 0.89 | 7 |
| Subjective Norms | 0.831 | 4 |
| Environmental Concern | 0.892 | 5 |
| Green Consumption Attitude | 0.781 | 3 |
| Perceived Behavioral Control | 0.974 | 7 |
| Brand Reputation | 0.967 | 5 |
| Green Consumption Intention | 0.867 | 6 |
| Overall | 0.899 | 44 |
| Index | Reference Standard | Actual Result |
|---|---|---|
| CMIN/DF | 1-3 indicates excellent, 3-5 indicates good | 1.307 |
| RMSEA | <0.05 indicates excellent, <0.08 indicates good | 0.024 |
| IFI | >0.9 indicates excellent, >0.8 indicates good | 0.982 |
| TLI | >0.9 indicates excellent, >0.8 indicates good | 0.981 |
| CPI | >0.9 indicates excellent, >0.8 indicates good | 0.982 |
| Path (Latent Variable) | Point Estimate (Effect) | Standard Error (SE) | t Value (t) | p Value (p) | Bias-corrected 95% CI Lower Limit (LLCI) | Bias-corrected 95% CI Upper Limit (ULCI) | Percentile 95% CI Lower Limit (BootLLCI) | Percentile 95% CI Upper Limit (BootULCI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Effect | 0.2872 | 0.0404 | 7.106 | 0 | 0.2078 | 0.3666 | ||
| (HB -> YY) | ||||||||
| Direct Effect (HB -> YY) | 0.1376 | 0.043 | 3.201 | 0.0015 | 0.0531 | 0.222 | ||
| Indirect Effect (HB -> TD -> YY) | 0.0463 | 0.0198 | 0.0096 | 0.0874 | ||||
| Indirect Effect (HB -> ZG -> YY) | 0.0648 | 0.0178 | 0.0337 | 0.1019 | ||||
| Indirect Effect (HB -> HJ -> YY) | 0.0385 | 0.0163 | 0.0098 | 0.0732 | ||||
| Total Indirect Effect | 0.1497 | 0.0278 | 0.0983 | 0.209 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).