Journal of Strategic Marketing

ISSN: 0965-254X (Print) 1466-4488 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsm20

Ecolabels information and consumer self-

confidence in decision making: a strategic
imperative

Clare D’Souza, Mehdi Taghian & Anne Renée Brouwer

To cite this article: Clare D’Souza, Mehdi Taghian & Anne Renée Brouwer (2019): Ecolabels
information and consumer self-confidence in decision making: a strategic imperative, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/0965254X.2019.1636845

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2019.1636845

Published online: 04 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 28

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsm20
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2019.1636845

Ecolabels information and consumer self-confidence in

decision making: a strategic imperative
Clare D’Souzaa, Mehdi Taghianb and Anne Renée Brouwerc
a
School of Management and Marketing, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia; bDeakin Business School,
Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia; cDepartment of Entrepreneurship
Innovation Marketing, La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The effectiveness of ecolabels influencing consumers’ intention to Received 17 October 2017
purchase green products in the area of consumer self-confidence Accepted 20 June 2019
in decision making remains limited. It raises the question whether KEYWORDS
consumer’s self-confidence on green/ecolabels mediates purchase Ecolabel information;
intent. These insights influence how marketers can position ecola- consumer self-confidence;
bel information as a communication-strategy to influence pur- purchase intent; green
chase intent. A survey questionnaire was designed and products; labelling strategies
investigated 202 responses. It uses structural equation modelling
(SEM) (AMOS) to estimate the associations hypothesised and to
analyse the data.This research makes the following contribution,
first this research is unique as it explicitly examines and validates
measures for consumer self-confidence in ecolabels based on the
scales developed by authors drawn from the literature. Second, it
informs the theoretical foundation for future marketing studies
related to consumer self-confidence, green purchase intent and
ecolabel information. Lastly, the findings show strong evidence
that ecolabel information can provide information which is
a necessary step for consumers making informed choices.

1. Introduction
It is clear that firms have responded to the green agenda by creating products that are
environmentally friendly (Smith, 2010). As a consequence, there is an increase in the
creation of green or ecolabels. Green/ecolabels can be seen as a strategic initiative for
firms and are identified as an influencing communication tool for green marketing (Rex
& Baumann, 2007). Ecolabels are market-based instruments that carry perceived infor-
mation regarding eco-friendliness of a product, allowing consumers to make informed
choices and are effective at the point of sale. Labels when implemented well can be an
effective communication strategy; and when added with green claims they are able to
demonstrate the green credentials of products to consumers.
Ecolabel information can be used either by the manufacturer or used as third-party
certification. Third party ecolabels are awarded labels, distinct from manufacturer’s self-
claimed ecolabel information. For example, as reported by Ecolabel Index (2017), glob-
ally certified and active ecolabels have increased in numbers by 54% since 2005 which is

CONTACT Clare D’Souza cdsouza@latrobe.edu.au

© 2019 Crown Copyright in the Commonwealth of Australia
2 C. D’SOUZA ET AL.

a significant increase. Third party or manufacturers’ claims, both provide an impetus at

the point of sale. Most of the literature indicates how to make ecolabel information
strategically more effective (Rex & Baumann, 2007). Broader aspects of the literature
show awareness, understanding and recognition of these labels and their trust in the
label claims (Leire & Thidell, 2005), as well as backlashes of green claims (Crane, 2000).
Yet, the effectiveness of green/ecolabels influencing consumers’ intention to purchase
green products still remains to be researched (Noblet & Teisl, 2015), more particularly in
the area of consumer’s self-confidence in decision making. We raise the question
whether consumer’s self-confidence in ecolabels can influence and mediate green
product purchase intent? Understanding this important concept of consumer’s self-
confidence in decision making will not only contribute to the theoretical understandings
for purchase intent but will also provide marketing practitioners with a useful commu-
nication strategy that determines ecolabel information as central for influencing pur-
chase intent.
The objective of this research is to build on, and contribute to, the existing literature
on ecolabels and whether consumer’s self-confidence in ecolabel decision making can
influence purchase intent. It raises the question whether consumer’s self-confidence on
green/ecolabels mediates purchase intent. We argue that ecolabel information is
imperative in offering a market-based method for consumers to increase their prefer-
ences for green products and influence purchase intent, but their levels of consumer
self-confidence in this area is not explored. The paper attempts to contribute to a more
systemic understanding of ecolabel information by broadening the context of the study
towards consumer self-confidence in green purchase decision making, using existing
measures on consumer self-confidence derived from the study of Bearden, Hardesty, and
Rose (2001). The research empirically examines the hypothesized relationships pre-
sented in our proposed conceptual model by drawing out relevant insights that are
useful for consumers intending to use ecolabel information.). This research is unique, as
it explicitly examines Bearden et al. (2001) measures for consumer self-confidence in
ecolabels based on the scales they have constructed which involves: information acqui-
sition, consideration set formation, personal outcomes decision making (scales reversed
in this research), and social outcomes decision making. These items have not been
tested in consumer decision making for ecolabels.

2. Ecolabels review
A bibliographic search covering 2000–2017 was conducted on ABI/Inform Global data-
base and Business Source Complete (EBSCO) and found several articles that have
focused on several different aspects of ecolabels. Previous research in this area shows
various factors have an influence on consumer’s interaction with ecolabels, and how
they influence their decision-making. Consumers make green decisions, for instance,
based on combinations of green colour enhances the fluency of a message (Seo &
Scammon, 2017). Pancer, McShane, and Noseworthy (2017) conceptual study, focuses on
green colour and green claims and its effect on perceptions of reduced product efficacy.
They found that environmental cues used in isolation (i.e. green color without an
environmental label or an environmental label without green color) reduce perceptions
of product efficacy. De Chiara (2016) focused on CSR communication and management
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 3

of ecolabels; Cho (2015) used social judgment theory and self determination theory to
look at the effects of ecolabelling and environmental impact framing. Bernard,
Bertrandias, and Elgaaied-Gambier (2015) used information processing theory and iden-
tified conditions in which a generalized ecolabel in stores might modify consumers’
purchase choices. It is evident that millennials read product labels to discern if a product
is eco-friendly (Smith & Brower, 2012).
Looking more deeply into the literature, Whitson, Ozkaya and Roxas (2014) found that
respondents were not monolithic in their preferences for ecolabel information techni-
ques. They believed that information on the label should concentrate on providing facts
about the environmental friendliness of the product. Grunert, Hieke and Wills (2014)
uses the motivation, ability and opportunity framework and investigated the relation-
ship between consumer motivation, understanding and use of sustainability labels on
food products.
Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014) used signaling theory to identify which aspects of
ecolabel design yield more positive effects and found that specific arguments consis-
tently yield greater ecolabel trust and positive attitudes toward the product and label
source, but only with low-involvement products is source important, with corporate
labels yielding more positive attitudes.
Sirieix, Delanchy, Remaud, Zepeda, and Gurviez (2013) compared the perceptions that
consumers have about ecolabels vs. other labels, such as origin or nutrition labels; and
consumers’ reactions to combinations of different ecolabels. Their findings show that
consumers have positive perceptions of organic and fair trade labels but tend to be
sceptical about unfamiliar labels and general claims such as ‘climate friendly’.
Bickart and Ruth (2012) used the Persuasion Knowledge Model to examine consumer
characteristics (environmental concern and brand familiarity) and advertiser-controlled
characteristics (the seal and advertising appeal) to understand conditions under which
eco-seals are more or less persuasive, including effects on attitudes and intentions. They
found that consumers with high versus low environmental concern perceive eco-seals
differently, depending on brand familiarity, eco-seal source, and ad appeal.
Teisl, Rubin, and Noblet (2008), used the Lancaster Choice model for developing
a multi-equation psycho-economic modeling of consumer reactions to ecolabeling. They
identified that the perceived credibility of the label is positively related to the respon-
dent’s faith-in-the information source. Adding information to the eco-seal has no impact
on the label’s perceived credibility. On the other hand, Teisl, Roe, and Hicks (2002)
measured the policy effectiveness of dolphin-safe labeling of canned tuna by estimating
a demand system for the canned protein market by using retail level data and testing
whether the dolphin-safe labels altered consumer purchases of tuna. They found that
the implementation of dolphin-safe labeling affected consumer behavior.
Thøgersen (2000) develped a psychological model explaining variations in consumer
attention towards environmental labels and test its ability to predict attention towards
environmental labels in various European countries. This research found that consumers
pay attention to and use labels in their buying decisions only if they trust them.
In addition, consumers’ characteristics, such as the level of environmental concern
(Bickart & Ruth, 2012) and consumers’ belief in responsible purchase behaviour
(Thøgersen, 2000) have an influence on a consumer’s decision-making. When presented
with an ecolabel, the impact of choice depends on consumers’ level of environmental
4 C. D’SOUZA ET AL.

concern (Bickart & Ruth, 2012). However, when presented with different types of
ecolabels, low-concern consumers respond more favourably towards ecolabels spon-
sored by an independent third party. High-concern consumers respond more positively
towards ecolabels sponsored by the manufacturer (Bickart & Ruth, 2012).
From the above it is clear that ecolabel information is researched along several lines
of inquiry, for instance, through the use of consumer’s decision-making process
(Thogersen, Haugaard, & Olesen, 2010), consumers’ behavioural consequences towards
ecolabel information (Whitson & Henry, 1996), and ecolabel information effectiveness
(Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). Furthermore, there is a relationship between consumers’
awareness of an ecolabel, the attention they pay to them and the influence of the
ecolabel on their decision-making, and trust (Mueller Loose & Remaud, 2013; Thøgersen,
2000). Specific arguments result in greater ecolabel trust than general arguments
(Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). In addition, the source of the ecolabel has an influence
on the the trustworthiness of an ecolabel (Teisl et al., 2008). Furthermore, lack of
familiarity with a label is more easily viewed with scepticism (Sirieix et al., 2013) and
perceived uncertainty about label standards could create consumer confusion
(Harbaugh, Maxwell, & Roussillon, 2011).
Based on the above literature, it can be inferred that consumers’ understanding of
ecolabels (D’Souza, Taghian, & Lamb, 2006; Thøgersen, 2000) and their familiarity with
both environmental information (Bernard et al., 2015) and the ecolabel (Sirieix et al.,
2013) reduces confusion and increases effectiveness of ecolabels. Hence, well-known
ecolabels, such as the dolphin-safe label have been found to affect consumer decision-
making (Teisl et al., 2002).
In terms of purchase intent, the plethora of complexities surrounding purchase intent
and green consumers’ attitudes, demographics, and consumer decision making are
necessary for purchase intention (Wei, Chiang, Kou, & Lee, 2017). Considerable work
also has been undertaken in the area of environmental awareness and pro-
environmental behavior (Chan, Hon, Chan, & Okumus, 2014; Kikuchi-Uehara, Nakatani,
& Hirao, 2016) that have influenced purchase intention. Consumers believe that green
products are worth buying; they are confident about green products; they intend to buy
green products, or some of them always buy green products.
Ecolabel information use green claims to carry green messages. Cummins, Reilly,
Carlson, Grove, and Dorsch (2014) found that consumers seem to assess any green
messages more positively than a message without a green component, allowing con-
sumers to make informed choices and thereby purchases if intended. This is evident in
Testa, Iraldo, Vaccari, and Ferrari (2015) study, by using Italian consumers they found
that knowledge, awareness and information gained through ecolabel information can
motivate consumers’ green behaviour and purchase intent. Atkinson and Rosenthal
(2014) study using signalling theory showed the effectiveness of ecolabel information
in stimulating purchase intent depends on various attributes that establish its credibility
and therefore its effectiveness. It appears that the use of ecolabel information and
consumers’ familiarity with them can facilitate better green purchase decisions. In
contrast, lack of familiarity with a ecolabel information can lead to confusion and
scepticism resulting in lower purchase intent (Sirieix et al., 2013). Although, others
found that any ecolabel is better than no ecolabel (Bernard et al., 2015; Hoek, Roling,
& Holdsworth, 2013), there are certainly mixed views regarding ecolabel influences
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 5

towards purchase intention, and this can be attributed to whether or not consumers are
getting the right information about ecolabels and their meaningful claims.
Studies that used ecolabels in combination with information found that influencing
consumers’ purchase decisions with ecolabels seems most effective when providing
detailed or more information (Engels, Hansmann, & Scholz, 2010; Hansmann, Koellner,
& Scholz, 2006), especially information outlining the personal impact on consumers
(Cho, 2015). Although, adding information to an ecolabel has no impact on the label’s
perceived credibility (Teisl et al., 2008). Thus, more importantly, it is also important
regarding how and what a company should disclose with its customers (Borin, Cerf, &
Krishnan, 2011). Consumers also make choices based on label information. Based on the
preceding discussion, we propose the following hypotheses:

H1: There is a positive relationship between consumers’ information regarding ecolabels

and their buying intentions towards green products

3. Consumer self-confidence in decision making

There is a difference between Consumer’s confidence and consumer’s self-confidence
in decision making. According to Bearden et al. (2001), consumer self-confidence in
decision making is assisted by the consumers’ general self-esteem. On the other
hand, consumer confidence in general refers to consumers’ feelings about current
and future economic conditions. While consumers’ self-confidence is predictive
(Chelminski & Coulter, 2007), it can be in relation to subjective product knowledge
(Park, Mothersbaugh, & Feick, 1994), and product-specific self-confidence (Locander &
Hermann, 1979). In the context of this research, consumer self-confidence in decision
making refers to their belief in their own capacity to identify and know what information
to search for and be confident that they can assess the information they obtain and be
able to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate manufacturers’ claims (Bearden
et al., 2001).
In terms of consumer confidence towards ecolabel information products, Choshaly
and Tih (2015) examined consumer confidence towards ecolabel information products
and purchase intentions and found that beliefs and familiarity acted as predictors of
consumer confidence. Similarly, consumer confidence in different organic food labelling
regimes found that governments can increase green consumption through their invol-
vement in ecolabel information (Sønderskov & Daugbjerg, 2011). There is also research
suggesting that consumer confidence is likely to grow if governments entrust faith
(Buckley, 2001).
It is also apparent that ecolabel information raises questions of consumer trust. The
difference between confidence and trust is that trust refers to acknowledging intentions
with cognitive and affective factors being involved in trust judgements, whereas, it is
reported that confidence refers to the subjective probability judgements (Adams, 2005).
Similarly, specific arguments on labels result in greater ecolabel information trust than
general arguments (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). Although, these are important con-
ceptions, there is a lack of research in evaluating consumers’ self-confidence in ecolabel
information.
6 C. D’SOUZA ET AL.

Bearden et al. (2001) suggest that consumer self-confidence could be assisted by the
consumers’ general self-esteem and developed scales in relation to four dimensions of
decision-making self-confidence, namely: information acquisition, consideration set for-
mation, personal outcomes decision making (scales reversed in this research), and social
outcomes decision making. This research disregards consideration set formation
because it refers to products rather than ecolabel information.
The information acquisition identifies consumer confidence in searching for and gather-
ing information. The social outcomes reveal purchase decisions made by an individual as
being subjected to the approval of friends and relatives. In terms of green purchases, Belz
and Dyllik (1996) found that consumers achieve self-expressive benefits from the socially
visible usage of green products, allowing consumers to socially construct an environmental
consciousness image to others (Hartmann & Apaolaza Ibáñez, 2006).
While the personal outcome decision making identifies skepticism about purchase
decisions. Findings suggest that the more environmentally concerned consumers are, the
less convincing they can be towards green products (Do Paço & Reis, 2012). This is possible
due to the backlash and effects of greenwashing and the skepticism that results from lack
of trust in the green claims made (Nuttavuthisit & Thøgersen, 2017). Yet, consumer self-
confidence in ecolabels was not examined and research in this area would provide for
a more systemic understanding in consumer self-confidence decisions towards the useful-
ness of ecolabels, if consumers are to make informed choices based on ecolabel rationale.
Even though there remain mixed opinions in understanding consumers’ self-confidence
in green purchase intent, two assumptions can be made, one is that ecolabel information
in combination with information are likely to influence a consumer’s self-confidence and
secondly, consumer self-confidence mediates the relationship between ecolabel and pur-
chase intention. Based on the above, we formulate the following hypothesis:

H2: There is a positive relationship between consumers’ ecolabel information and their
self-confidence in decision making

H3: The influence of ecolabels on the intention to purchase green products is mediated
by a positive effect on Consumer self-confidence
In Figure 1 below, there are two items that measure label information, mainly
identifying the importance of ecolabel information and making choices. Purchase inten-
tion has four items that measures green products worthiness, product confidence, green
product intention and always buying green products. Consumer self-confidence decision
making is a higher order factor and has three dimensions of decision-making self-
confidence namely: information acquisition, personal outcomes decision making and
social outcomes decision making. Together they investigate the purchase intention
outcome as per the hypotheses formulated above.

4. Methodology
The survey questionnaire used in this study was pre-tested using a sample of 20 respon-
dents, most of whom were academics. The feedback received from the pre-test was used to
modify the questionnaire before its administration. The study uses pre-existing scales. The
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 7

Figure 1. Consumer self-confidence decision-making conceptual model.

scales used in the study to measure ‘consumer self-confidence’ was adopted from Bearden
et al. (2001). The scales were used to measure ‘ecolabel information’ was adopted from
D’Souza et al. (2006); (2007)). The question was asked in terms of assessing consumer’s
evaluation of self-confidence. Likert scales measuring strongly agree to strongly disagree
measured consumers’ responses on whether they believe that it is important for companies
to disclose green information on the product label and whether they make a choice about
green products depending on the label information.
Bearden et al. (2001) developed consumer self-confidence decision making scale,
which is a multidimensional and multilevel construct, pertaining to two higher order
factors, namely decision-making self- confidence and protection self-confidence (not
included in this study). Together these two scales consist of 31 items comprising four
dimensions of decision-making self-confidence namely: information acquisition, consid-
eration set formation, personal outcomes decision making (scales reversed in this
research), and social outcomes decision making
The population used in this study consists of current residents of all Australian states
and territories. A professional market research company was employed to conduct the
online survey. Respondents were drawn selecting adults across all states and territories
of Australia. Electronic data captured prevents human error in several areas such as data
quality, potential data entry mistakes and it is less costly in terms of time, transport,
storage and security associated with paper-based questionnaires. In addition, the
research company provided the information and quality standards, including cross
referencing of the sample profile data with survey responses, data cleaning, data
validation (edits) and reducing/eliminating data errors. Responses were automatically
loaded into an SPSS database.
A total of 202 responses were received. The sample size, 202, can be considered large
enough for this study based on established criteria (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, &
Tatham, 2006). The sample comprised of 13% participants falling in the age range of
8 C. D’SOUZA ET AL.

18–24; 18% in the age range of 25–34; 20% in the age range of 35–44; 14% in the age
range of 55–64 and the remaining 35% participants fell within the 65–84 age group. The
data were screened to include main and joint grocery buyers. The respondents included
60% who were the main grocery buyers and 40% were joint grocery buyers. Male and
female respondents were represented equally. All measurements were based on
a seven-point Likert-type scale, except for the measures associated with demographic
characteristics (see Table 1). Determining response rates to online surveys can be
challenging because it is necessary to calculate how many did not open the survey,
began the survey but dropped out, as well as how many respondents were speeders or
flat-liners (Callegaro & DiSogra, 2008).
Bearden et al. (2001) developed and validated multiple measures for all the dimen-
sions of consumer self-confidence. They purified their initial pool of items and content
validity was substantiated. From two studies, they selected items based on corrected
item to total correlations and factor analysis loadings, subsequently using confirmatory
factor analysis to examine the factor structure as well as providing evidence of dimen-
sionality, scale reliability and discriminant validity. We use confirmatory factor analysis

Table 1. Sample profile.

Total
No. %
Gender Male 101 50.0
Female 101 50.0
Grocery buyer Main buyer 122 60.4
Joint buyer 80 39.6
Age 18–24 26 12.9
25–34 37 18.3
35–44 40 19.8
45–54 39 19.3
55–64 29 14.4
65–74 19 9.4
75–84 10 5.0
85+ 2 1.0
Marital status Single 63 31.2
Married/defacto 139 68.8
Employment Full-time work 74 36.6
status Part-time work 33 16.3
Retired 40 19.8
Self employed 10 5.0
Home duties 22 10.9
Unemployed 8 4.0
Student 13 6.4
Volunteer 4 2.0
Highest level of education Year 11 20 9.9
Year 12 39 19.3
Trade certificate/diploma 64 31.7
Undergraduate degree 55 27.2
Postgraduate degree/higher 22 10.9
Other 2 1.0
Household income Below $20,000 16 9.9
$20,001 to $29,999 22 10.9
$30,001 to $39,999 15 7.4
$40,001 to $49,999 14 6.9
$50,001 to $74,999 36 17.8
$75,001 to $99,999 33 16.3
$100,000 + 46 22.8
Don’t know 20 9.9
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 9

for our study. Table 2 provides a summary of the factor loadings in the confirmatory
factor analysis. All factors have acceptable factor loadings.
The current research used structural equation modelling (SEM) (AMOS) to estimate
the associations hypothesised and to analyse the data. SEM was used to facilitate the
structural estimates of all variables including the moderator of the results. The individual
measurement models forming the structural model were estimated prior to using them
in the model (Figure 1). The fit of all models was acceptable. The results of the model
estimates are presented in Figure 1 and listed in Table 3. In addition, all the variables for
information acquisition, personal outcome decision-making, social outcome decision-
making and purchase intention were parcelled using the one-factor extraction proce-
dure. The parcelling of variables was used to achieve a more parsimonious model,
minimizing the chances of residuals and reducing sampling error sources (Little,
Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). The parcelled variables were then used in
the structural model as depicted in Figure 1, to estimate the associations hypothesised
(Table 3).
In Table 4, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for each of the factors is presented.
Ecolabel information .64; Consumer self-confidence construct .85, and Purchase inten-
tion 0.91. All coefficients reflect a very good or excellent alpha levels except for ecolabel
information 0.64 which is reasonable. Thus, it can be concluded that these items can be
combined to measure the factors in a consistent and reliable manner. Table 5 presents

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis.

Construct Loading
Ecolabel information (CR = .74, AVE = .59)
I believe it is important for companies to disclose green information .80
on the product label
I make a choice about green products depending on the label .73
information
Consumer self-confidence (CR = .97, AVE = .72)
Information acquisition (CR = .95, AVE = .80)
I know where to find the product information I need .93
I know where to find the green product information .93
I am confident in my ability to research green purchase .90
I know the right questions to ask when shopping for green products .87
I have the skills to obtain information before green purchase .85
Personal outcome decision-making (CR = .92, AVE = .70)
I have no doubts about green products decision-making .85
I have no second thoughts over which green products to buy .83
Often certain of having made the right green purchase choice .89
Always seem to buy the right green product .86
Too often green products I buy are satisfying .75
Social outcome decision-making (CR = .90, AVE = .64)
My friends are impressed with my ability in purchase .79
I impress people with the purchase I make .88
My neighbours admire my decorating ability .83
I have the ability to give good presents .68
I get complements on my purchase decisions .83
Purchase intention (CR = .94, AVE = .79)
I think green products are worth buying .89
I am confident about green products .90
I intend to but green products .91
I always buy green products .85
10 C. D’SOUZA ET AL.

Table 3. Model estimates.

Hypothesis Variables Associations
Ecolabel information → Consumer self-confidence .76**
Ecolabel information → Purchase Intention .53**
Consumer self-confidence → Purchase Intention .38**
Fit statistics (recommended value)
CMIN/df (≤ 3) 1.81
RMR (≥0.05) .05
GFI (≥0.9) .95
CFI (≥0.9) .97
RMSEA (≤0.08) .06
** Significant at the .01 level.

Table 4. Constructs reliability.

Construct Std
Construct Alpha mean dev
Ecolabel information .64 3.63 .99
Consumer self-confidence .85 3.06 1.07
Purchase intention .91 3.21 1.03

Table 5. Correlations between constructs used in the model.

Construct 1 2
1 Ecolabel information 1
2 Consumer self-confidence .43**
3 Purchase intention .60** .52**
** Significant at the .01 level.

the correlations between the constructs used in the model. All correlations are below
the acceptable level of .6 (Hair et al., 2006) indicating discriminant validity.

5. Results and discussion

The model estimates responding to the research hypotheses summarised below are
demonstrated in Figure 1 and are listed in Table 3.

H1: There is a positive relationship between consumers’ information regarding ecolabels

and their buying intentions towards green products – supported

H2: There is a positive relationship between consumers’ ecolabel information and their
self-confidence in decision making – supported

H3: The influence of ecolabels on the intention to purchase green products is mediated
by a positive effect on Consumer self-confidence – supported

The results reported in Table 3 show that Ecolabels directly associate with purchase
intention (.53), Ecolabels substantially contribute to Consumer self-confidence (.76);
Consumer self-confidence mediates the association between Ecolabels and Purchase
Intention at the same level (.38), indicating that consumer self-confidence plays
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 11

Table 6. Direct effect, indirect effect and total effect.

Variables Direct Indirect Total
Ecolabel information to consumer self-confidence 0.76 0.00 0.76
Ecolabel information to Purchase Intention 0.53 0.29 0.81
Consumer self-confidence to Purchase Intention 0.38 0.00 0.38

a mediating role in influencing Purchase Intention. From the literature it can be seen
that self-confidence is also critical in the decision-making process.
Table 6 reports the direct, indirect and the total effects of the variables on Purchase
Intention. Ecolabel has a direct effect on Purchase Intention (0.53), while consumer self-
confidence to Purchase Intention has a direct effect (.38). Ecolabel to Purchase Intention
has an indirect effect (.29). Similarly, the Total effect of Ecolabels and Intention to
purchase was found to be .81; Ecolabels to consumer self-confidence (.76) and
Consumer Self-confidence and Purchase Intention (.38) but not to a very large extent.
The strength of the ecolabel information shows a relatively strong association with
purchase intention. Majority of the consumers in this research regard information on ecolabel,
they read labels and they make choices based on label information. Ecolabel information act
as a vehicle for consumers to make an informed choice in terms of their purchase intention.
The results also indicate that consumer self-confidence influences purchase intention (.38).
This means that consumers are aware of and can obtain the appropriate information they
need for a decision and can also interpret and assess the information obtained. Additionally,
the social outcome decision-making reflected in the consumer confidence variable suggest
that consumers are both conscious of their associates’ sentiments toward the environment
and they respond to their associates’ attitudes positively and are willing to impress their
associates through their green purchase behaviour. Although, some have disagreed that
subjective social norms affect consumer’s purchase intent (Nguyen, Lobo, & Nguyen, 2017),
there is support from other research findings that identify the influence of ecolabel informa-
tion with purchase intentions (Gilg, Barr, & Ford, 2005) and that ecolabel information is
a critical strategic factor for green purchases (Delafrooz, Taleghani, & Nouri, 2014; Gilg et al.,
2005; Nuttavuthisit & Thøgersen, 2017).
Furthermore, this study supports the view that increasing consumer self- confidence
towards ecolabel information is fundamentally an important strategic step for attracting
and motivating green purchase. To increase green purchase behaviour, there is a need to
provide green messages that disclose a product’s green attribute information (Gleim,
Smith, Andrews, & Cronin, 2013), which will benefit consumers in making informed choices.
Green/ecolabels can assist in building and facilitating strategic green purchases by elevat-
ing consumers’ awareness, knowledge and increase their self-confidence, as they search for
reliable and trustworthy information, they expect through ecolabel information.

6. Strategic marketing implications for ecolabel information

The study regards consumer self-confidence in decision making along three dimensions:
information acquisition, personal outcome decision making and social outcome decision
making. Ecolabel information can be used as a means to influence purchase intent.
This research provides evidence that consumers appear to rate green information disclo-
sure as highly important. Around 72% of the sample surveyed believed that it is important for
12 C. D’SOUZA ET AL.

businesses to disclose green information on the product label, these findings also supports
the views of Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014). Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen (2017), suggest that
consumers who cannot rely on market information will not act effectively on green intentions.
If consumers are aware of green ecolabel information, then the marketer’s attempts to
promote green products strategically at their point of sale and media activities is simplified
because consumers would rely on green ecolabel information to make informed choices.
Furthermore, while integrated product policy initiatives are to create green products and
consumption, by emphasising the way customers use, choose or discard products (Charter,
2001), information disclosure through the endorsement of ecolabels is vital for the marketing
strategies of green products.
Parallel to this research findings, the literature also supports that green/ecolabels lead
to purchase intent and consumers read labels for relevant information (Kumar & Kapoor,
2017). This research supports that consumer self-confidence mediates ecolabel informa-
tion and purchase intent. Thus, ambiguous and confusing green claims should be
avoided, while marketers should provide some strategies for consumers to be allowed
to verify green claims, reliable information and clarity in information about the environ-
mental component of the product that needs to be disclosed.
In addition, the significance of ecolabel information and social outcome decision-
making provides an important insight into responsible behaviour for which consumers
would like to be socially recognised. This finding leads to opening avenues for marketers
to increasingly recognise ecolabel information with respect to further branding implica-
tions and understanding self-evaluation and social desirability (Sirgy, Johar, & Wise,
2015). This is an important finding in the literature and marketers should strive to
encourage and position social outcome information through labelling.
Ecolabels in general are a promotion instrument that when applied strategically can
influence behaviour. Thus, it is imperative firms, policymakers and certifying labelling
organization should educate consumers through ecolabel information to increase green
behaviour (Taufique, Vocino, & Polonsky, 2017). Ecolabels are classified as a product/
packaging in the marketing mix context (Rex & Baumann, 2007). On the other hand,
green marketing accentuates labels and they put emphasis on promotions (Rex &
Baumann, 2007). Ecolabel information can increase the effectiveness of informative
communication appeals, given consumers’ favourable perception of ecolabel informa-
tion, consumers are likely to be attentive and motivated sufficiently to understand key
green claims on product labels in making an informed choice. Thus, marketing strategies
can reposition products and use ecolabel information/ecolabels to encourage the adop-
tion of green practices (Rettie, Burchell, & Riley, 2012).
While recent research finds certified ecolabels are more trustworthy, consumers will
not distinguish amongst certified versus uncertified ecolabels in the presence of trust,
which lead to sub-optimal purchasing decisions (Darnall, Ji, & Vázquez-Brust, 2016). This
research did not test particularly for certified or uncertified ecolabels, but consumers’
general opinions point to this conclusion. Using certified labels is helpful when there is
strong competition and when marketing strategies are used to clearly differentiate their
product from their competitors’ offerings. This leads to leveraging a competitive advan-
tage, and at the same time provide meaningful perceived environmental assessment for
their products (Grolleau, Ibanez, Mzoughi, & Teisl, 2016) eventually encouraging buying
behaviour for a notably worthy cause.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 13

Powerful market actors such as manufacturers, marketers, ecolabelling certified orga-

nisations and governments can bring about an environmental change through using
ecolabel information. Governments and non-governmental organisations have identified
information problems and have initiated efforts in facilitating ecolabelling schemes (Rex
& Baumann, 2007). Governments have involvement in regulating the accuracy of ecola-
bel information disclosures (Johnstone & Hooper, 2016). While it was found that con-
sumer confidence in ecolabel information supported by government policies can
potentially increase green consumption (Sønderskov & Daugbjerg, 2011), we believe
that this confidence can improve their self-confidence in decision making. Government
intervention through regulatory controls, industry self-regulation and consistency in
labelling are all techniques should be used to provide consumers with greater clarity
designed to improve labelling accuracy.
Research has shown that ecolabel information have a dual impact not only on
consumers’ responsible consumption but also the environmental behaviour of the firm
and thus should not be merely summed as a strategic marketing tool but rather
a ‘reflection of a green marketing philosophy’ (Chamorro & Bañegil, 2006, p. 21).
These results add to the body of knowledge on consumer green decision making
through better understanding of consumer’s acceptance of ecolabeled products (Peano,
Baudino, Tecco, & Girgenti, 2015; Wang & Chang, 2017). By conjecturing from the findings, it
broadly recommends marketers need to invest in ecolabel information to allow consumers
to make a more strategic informed choice.

7. Future research and limitations

The results reported in this study need to be interpreted with some caution. The general-
isation of the findings to the total Australian population, due to a relatively small sample used
is to be considered. This study did not assess whether there are any other considerations that
might impact on purchase intent, which needs to be further explored in future. Goossens et al.
(2017) have regarded trust as an important conviction in ecolabels and we believe trust
complements consumer self-confidence, this also opens avenues for future research in the
area. While this study has some sample size limitations, it echoes findings which provide
consumer self-confidence validity within ecolabel information in the decision-making context.

8. Conclusions
A conceptual framework was proposed for ecolabel information that was used to
empirically test and refine the understanding of their influences on consumer self-
confidence and green purchase intent, both of which are critically important for sustain-
ability and policy intervention. The main findings of the study show that Ecolabel
information are positively related with Purchase Intention. Ecolabel information has
a positive association with Consumer self-confidence and consumer self-confidence
mediates the association between Ecolabel information and Purchase Intention.
Marketers can influence an increase in green product consumption through using
strategies to understand ecolabel information. The study contributes to the theoretical
foundation for future marketing studies related to consumer self-confidence, green
purchase intent and ecolabel information. Nonetheless, the findings show strong
14 C. D’SOUZA ET AL.

evidence that ecolabel information can provide primary basis of trustworthy information
and are a necessary step towards consumers’ making informed choices.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Adams, B. D. (2005). Trust vs. confidence (No. 7747-20). HUMANSYSTEMS INC GUELPH (ONTARIO) (pp.
1 –14). Paper prepared on behalf of the Department of National Defence. June 28, in Toronto,
Canada.
Atkinson, L., & Rosenthal, S. (2014). Signaling the green sell: The influence of ecolabel source,
argument specificity, and product involvement on consumer trust. Journal of Advertising, 43(1),
33–45.
Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence: Refinements in
conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 121–134.
Belz, F., & Dyllik, T. (1996). O¨ kologische Positionierungsstrategien. In T. R. Tomczak & A. Roosdorp
(Eds.), Positionierung – Kernentscheidung des marketing (pp. 170–179). St Gallen: Thexis Verlag.
Bernard, Y., Bertrandias, L., & Elgaaied-Gambier, L. (2015). Shoppers’ grocery choices in the
presence of generalized ecolabelling. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 43(4/5), 448–468.
Bickart, B. A., & Ruth, J. A. (2012). Green eco-seals and advertising persuasion. Journal of
Advertising, 41(4), 51–67.
Borin, N., Cerf, D. C., & Krishnan, R. (2011). Consumer effects of environmental impact in product
labeling. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 76–86.
Buckley, R. C. (2001). Major issues in tourism ecolabelling (Chapter 2). In X. Font & R. C. Buckley
(Eds.), Tourism ecolabelling: Certification and promotion of sustainable management (pp. 19–26).
Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Callegaro, M., & DiSogra, C. (2008). Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 72(5), 1008–1032.
Chamorro, A., & Bañegil, T. M. (2006). Green marketing philosophy: A study of Spanish firms with
ecolabels. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(1), 11–24.
Chan, E. S., Hon, A. H., Chan, W., & Okumus, F. (2014). What drives employees’ intentions to
implement green practices in hotels? The role of knowledge, awareness, concern and ecological
behaviour. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 20–28.
Charter, M. (2001). Integrated product policy (IPP) and eco-product development (EPD). In S.
Christiansen, M. Horup, and A. A. Jensen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference
on LifeCycle Management. Copenhagen: DK Teknik.
Chelminski, P., & Coulter, R. A. (2007). On market mavens and consumer self-confidence: A cross-
cultural study. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 69–91.
Cho, Y. N. (2015). Different shades of green consciousness: The interplay of sustainability labeling
and environmental impact on product evaluations. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 73–82.
Choshaly, S. H., & Tih, S. (2015). Consumer confidence and environmental behavioral science.
Advanced Science Letters, 21(6), 1923–1926.
Crane, A. (2000). Facing the backlash: Green marketing and strategic reorientation in the 1990s.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 8(3), 277–296.
Cummins, S., Reilly, T. M., Carlson, L., Grove, S. J., & Dorsch, M. J. (2014). Investigating the portrayal
and influence of sustainability claims in an environmental advertising context. Journal of
Macromarketing, 34(3), 332–348.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Lamb, P. (2006). An empirical study on the influence of environmental
labels on consumers. Corporate Communications: an International Journal, 11(2), 162–173.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 15

D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., & Peretiatko, R. (2007). Green decisions: Demographics and
consumer understanding of environmental labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31
(4), 371–376.
Darnall, N., Ji, H., & Vázquez-Brust, D. A. (2016). Third-party certification, sponsorship, and con-
sumers’ ecolabel use. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 953–969.
De Chiara, A. (2016). Eco-labeled products: Trend or tools for sustainability strategies? Journal of
Business ethics. 137(1), 161-172.
Delafrooz, N., Taleghani, M., & Nouri, B. (2014). Effect of green marketing on consumer purchase
behavior. QScience Connect, 1(5). doi:10.5339/connect.2014.5
Do Paço, A. M. F., & Reis, R. (2012). Factors affecting skepticism toward green advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 41(4), 147–155.
Engels, S. V., Hansmann, R., & Scholz, R. W. (2010). Toward a sustainability label for food products:
An analysis of experts’ and consumers’ acceptance. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 49(1), 30–60.
Gilg, A., Barr, S., & Ford, N. (2005). Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the
sustainable consumer. Futures, 37(6), 481–504.
Gleim, M. R., Smith, J. S., Andrews, D., & Cronin, J. J. (2013). Against the green: A multi-method
examination of the barriers to green consumption. Journal of Retailing, 89(1), 44–61.
Goossens, Y., Berrens, P., Charleer, L., Coremans, P., Houbrechts, M., Vervaet, C., . . . Geeraerd, A.
(2017). Qualitative assessment of ecolabels on fresh produce in Flanders (Belgium) highlights
a potential intention–Performance gap for the supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140,
986–995.
Grolleau, G., Ibanez, L., Mzoughi, N., & Teisl, M. (2016). Helping ecolabels to fulfil their promises.
Climate Policy, 16(6), 792–802.
Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer
motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177–189.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis
(Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice.
Hansmann, R., Koellner, T., & Scholz, R. W. (2006). Influence of consumers’ socioecological and
economic orientations on preferences for wood products with sustainability labels. Forest Policy
and Economics, 8(3), 239–250.
Harbaugh, R., Maxwell, J. W., & Roussillon, B. (2011). Label confusion: The Groucho effect of
uncertain standards. Management Science, 57(9), 1512–1527.
Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza Ibáñez, V. (2006). Green value added. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
24(7), 673–680.
Hoek, J., Roling, N., & Holdsworth, D. (2013). Ethical claims and labelling: An analysis of consumers’
beliefs and choice behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(7–8), 772–792.
Johnstone, M. L., & Hooper, S. (2016). Social influence and green consumption behaviour: A need
for greater government involvement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(9–10), 827–855.
Kikuchi-Uehara, E., Nakatani, J., & Hirao, M. (2016). Analysis of factors influencing consumers’
proenvironmental behavior based on life cycle thinking. Part I: Effect of environmental aware-
ness and trust in environmental information on product choice. Journal of Cleaner Production,
117, 10–18.
Kumar, N., & Kapoor, S. (2017). Do labels influence purchase decisions of food products? Study of
young consumers of an emerging market. British Food Journal, 119(2). 218–229.
Leire, C., & Thidell, A. (2005). Product-related environmental information to guide consumer
purchases e a review and analysis of research on perceptions, understanding and use among
Nordic consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 1061–1070.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel:
Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173.
Locander, W. B., & Hermann, P. W. (1979). The effect of self-confidence and anxiety on information
seeking in consumer risk reduction. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 268–274.
Mueller Loose, S., & Remaud, H. (2013). Impact of corporate social responsibility claims on
consumer food choice: A cross-cultural comparison. British Food Journal, 115(1), 142–166.
16 C. D’SOUZA ET AL.

Nguyen, T. N., Lobo, A., & Nguyen, B. K. (2017). Young consumers’ green purchase behaviour in an
emerging market. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1–18. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2017.1318946
Noblet, C. L., & Teisl, M. F. (2015). Ecolabelling as sustainable consumption policy. In L. A. Reisch &
J. Thøgersen (Eds.), Handbook of research on sustainable consumption (pp. 300–312).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Nuttavuthisit, K., & Thøgersen, J. (2017). The importance of consumer trust for the emergence of
a market for green products: The case of organic food. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(2),
323–337.
Pancer, E., McShane, L., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2017). Isolated environmental cues and product
efficacy penalties: The color green and ecolabels. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 159–177.
Park, C. W., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Feick, L. (1994). Consumer knowledge assessment. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21, 71–82.
Peano, C., Baudino, C., Tecco, N., & Girgenti, V. (2015). Green marketing tools for fruit growers
associated groups: Application of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for strawberries and berry
fruits ecobranding in northern Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 104, 59–67.
Rettie, R., Burchell, K., & Riley, D. (2012). Normalising green behaviours: A new approach to
sustainability marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3–4), 420–444.
Rex, E., & Baumann, H. (2007). Beyond ecolabels: What green marketing can learn from conven-
tional marketing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(6), 567–576.
Seo, J. Y., & Scammon, D. L. (2017). Do green packages lead to misperceptions? The influence of
package colors on consumers’ perceptions of brands with environmental claims. Marketing
Letters, 28(3), 357–369.
Sirgy, M. J., Johar, J. S., & Wise, S. A. (2015). The role of anticipatory self-evaluation in consumer
purchase motivation. In M. Levy & D. Grewal (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1993 Academy of
Marketing Science (AMS) annual conference (pp. 69–73). New York, NY: Springer International
Publishing.
Sirieix, L., Delanchy, M., Remaud, H., Zepeda, L., & Gurviez, P. (2013). Consumers’ perceptions of
individual and combined sustainable food labels: A UK pilot investigation. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 37(2), 143–151.
Smith, K. T. (2010). An examination of marketing techniques that influence Millennials’ percep-
tions of whether a product is environmentally friendly. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18(6),
437–450.
Smith, K. T., & Brower, T. R. (2012). Longitudinal study of green marketing strategies that influence
Millennials. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(6), 535–551.
Sønderskov, K. M., & Daugbjerg, C. (2011). The state and consumer confidence in ecolabeling:
Organic labeling in Denmark, Sweden, The United Kingdom and The United States. Agriculture
and Human Values, 28(4), 507–517.
Taufique, K. M. R., Vocino, A., & Polonsky, M. J. (2017). The influence of ecolabel knowledge and
trust on pro-environmental consumer behaviour in an emerging market. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 25(7), 511–529.
Teisl, M. F., Roe, B., & Hicks, R. L. (2002). Can ecolabels tune a market? Evidence from dolphin-safe
labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43(3), 339–359.
Teisl, M. F., Rubin, J., & Noblet, C. L. (2008). Non-dirty dancing? Interactions between ecolabels and
consumers. Journal Of Economic Psychology, 29(2), 140–159.
Testa, F., Iraldo, F., Vaccari, A., & Ferrari, E. (2015). Why eco-labels can be effective marketing tools:
Evidence from a study on Italian consumers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(4),
252–265.
Thøgersen, J. (2000). Psychological determinants of paying attention to ecolabels in purchase
decisions: Model development and multinational validation. Journal of Consumer Policy, 23(3),
285–313.
Thøgersen, J., Haugaard, P., & Olesen, A. (2010). Consumer responses to ecolabels. European
Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12), 1787–1810.
Wang, Y. S., & Chang, S. K. (2017). Is MSC ecolabelling workable in Taiwan? Responses from various
sectors of the Taiwanese sergestid shrimp fishery. Marine Policy, 77, 164–170.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 17

Wei, C. F., Chiang, C. T., Kou, T. C., & Lee, B. C. (2017). Toward Sustainable Livelihoods: Investigating
the Drivers of Purchase Behavior for Green Products. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26,
626–639.
Whitson, D., Ozkaya, H. E., & Roxas, J. (2014). Changes in consumer segments and preferences to
green labelling. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 458–466.
Whitson, D. A., & Henry, W. A. (1996). What's in a label? Environmental issues in product packaging.
Journal of Euromarketing, 5(3), 29–42.