JCM 2001targeting

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/235282718
Targeting Consumers Who Are Willing to Pay More for Environmentally Friendly
Products
Article in Journal of Consumer Marketing · November 2001

DOI: 10.1108/EUM0000000006155
CITATIONS READS
2,052 20,983
3 authors, including:
Michel Laroche
John Molson School of Business, Concordia University
235 PUBLICATIONS 13,944 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Michel Laroche on 20 July 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Consumer Marketing
Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products
Michel Laroche Jasmin Bergeron Guido Barbaro-Forleo
Article information:
To cite this document:
Michel Laroche Jasmin Bergeron Guido Barbaro-Forleo, (2001),"Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for
environmentally friendly products", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 Iss 6 pp. 503 - 520
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006155
Downloaded on: 19 April 2016, At: 15:26 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 36 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 25986 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2005),"Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour: Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food",
Downloaded by Concordia University At 15:26 19 April 2016 (PT)
British Food Journal, Vol. 107 Iss 8 pp. 606-625 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700510611002

(2005),"Green marketing: legend, myth, farce or prophesy?", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 8 Iss 4
pp. 357-370 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522750510619733
(2006),"An empirical study on the influence of environmental labels on consumers", Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 11 Iss 2 pp. 162-173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280610661697
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:149884 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

An executive summary for
managers and executive Targeting consumers who are
readers can be found at the
end of this article willing to pay more for
environmentally friendly
products
Michel Laroche
Royal Bank Distinguished Professor of Marketing, John Molson
School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Jasmin Bergeron
Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Guido Barbaro-Forleo
Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Keywords Green marketing, Consumer behaviour, Segmentation, Environment, Canada

Abstract Concerns related to the environment are evident in the increasingly
ecologically conscious marketplace. Using various statistical analyses, investigats the
demographic, psychological and behavioral profiles of consumers who are willing to pay
more for environmentally friendly products. Finds that this segment of consumers were
more likely to be females, married and with at least one child living at home. They
reported that today's ecological problems are severe, that corporations do not act
responsibly toward the environment and that behaving in an ecologically favorable
fashion is important and not inconvenient. They place a high importance on security and
warm relationships with others, and they often consider ecological issues when making a
purchase. Managerial implications for green marketers and suggestions for future
research are discussed.
Concerns related ot the Concerns related to the environment are evident in the increasingly
environment environmentally conscious marketplace. Over the years, a majority of
consumers have realized that their purchasing behavior had a direct impact
on many ecological problems. Customers adapted to this new threatening
situation by considering environmental issues when shopping (e.g. checking
if the product is wrapped in recycled material) and by purchasing only
ecologically compatible products (e.g. biodegradable paint, CFC-free
hairspray or unbleached coffee filters). Perhaps the most convincing
evidence supporting the growth of ecologically favorable consumer behavior
is the increasing number of individuals who are willing to pay more for
environmentally friendly products.
In 1989, 67 percent of Americans stated that they were willing to pay 5-10
percent more for ecologically compatible products (Coddington, 1990). By
1991, environmentally conscious individuals were willing to pay between
15-20 percent more for green products (Suchard and Polonsky, 1991). By
1993, Myburgh-Louw and O'Shaughnessy (1994) conducted a mail survey
of female consumers in the UK to examine their perceptions of
environmental claims on the packaging of clothes detergents. They found
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Fonds FCAR
(Quebec), and the able assistance of Isabelle Miodek.
The research register for this journal is available at

http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001, pp. 503-520, # MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0736-3761 503
that 79 percent of their sample agreed to pay up to 40 percent more for a
product which was identical in every respect to their own brand and which
had been proven to be green.
An important challenge facing marketers is to identify which consumers
are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. It is
apparent that an enhanced knowledge of the profile of this segment of
consumers would be extremely useful. The closer we move to an
understanding of what causes individuals to pay more for green products,
the better marketers will be able to develop strategies specifically targeted
at these consumers.
Our purpose in this study was twofold:
(1) to identify a profile of consumers who are likely to pay more for
environmentally friendly products; and
(2) to elaborate marketing strategies that arise from an improved under-
standing of the profile of this segment of consumers.
Corporate focus Given the shifts in customer buying criteria toward environmental
responsibility, corporate focus on this segment may provide a source of
distinctive competitive advantage in the future. It is conceivable that at some
time in the future, the idea of `ènvironmental justice'' may be accorded a

status as high as that wielded by the concept of civil rights in contemporary
USA (Noah, 1994).
Profiles of green consumers: a literature review

Following an exhaustive review of the relevant literature, several factors that
may influence consumers' willingness to pay more for environmentally
friendly products have been identified. These factors can be classified into
five categories: demographics, knowledge, values, attitudes and behavior.
Figure 1 proposes a theoretical framework for these factors. A review of the
literature supporting the relationships posited in Figure 1 follows.
Consumers' demographic characteristics

Efforts to identify environmentally friendly consumers can be traced back to
the early 1970s. Berkowitz and Lutterman (1968), as well as Anderson and
Cunningham (1972), were pioneers in studying the profile of socially
responsible consumers. Overall, their combined results portray a highly
socially conscious person as female, pre-middle aged, with a high level of
education (finished high school) and above average socioeconomic status.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
504 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001

In the past two decades, the results of Berkowitz and Lutterman (1968) and
Anderson and Cunningham (1972) were sometimes supported, but often
not. For example, recent studies found that females tend to be more
ecologically conscious than men (McIntyre et al., 1993; Banerjee and
McKeage, 1994). However, Reizenstein et al. (1974) found that only men
were willing to pay more for control of air pollution, and Balderjahn (1988)
reported that the relationship between environmentally conscious attitudes
and the use of non-polluting products was more intensive among men than
among women.
Ecologically compatible Following Berkowitz and Lutterman's (1968) study, Henion (1972) also
manner thought that consumers with medium or high incomes would be more likely
to act in an ecologically compatible manner due to their higher levels of
education and therefore to their increased sensitivity to social problems.
However, the results did not support his hypothesis: environmentally friendly
behavior was consistent across income groups. Moreover, Sandahl and
Robertson (1989) found that the environmentally conscious consumer is less
educated and has a lower income than the average American. This brought
them to conclude that income and education are not good predictors of
environmental concern or purchase behavior.
Early research identified the green consumer as being younger than average
(Berkowitz and Lutterman, 1968; Anderson and Cunningham, 1972; Van

Liere and Dunlap, 1981). Surprisingly, this trend has been reversed in the last
decade and several recent studies identified the green consumer as being
older than average (Sandahl and Robertson, 1989; Vining and Ebreo, 1990;
Roberts, 1996).
Although most findings about the impact of consumers' demographic
characteristics on their environmentally conscious behavior are contradictory
(Roberts, 1996), it is clear that they exert a significant influence. However,
most authors agree that demographics are less important than knowledge,
values and/or attitude in explaining ecologically friendly behavior (Webster,
1975; Brooker, 1976; Banerjee and McKeage, 1994; Chan, 1999).
Consumers' knowledge or ecoliteracy

Consumer research Knowledge is recognized in consumer research as a characteristic that
influences all phases in the decision process. Specifically, knowledge is a
relevant and significant construct that affects how consumers gather and
organize information (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987), how much information is
used in decision making (Brucks, 1985) and how consumers evaluate
products and services (Murray and Schlacter, 1990).
Once again, empirical support for the influence of consumers' environmental
knowledge on their ecologically favorable behavior is contradictory. On one
hand, Maloney and Ward (1973) reported no significant linkage between
environmental knowledge and ecologically compatible behavior. On the
other hand, Vining and Ebreo (1990), as well as Chan (1999), have shown
that knowledge about ecological issues is a significant predictor of
environmentally friendly behavior. Amyx et al. (1994) even found that
individuals highly knowledgeable about environmental issues were more
willing to pay a premium price for green products.
Ecoliteracy was developed by Laroche et al. (1996) to measure the
respondent's ability to identify or define a number of ecologically-related
symbols, concepts and behaviors. It was found to be correlated with some
attitudes and behavior toward the environment.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001 505

Consumers' values
Schwartz (1994) defines human values as desirable goals, varying in
importance, that serve as guiding principles in people's lives. McCarty and
Shrum (1994) believe that it makes intuitive sense that the values one holds
would influence behaviors that work for a common or societal good.
Recycling, for instance, is a behavior that someone `òught'' to do, even
though the immediate individual rewards for engaging in it are usually
scarce. Therefore, if an individual engages in recycling, it would be expected
to be driven by strong values. Hence, we may gain a much clearer
understanding of the motivational determinants of environmentally friendly
behavior by considering the impact of values.
Two values that influence According to Triandis (1993), two major values that influence consumer
consumer behavior behavior are individualism and collectivism. On one hand, individualism
represents how much a person focuses on his/her independent self (i.e. how
he/she depends only on himself or herself). Individualist people engage in
voluntary associations and they make sure that they remain distinct
individuals, even when they belong to groups. They also compete with others
for status, which depends on their accomplishments much more than on their
group memberships (Triandis, 1993). We suspect that this type of individual
is not very conducive to environmental friendliness. On the other hand,
collectivism implies cooperation, helpfulness, and consideration of the goals

of the group relative to the individual. Being a collectivist means that one
may forego individual motivations for that which is good for the group. The
work of Triandis (1993) and McCarty and Shrum (1994) suggest that
collectivist people tend to be friendlier to the environment, while
individualistic people tend to be more unfriendly.
In addition, McCarty and Shrum (1994) investigated the impact of two other
relevant values on consumers' environmentally conscious behavior: fun/
enjoyment and security. It was found that the fun/enjoyment value was
positively related to attitudes about the importance of recycling and to the
recycling behavior. This relationship makes sense if one considers that those
who value fun and enjoyment in life may see a fulfillment of this end-state
through interaction with the environment. The security value factor was not
significantly related to either the importance of recycling or the recycling
behavior.
Consumers' attitudes
The two most studied The two most studied attitudes in the ecological literature, with respect to
attitudes environmentally friendly behavior, are importance and inconvenience. Amyx
et al. (1994) define perceived importance, with respect to the environment,
as the degree to which one expresses concern about ecological issues. In
other words, importance is simply whether consumers view environmentally
compatible behaviors as important to themselves or society as a whole.
Inconvenience refers to how inconvenient it is perceived for the individual to
behave in an ecologically favorable fashion. For example, a person may feel
that recycling is important for the long-run good of the society, but he or she
may also feel that it is personally inconvenient. Similarly, a consumer may
know that single-serve aseptically packaged juices or puddings will harm the
environment, but still buy them because they are convenient.
McCarty and Shrum (1994) studied the impact of importance and
inconvenience of recycling on the behavior of recycling. They found that the
relationship between inconvenience and recycling was in the expected
direction, that is, the more individuals believed recycling was inconvenient,

the less likely they were to recycle. By contrast, beliefs about the importance
of recycling were not significantly related to recycling behavior. Therefore,
it appears that regardless of how important individuals believed recycling to
be, the perception of the inconvenience of the recycling activity had a greater
influence on their actions.
According to Banerjee and McKeage (1994), green consumers strongly
believe that current environmental conditions are deteriorating and represent
serious problems facing the security of the world. Conversely, consumers
who do not engage in environmentally friendly behavior perceive that
ecological problems will ``resolve themselves.'' Therefore, an individual's
perception about the severity of ecological problems might influence his/her
willingness to pay more for ecologically compatible products.
The socially conscious Webster (1975) found that the socially conscious customer feels strongly that
customer he/she can do something about pollution and tries to consider the social
impact of his/her buying behavior. According to Wiener and Sukhdial
(1990), one of the main reasons that stops individuals from engaging in
ecologically favorable actions is their perceived level of self-involvement
toward the protection of the environment. As the authors point out, many
individuals may have high ecological concern, but feel that the preservation
of the environment is the responsibility of the government and/or big
corporations. We might expect this attitude to impact the willingness of

consumers to spend more for environmentally friendly products.
Consumers' behaviors
Suchard and Polonski (1991) stipulate that ecologically conscious consumers
will try to protect the environment in different ways (e.g. recycling, checking
that a package is made of recycled material, purchasing only green products).
However, it is not clear how consumers' willingness to spend more for green
product will be correlated with other ecologically favorable behaviors.
Pickett et al. (1993) state that marketers must exercise caution when
attempting to extend environmental initiatives from one ecologically
conscious behavior to another. For example, those consumers who recycle
paper may not be the same consumers who purchase recycled handwriting
paper.
Methodology
Exploratory research Our research is exploratory in nature because, as far as we know, no study
ever investigated factors that influence consumers' willingness to pay a
higher price for environmentally friendly products.
Sampling procedures and data collection

The population targeted for this study consisted of subjects residing in a large
North-American city. The data collection was confined to a selected number
of census tracts in municipalities located in this city and its surrounding areas.
A total of 22 census tracts in 17 municipalities were chosen for the survey.
We made sure that environmentally friendly programs (e.g. recycling
programs) were in place and properly advertised in each municipality. This
was necessary to avoid biased or unrealistic answers from respondents. For
example, if a city does not have recycling centers or services, its citizens
could not recycle, whether they wanted to or not. Furthermore, purchases of
recyclable products would be useless in that context.
Within each of the census tracts in the selected municipalities, a number of
streets were picked at random. The questionnaires were administered door to

door. Data collection was done mostly on weekends and evenings when
respondents were more likely to be at home. Respondents willing to
participate in the survey were given a prepaid envelope to be filled in at their
own convenience and mailed directly to the researchers. A total of 2,387
questionnaires were distributed and 907 usable questionnaires were returned,
which represented a very satisfactory return rate of 38 percent.
Measures
Questionnaire A structured non-disguised questionnaire was designed to gather the data
required for this research. Prior to sending the survey, a pre-test was done
and minor modifications were made. The questionnaire was divided into five
parts. The first part measured ecoliteracy with seven questions (Appendix).
The answers given by the respondents indicated how much they knew about
environmental issues. The second part measured attitudes of consumers
toward a variety of topics related to the environment. Respondents were
asked to read 17 statements and specify on a nine-point Likert scale whether
they agreed or disagreed with each one. Most items were adapted from
previous studies (McCarty and Shrum, 1994; Roberts, 1996).
The third part of the questionnaire measured behaviors of respondents toward
the environment. This section contained five questions asking the respondents
how often they engaged in particular friendly/unfriendly behaviors. These

behaviors were recycling, considering environmental issues when making a
purchase and buying environmentally harming products (i.e. plastic utensils
and styrofoam cups). The fourth part measured consumer values. Items were
adapted from the work of Rokeach (1973). Respondents had to rate ten values
in terms of their importance to themselves as guiding principles in their lives.
Each answer was recorded by using a nine-point Likert scale (very
unimportant to very important). The fifth part measured the following
demographic characteristics: gender, marital status, age, income, family size,
home ownership, education, and employment status. Items used to measure
attitudes, behaviors and values are presented in Table I.
Reliability tests Reliability tests were conducted on each factor. Some items were recoded
when necessary. Results show that the Cronbach alphas varied from 0.65 to
0.87 for all our constructs, which is satisfactory for an exploratory study
(Hair et al., 1998). Factor analyses were also conducted to evaluate the
ability of the items to measure each construct. These analyses were
performed using the maximum likelihood method to extract the factors and
the oblimin rotation to enable a better interpretation of these factors. Results
of these reliability tests are presented in Table I.
Measure of the endogenous variable

Three questions were used to measure respondents' willingness to pay more
for environmentally friendly products (Table II). Each question was
measured on a nine-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).
These questions were spread out in the questionnaire among the 17 items
measuring attitudes.
Based on these three questions (Table II), we divided our sample in three
groups:
(1) consumers willing to pay a higher price for green products;
(2) consumers who are not willing to pay more for green products; and
(3) undecided consumers.

Alpha
Constructs Measures Factors (a)
Attitudesa
Severity of environmental In our country, we have so much electricity that
problems we do not have to worry about conservation 0.825
Since we live in such a large country, any
pollution that we create is easily spread out and
therefore of no concern to me 0.812
With so much water in this country, I don't see
why people are worried about leaky faucets and
flushing toilets 0.811 0.87
Our country has so many trees that there is no
need to recycle paper 0.749
The earth is a closed system where everything
eventually returns to normal, so I see no need to
worry about its present state 0.623
Importance of being Recycling will reduce pollution 0.733
environmentally friendly Recycling is important to save natural resources 0.729 0.65
Recycling will save land that would be used as
dumpsites 0.605
Level of responsibility of Packaged food companies are acting responsibly
corporations toward the environment 0.868 0.67
Paper companies are concerned about the
environment 0.754
Inconvenience of being Keeping separate piles of garbage for recycling
environmentally is too much trouble 0.866

friendly Recycling is too much trouble 0.744
I hate to wash out bottles for recycling 0.698 0.71
Trying to control pollution is much more trouble
than it is worth 0.631
Behaviorsb
Recycling Using the blue or green box (bag) for recycling
Considering When buying something wrapped, check that it
environmental issues is wrapped in paper or cardboard made of
when making a recycled material 0.820
Refusing to buy products from companies
purchase accused of being polluters 0.672 0.68
Buying environmentally Buying plastic knives, forks, or spoons 0.821
harming products Buying styrofoam cups 0.794 0.70
Valuesc
Collectivism Loving (i.e. affectionate, tender) 0.798
Helpful (i.e. working for the welfare of others) 0.750 0.71
Warm relationships with others 0.736
Security Security
Fun/enjoyment Excitement 0.826 0.65
Fun and enjoyment of life 0.682
Individualism A sense of accomplishment 0.843
Self-respect 0.820 0.73
Self-fulfillment 0.774
Independent (i.e. self-reliant, self-sufficient) 0.552
Notes:
a
Respondents were asked to give their opinion toward a variety of topics related to the
environment. Items were measured on a nine-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly
agree)
b
Respondents were asked how often they engaged in such environmentally friendly activities.
Items were measured on a nine-point Likert scale (never to always)
c
Respondents were asked to rate each value on how important they are as guiding principles in
their life. Items were measured on a nine-point Likert scale (very unimportant to very important)
Table I. Measures and reliability analyses
To be admissible in the first group, respondents had to answer to all three

questions with a score of ``nine.'' Respondents were included in the second
group if they answered to all three questions with a score of `òne'' or ``two.''
Among the 907 respondents in the sample, 119 are considered as willing to
pay a higher price for environmentally friendly products and 122 are

Alpha
Questionsa Factors (a)
1. It is acceptable to pay 10 percent more for groceries that are
produced, processed, and packaged in an environmentally
friendly way 0.856
2. I would accept paying 10 percent more taxes to pay for an
environmental cleanup program 0.797 0.84
3. I would be willing to spend an extra $10 a week in order to
buy less environmentally harmful products 0.776
Note:
a
Items were measured on a nine-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree)
Table II. Questions used to measure consumer's willingness to pay more for
environmentally friendly products
classified as the opposite. Therefore, we will qualify the 666 others

respondents (907 ± 119 ± 122 = 666) as being `ùndecided.'' In order to
identify factors that influence consumers' willingness to spend more for
green products, we will only analyze the first two groups.
Analyses and results

Our results are presented according to the methodological approach defined

in the previous section. We begin by a comparison of the demographic
profile of consumers who are willing to pay more for ecologically
compatible products and their unwilling counterpart. This approach will help
reveal differences between these two segments.
Comparison of the two demographic profiles

A preliminary analysis of A preliminary analysis of the data reveals that our sample is composed of a
the data majority of female respondents (56 percent), home-owners (86 percent),
currently married (77 percent), and with at least one child at home (61
percent). Nearly half of our sample is aged between 40 and 59 years (48
percent), are university graduates (44 percent), have a household income of at
least $50,000 (47 percent) and work more than 30 hours a week (49 percent).
We conducted crosstabs analyses on the eight demographic variables to
determine which ones differentiate the most the two groups of respondents.
Statistical assumptions concerning the validity of these analyses (e.g.
normality, frequency and presence of outliers) were verified. Among the
eight demographic variables studied, only ``gender,'' ``marital status'' and
``number of children living at home'' differentiated the two segments. The
details of these tests are presented in Tables III-V.
Gender somehow influences consumers' willingness to pay more for green
products in a statistically significant way (w2 = 5.91, p = 0.015). Table III
Frequency Percentage
Would pay Would not Would pay Would not
Respondents' gender more pay more more pay more
Female 75 58 57 43
Male 43 63 40 60
Total 118 121
w2 of Pearson = 5.91 (p = 0.015) V of Cramer = 0.15
Table III. Respondents' gender and their willingness to pay more for

Would pay Would not Would pay Would not
Respondents' marital status more pay more more pay more
Single, separated or divorced 20 36 36 64
Married 97 86 53 47
Total 117 122
Table IV. Respondents' marital status and their willingness to pay more for
Number of children living Would pay Would not Would pay Would not
with the respondent more pay more more pay more
No child 54 71 43 57
At least one child 54 42 56 44
Total 108 113
Table V. Number of children living with the respondents and their willingness to
pay more for environmentally friendly products
indicates that 57 percent of females would pay more for green products,
while this percentage is only 40 percent for males. This result finds ample
support in the literature. Most studies have identified females as being more
environmentally concerned than males (Berkowitz and Lutterman, 1968;
Webster, 1975; McIntyre et al. 1993; Banerjee and McKeage, 1994).
As expected, individuals who are married (56 percent) and have children
living at home (57 percent) are more willing to pay a higher price for green
products. It may be suggested that these individuals are more inclined to
think of how a ruined environment may negatively impact not only on their
partner, but on their children's future. This could be a strong motivation for
married couples to behave in an ecologically conscious fashion. Overall, it
seems that married people with children may be more prone to put the
welfare of others before their own. Brooker (1976) came up with similar
findings.
Consumers' demographic The other variables used to define the consumers' demographic profile did
profile not differentiate consumers who are willing to spend more for green products
from their unwilling counterpart. In other words, the age of the respondent
(p = 0.97), his level of education (p = 0.97), his household income (p = 0.76),
the fact that he is a home owner or not (p = 0.32) and his work status
(p = 0.25) do not influence the consumers' willingness to pay a higher price
for ecologically safe products in a statistically significant way.
Factors that influences consumers' willingness to pay more for

We conducted t-tests on each construct of the conceptual framework in order
to reveal significant differences. Then, we ran a stepwise discriminant analysis
on all the factors to identify the ones that differentiate the most the two
segments of consumers. Statistical assumptions regarding these tests were
verified (i.e. normality, homogeneity of variance/covariance matrices). Before
running the discriminant analysis, we split the sample in two groups: the first
group (70 percent of respondents) was used to estimate the discriminant
function, while the second group (30 percent of respondents) was employed to

validate the results. Before presenting the factors identified by the discriminant
analysis, we believe that it is important to evaluate the quality of the
discriminant function. The relevant statistics are presented in Table VI.
Table VI indicates that the discriminant function's w2 is 107.8, which proves
that it is largely significant (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the percentage of cases
correctly classified, calculated from the validation sample, is 78.2 percent,
which is much higher than the proportional chance criterion of 50.1 percent.
Results from the t-tests Results from the t-tests and the discriminant analyses are presented in
Table VII. At this point, it is appropriate to recall that each construct was
evaluated on a nine-point Likert scale, except the ecoliteracy construct,
which was rated on a scale from 0 (poor knowledge) to 1 (excellent
knowledge). The Appendix and Table I present the items used to measure
each independent factor.
Canonical Wilks' Grouped cases correctly
Eigenvalue correlation Lambda Chi square classifieda (%)
0.604 0.614 0.623 w2 (6) = 107.8 Willing respondents: 80.2
p < 0.001 Unwilling respondents: 76.2
Total = 78.2
Note:
a
Classification was based on a validation sample (30 per cent of the original sample)
Table VI. Characteristics of the discriminant function
t-tests
Meansb
Would Would Discriminant analysis
pay not pay Value Wilks' Loadings
Factorsa more more of t Lambda (L)
1. Considering environmental
issues when making a
purchase 5.81 3.89 ± 7.16c 0.83c 0.57
2. Inconvenience of being
environmentally friendly 1.73 3.05 6.36c 0.73c ± 0.56
3. Importance of being
environmentally friendly 8.37 7.36 ± 5.60c 0.68c 0.47
Severity of environmental
problems 1.14 1.70 4.64c ± 0.33
6. Level of responsibility of
corporations 3.72 4.60 3.30c 0.62c ± 0.29
5. Collectivism value 8.08 7.64 ± 2.99c 0.64c 0.23
4. Security value 8.29 7.87 ± 2.19d 0.66c 0.20
Recycling behavior 8.45 7.99 ± 1.75 0.34
Individualism value 8.30 8.23 ± 0.52 0.03
Fun/enjoyment value 6.73 6.66 ± 0.34 0.12
Buying environmentally
harming products 6.93 6.98 0.21 ± 0.08
Environmental knowledge 7.23 7.23 ± 0.14 0.07
Notes:
a
Numbers represent the factors' order of entry in the discriminant analysis
(a = 0.05)
b
Items were measured on a nine-point Likert scale, except the knowledge construct,
which was evaluated on a scale from 0 (poor knowledge) to 1 (excellent knowledge)
c
Statistically significant (a < 0.01)
d
Statistically significant (a < 0.05)
Table VII. Results of t-tests and the discriminant analysis

Results from the discriminant analyses and the student tests indicate that
attitudes are very good predictors of consumers' willingness to spend more
for green products. In fact, t-tests revealed that all four attitudes
differentiated the two segments of respondents in a statistically significant
way, whereas salient differences were observed for only two values (i.e.
collectivism and security) and one behavior (i.e. considering environmental
issues when making a purchase). Furthermore, half of the factors who
entered the discriminant function are attitudes. This is consistent with many
studies in which attitudes were found to be excellent predictors/moderators
of ecologically friendly behavior (Webster, 1975; Banerjee and McKeage,
1994; McCarty and Shrum, 1994; Chan, 1999).
Green products Consumers willing to pay more for green products reported that today's
ecological problems are severe, that corporations do not act responsibly
toward the environment and that behaving in an ecologically favorable manner
is important and not inconvenient. They place a high importance on security
and warm relationships with others, and they often consider ecological issues
when making a purchase. Conversely, consumers unwilling to pay more for
green products reported that companies are acting responsibly toward the
environment and they admit (in average) that they do not consider ecological
issues when making a purchase. These consumers attributed a lower score to
the severity of ecological problems and to the importance of being

ecologically friendly. These findings imply many managerial implications for
green marketers, which are discussed in the next section.
Discussion and managerial implications

This study provides both a theoretical and practical contribution to
understanding the determinants of consumers' willingness to pay more for
environmentally friendly products. A discussion about the impact of
consumers' attitudes, values and behaviors follows.
The impact of attitudes

The strength of A clearly important finding of this study involves the strength of the
relationships relationships between attitudes and consumers' willingness to spend more for
green products. The attitude that showed the most discriminating power
between the two segments of consumers is the perceived inconvenience of
being environmentally friendly. This study reveals that consumers willing to
pay more for green products did not perceive it inconvenient to behave in an
ecologically favorable manner. The opposite was found for the unwilling
respondents. Therefore, it is of primary importance for marketers to advertise
why it is convenient to purchase green products and to change consumer
perceptions in a positive way. More and more companies educate consumers
about the convenience of buying ecologically safe products. The Body Shop,
for example, produces and promotes its product lines with environmental and
social sensitivity as a major theme. Information cards, window displays, and
videos are used throughout the store to inform the public on the environmental
and social impacts of their purchasing decisions (Menon et al., 1999). These
in-store informational promotions focus on educating the customer about The
Body Shop's natural product ingredients, earth-friendly manufacturing, and
the policy of purchasing from developing countries (called ``Trade Not Aid'').
The education of the consumer is seen as an appropriate method for increasing
perceived convenience and establishing credibility.
The second attitude that strongly differentiated the two segments of
consumers is the perceived importance of being environmentally friendly.
This research reveals that consumers willing to pay a higher price for green

products perceive that it is very important to behave in an ecologically
favorable way. Bei and Simpson's (1995) study also suggests that
consumers' environmentally compatible behavior can be motivated by
emphasizing the importance of environmental issues. Thus, marketers should
communicate to the target audience that buying green products can have a
significant impact on the welfare of the environment. Through a properly
targeted advertising campaign, marketers can encourage positive attitudes
and behaviors held by ecologically friendly people.
Responsibility of The third important attitude is the perceived level of responsibility of
corporations corporations. The results suggest that consumers who are willing to spend
more for green products believe that firms do not act responsibly toward the
environment, whereas the opposite was observed for unwilling respondents.
Therefore, managers should persuade consumers that the protection of the
environment is not the sole responsibility of businesses and that each
individual can also make a difference. It is also of primary importance for
marketers to provide positive feedback to consumers on a regular basis in order
to show them that they really are making a difference. These actions would not
only reinforce proper behavior from green consumers, but could also motivate
less ecologically friendly individuals to behave in a more conscious manner.
This study reveals that both willing and unwilling consumers are preoccupied
by the severity of ecological problems. With current high levels of

consideration for the environment across the population, the potential benefits
from enhancing concern may be illusory (Roberts, 1996). Thus, it is suggested
that the major promotional task is to induce people to act on their concerns.
For instance, popular slogans, such as ``think globally, act locally,'' can be
effective in enhancing favorable behavior. Advertising campaigns that portray
individuals making a difference in combating environmental ills are also more
likely to solicit the desired behavioral change.
The impact of values

Important findings Two important findings were obtained with regard to the relationships
between values and consumers' willingness to spend more for green
products. As expected, ecologically conscious consumers reported that
collectivism and security were important principles guiding their lives. This
result is in line with the profile of environmentally friendly individuals
(McCarty and Shrum, 1994). These consumers care about their relationships
with others, which translates into a certain concern for the welfare of others.
Such caring personalities indicate a certain predisposition to be
environmentally friendly. In an attempt to promote ecologically favorable
consumption, marketers may find it profitable to bring consumers to the
realm of purchasing through packaging that stresses society welfare, security
and warm relations as virtues of green consumption.
The impact of behaviors

An important finding of this research is that consumers who consider
environmental issues when making a purchase are more likely to spend more
for green products. In fact, 80 percent of these respondents said they refuse
to buy products from companies accused of being polluters. Companies who
do not follow environmental regulations or who ridiculously take advantage
of the green movement to increase sales are therefore exposed to customer
boycott. For example, Procter & Gamble and Wal-Mart were publicly
criticized for putting a green label on a brand of paper towels made of
chlorine-bleached unrecycled paper and packaged in plastic, simply because
the inner tube for the towel was made of recycled paper (Cairncross, 1992).

Businesses who seriously consider environmental issues may create a
sustainable competitive advantage. For instance, the 3 Ps program (polluting
prevention pays) of 3M, DuPont Corporation's commitment to 70 percent
waste reduction by the year 2000, and McDonald Corporation's efforts to
eliminate polystyrene clamshell packaging have been commended as
progressive and exemplary steps in corporate environmental practices
(Menon et al., 1999). Another relevant example comes from BMW, the
German auto maker, who designed (and marketed) its two-seater ZI in such a
way that it can be disassembled and recycled. Moreover, the car has doors,
bumpers, and panels made from recyclable thermoplastic. Based on this
study, an important segment of customers would be willing to pay more for
such environmentally friendly products.
Behaviors Surprisingly, the behaviors ``recycling'' and ``buying environmentally
friendly products'' were not good predictors of consumers' willingness to
pay more for green products. As stated by Picket et al. (1993), marketers and
policy-makers must exercise caution when attempting to extend
environmental initiatives from one ecologically conscious behavior to
another. For example, those consumers who recycle plastic may not be the
same consumers who would pay more for low-phosphate detergent.
Other managerial implications

This study reveals that a segment of consumers willing to spend more for
environmentally friendly products is large enough to warrant marketers'
attention. Similar conclusions were advanced by Coddington (1990),
Suchard and Polonsky (1991) and Myburgh-Louw and O'Shaughnessy
(1994). In this research, 13.1 percent of respondents (i.e. 119/907) indicated
that they were willing to pay a higher price for green products, which
represents a significant market segment for producers and distributors of
ecologically compatible products. Based on demographic analyses, this study
found married women with children to be more environmentally friendly.
Marketers may aim at this easily identifiable segment as their prime target.
Small World Products Group, for instance, targeted this segment and
advertised their new line of ecological crackers, which were in the shape of
endangered animals, made of natural ingredients and packaged with recycled
materials. Finally, there is a large group of undecided consumers, and some
may be persuaded to move to the willing group. There appears to be an
opportunity for marketers to successfully create different strategies and to
employ different appeals in order to convert some of the undecided to move
into the willing segment.
Limitations, research opportunities and conclusion

Discriminant analyses Being exploratory, this study raises more questions than it answers. For
instance, the discriminant analyses did not fully explain the dichotomy
between consumers willing to pay more for environmentally friendly
products and their unwilling counterpart. Consequently, the choice of factors
included in the conceptual framework (Figure 1) may not be exhaustive.
What additional variable might also influence consumers' ecologically
conscious behavior? It could be interesting to integrate factors related to the
firms and their products, such as prices, brand image, advertisement or
product quality, and it seems pertinent to address them in future research.
This study was based on a cross-sectional perspective, rather than on a
longitudinal one, which limits the knowledge of the long-term impact of the
factors in our model. Would longitudinal research produce different results
from ours? In this context, it could prove interesting to study this

phenomenon over a long-term horizon. Such a study would also enhance our
understanding of the development of environmentally friendly behavior.
Do the results generated in this study apply to all types of ecological
products? Would we obtain the same results at the international level? Or
toward a commercial clientele? To answer these questions, researchers could
eventually study the factors that influence consumers' willingness to spend
more for ecologically compatible products, but from a completely different
angle. Future research could, for example, be conducted in a specific
industry (e.g. cosmetics), for a particular type of clientele (e.g. businesses) or
in another region (e.g. Europe).
Ecoliteracy was not a good This research found that ecoliteracy was not a good predictor of consumers'
predictor willingness to spend more for green products. In fact, results from the t-tests
indicated that the average ecoliteracy score was exactly the same for both
segments of consumers. This contradicts many previous studies (Vining and
Ebreo, 1990; Amyx et al., 1994; Chan, 1999). In this research, ecoliteracy
was measured by asking objective questions to respondents. It might be
interesting to replicate a similar study and measure subjective knowledge,
i.e. by asking consumers what they think they know. However, Rolston and
di Benedetto (1994) warned researchers that measuring consumer knowledge
about recycling is sometimes inappropriate for constructing an overall
``green behavior'' measure since even experts cannot agree on a product's

effects on the environment. Thus, it may be unrealistic to expect the average
consumer to make the right choice.
This research relied on self-reported answers to measure consumers'
willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly products. However,
respondents professing their willingness to spend more for green products may
not actually do so in reality. This is analogous to the green movement in the
UK in the early 1990s. Customers claimed they wanted to buy ecologically
compatible products, but British supermarkets were overstocked with products
that the same consumers later explained were too expensive (Pearce, 1990).
Therefore, it might be useful to conduct a similar study with respondents who
actually and consciously paid higher prices for green products.
Conclusion In conclusion, the major contributions of this study were the investigation of
the profile of consumers willing to pay more for environmentally friendly
products and the subsequent discussion of the implications for marketers.
This research being exploratory, the results are only a spring-board for future
research in a domain growing in theoretical and practical importance. The
increase in media coverage of ecological deterioration, the recent influx of
environmentally compatible products in the marketplace and the integration
of ecological issues in both our educational and political systems point to the
need for more research on the environmentally conscious consumer.
References
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), ``Dimensions of consumer expertise'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 13, March, pp. 411-54.
Amyx, D.A., DeJong, P.F., Lin, Chakraborty, G. and Wiener, J.L. (1994), `Ìnfluencers of
purchase intentions for ecologically safe products: an exploratory study'', in Park, C.W.
et al. (Eds), AMA Winter Educators' Conference Proceedings, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL, Vol. 5, pp. 341-7.
Anderson, T. Jr and Cunningham, W.H. (1972), ``The socially conscious consumer'', Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 23-31.
Balderjahn, I. (1988), ``Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of
ecologically responsible consumption patterns'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 51-6.

Banerjee, B. and McKeage, K. (1994), ``How green is my value: exploring the relationship
between environmentalism and materialism'', in Allen, C.T. and John, D.R. (Eds),
Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, Vol. 21,
pp. 147-52.
Bei, L.T. and Simpson, E.M. (1995), ``The determinants of consumers' purchase decisions for
recycled products: an application of acquisition-transaction utility theory'', in Kardes, F.R.
and Sujan, M. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer
Research, Provo, UT, Vol. 22, pp. 257-61.
Berkowitz, L. and Lutterman, K.G. (1968), ``The traditional socially responsible personality'',
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 169-85.
Brooker, G. (1976), ``The self-actualizing socially conscious consumer'', Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 3 No. 9, pp. 107-12.
Brucks, M. (1985), ``The effects of product knowledge on information search behavior'',
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 1-16.
Cairncross, F. (1992), Costing the Earth: The Challenge for Governments, the Opportunities
for Business, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Chan, K. (1999), ``Market segmentation of green consumers in Hong Kong'', Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 7-24.
Coddington, W. (1990), `Ìt's no fad: environmentalism is now a fact of corporate life'',
Marketing News, 15 October, p. 7.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Macmillanm, New York, NY.
Henion, K.E (1972), ``The effect of ecologically relevant information on detergent sales'',
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 10-14.
Laroche M., Toffoli, R., Kim, C. and Muller, T.E. (1996), ``The influence of culture on
pro-environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors: a Canadian perspective'', in
Corfman, K.P. and Lynch, J.G. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, UT, Vol. 23, pp. 196-202.
McCarty, J.A. and Shrum, L.J. (1994), ``The recycling of solid wastes: personal values, value
orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior'', Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 53-62.
McIntyre, R.P., Meloche, M.S. and Lewis, S.L. (1993), ``National culture as a macro tool for
environmental sensitivity segmentation'', in Cravens, D.W. and Dickson, P.R. (Eds), AMA
Summer Educators' Conference Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Chicago,
IL, Vol. 4, pp. 153-9.
Maloney, M.P. and Ward, M.P. (1973), `Ècology: let's hear from the people: an objective
scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge'', American
Psychologist, Vol. 7, pp. 583-6.
Menon, A., Menon, A., Chowdhury, J. and Jankovich, J. (1999), `Èvolving paradigm for
environmental sensitivity in marketing programs: a synthesis of theory and practice'',
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Murray, K.B. and Schlacter, J.L. (1990), ``The impact of services versus goods on consumer's
assessment of perceived risk and variability'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Myburgh-Louw, J. and O'Shaughnessy, N.J. (1994), ``Consumer perception of misleading and
deceptive claims on the packaging of `green' fast moving consumer goods'', in Achrol, R.
and Mitchell, A. (Eds), AMA Summer Educators' Conference Proceedings, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, Vol. 5, pp. 344-53.
Noah, T. (1994), `Òrder to be issued on civil rights, pollution link'', Wall Street Journal,
11 February, p. A14.
Pearce, F. (1990), ``The consumers are not so green'', New Scientist, Vol. 13, p. 14.
Pickett, G.M., Grove, S.J. and Kangun, N. (1993), `Àn analysis of the conserving consumer: a
public policy perspective'', in Allen, C.T. et al. (Eds), AMA Winter Educators' Conference
Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, Vol. 3, pp. 151-3.
Reizenstein, R.C., Hills, G.E. and Philpot, J.W. (1974), ``Willingness to pay for control of air
pollution: a demographic analysis'', in Curhan, R.C. (Ed.), 1974 Combined Proceedings,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 323-8.
Roberts, J.A. (1996), ``Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for
advertising'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 217-32.

Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, New York, NY.
Rolston, C.P. and di Benedetto, C.A. (1994), ``Developing a greenness scale: an exploration of
behavior versus attitude'', in Park, C.W. et al. (Eds), AMA Winter Educators' Conference
Sandahl, D.M. and Robertson, R. (1989), ``Social determinants of environmental concern:
specification and test of the model'', Environment and Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 57-81.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994), `Àre there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human
values?'', Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 19-45.
Suchard, H.T., and Polonski, M.J. (1991), `À theory of environmental buyer behaviour and its
validity: the environmental action-behaviour model'', in Gilly, M.C. et al. (Eds), AMA
Summer Educators' Conference Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Chicago,
IL, Vol. 2, pp. 187-201.
Triandis, H.C. (1993), ``Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes'', Cross-cultural
Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 155-80.
Van Liere, K.D. and Dunlap, R.E. (1981), ``The social bases of environmental concern: a
review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence'', Public Opinion Quartely,
Vol. 44, pp. 181-97.
Vining, J. and Ebreo, A. (1990), ``What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and
nonrecyclers'', Environmental Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 55-73.
Webster, F.E. Jr (1975), ``Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer'',
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 No. 12, pp. 188-96.
Wiener, J.L. and Sukhdial, A. (1990), ``Recycling of solid waste: directions for future
research'', in Parasuraman, A. et al. (Eds), AMA Summer Educators' Conference

Appendix.
Figure A1. Test to measure the respondents' ecoliteracy
&

This summary has been Executive summary and implications for managers and
provided to allow managers executives
and executives a rapid
appreciation of the content
The customers who are willing to pay more for ``green'' products
of this article. Those with a
Increasing numbers of consumers are realizing that their purchasing
particular interest in the
topic covered may then read
behaviour directly affects many ecological problems. In 1989, 67 percent of
the article in toto to take consumers stated that they were willing to pay 5 to 10 percent more for
advantage of the more ecologically compatible products. More recent surveys have suggested that
comprehensive description significant numbers of consumers would be willing to pay up to 40 percent
of the research undertaken more for a ``green'' product. Laroche et al. seek to provide a profile of
and its results to get the full consumers who are likely to pay more for environmentally friendly products,
benefit of the material and to put forward marketing strategies to attract them.
present The research shows that consumers willing to pay more for environmentally
friendly products are more likely to be female, married, with at least one
child living at home. This group seem more likely to put the welfare of others
before their own. They are perhaps more likely to think of a how a ruined
environment may affect their partner and their children's future.
Consumers willing to pay more for green products report that today's
ecological problems are severe, that corporations do not act responsibly
towards the environment and that behaving in an ecologically favourable

way is important. They place a high importance on security and warm
relationships with others, and often consider ecological issues when buying
something. They do not believe that it is inconvenient to, for example, do
without single-serve aseptically packaged juices or puddings, in the interests
of protecting the environment.
How marketers can target green consumers

Since the opposite is true of consumers who are less willing to pay more for
environmentally friendly products, marketers should advertise why it is
convenient to purchase green products. The Body Shop, for example, uses
information cards, window displays and videos throughout its stores to
inform people about the environmental and social effects of their purchasing
decisions. This information educates the consumer about The Body Shop's
natural product ingredients, earth-friendly manufacturing, and policy of
purchasing from developing countries.
Marketers should also communicate to the target audience that buying green
products can have a significant impact on the welfare of the environment.
Marketers should persuade consumers that environmental protection is not
the sole responsibility of business and that each individual can also make a
difference. Marketers should regularly provide feedback to show consumers
that they are making a difference.
Some words of warning

The research reveals that 80 percent of consumers who are more likely to
spend more for green products say they refuse to buy products from
companies accused of being polluters. Companies which do not follow
environmental regulations or which try to exploit the green movement to
increase sales are therefore exposed to consumer boycott. For example,
Procter & Gamble and Wal-Mart were publicly criticized for putting a green
label on a brand of paper towels made of chlorine-bleached, unrecycled
paper and packaged in plastic, simply because the inner tube for the towels
was made of recycled paper.

Respondents who claimed to recycle, and to buy environmentally friendly
products, were not always those willing to pay more for green goods.
Marketers should therefore take care when attempting to extend
environmental initiatives from one ecologically conscious behaviour to
another. For example, consumers who recycle plastic may not be those who
would pay more for low-phosphate detergent.
Persuading the undecided

The research reveals that 13.1 percent of respondents are willing to pay a
higher price for green products. But there is also a large group of undecided
consumers. Marketers may be able to create different strategies and employ
different appeals in order to convert some of the undecided consumers into
the ``willing'' group.
(A preÂcis of the article ``Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more
for environmentally friendly products''. Supplied by Marketing Consultants
for MCB University Press.)

This article has been cited by:
1. Zheng Luo, Xu Chen, Xiaojun Wang. 2016. The role of co-opetition in low carbon manufacturing. European Journal of Operational
Research 253:2, 392-403. [CrossRef]
2. Stephan G.H. Meyerding. 2016. Consumer preferences for food labels on tomatoes in Germany – A comparison of a quasi-
experiment and two stated preference approaches. Appetite 103, 105-112. [CrossRef]
3. Sabine Benoit (née Moeller), Tobias Schaefers, Raphael Heider. 2016. Understanding on-the-go consumption: Identifying and
quantifying its determinants. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31, 32-42. [CrossRef]
4. Liina Häyrinen, Osmo Mattila, Sami Berghäll, Anne Toppinen. 2016. Lifestyle of health and sustainability of forest owners as
an indicator of multiple use of forests. Forest Policy and Economics 67, 10-19. [CrossRef]
5. Giulio Guarini, Gabriel Porcile. 2016. Sustainability in a post-Keynesian growth model for an open economy. Ecological Economics
126, 14-22. [CrossRef]
6. Wen Jiang University of Electronic Science and Technology of China Chengdu China Xu Chen University of Electronic
Science and Technology of China Chengdu China Hing Kai Chan University of Nottingham China Ningbo China . 2016.
Optimal strategies for manufacturer with strategic customer behavior under carbon emissions-sensitive random demand. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 116:4. . [Abstract] [PDF]
7. HyeRyeon Lee Texas Tech University Lubbock United States Tun-Min (Catherine) Jai Texas Tech University Lubbock United
States Xu Li Texas Tech University Lubbock United States Cihan Cobanoglu University of Delaware United States . 2016. Guests’
perceptions of green hotel practices and management responses on TripAdvisor. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology
7:2. . [Abstract] [PDF]
8. Sara Spendrup, Erik Hunter, Ellinor Isgren. 2016. Exploring the relationship between nature sounds, connectedness to nature,
mood and willingness to buy sustainable food: A retail field experiment. Appetite 100, 133-141. [CrossRef]
9. Linchi Kwok, Yung-Kuei Huang, Lanlan Hu. 2016. Green attributes of restaurants: What really matters to consumers?.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 55, 107-117. [CrossRef]
10. Nicole Darnall, Hyunjung Ji, Diego A. Vázquez-Brust. 2016. Third-Party Certification, Sponsorship, and Consumers’ Ecolabel
Use. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
11. Ioannis E. Nikolaou, Lazaros Kazantzidis. 2016. A sustainable consumption index/label to reduce information asymmetry among
consumers and producers. Sustainable Production and Consumption 6, 51-61. [CrossRef]
12. Helena Martins Gonçalves, Tiago Ferreira Lourenço, Graça Miranda Silva. 2016. Green buying behavior and the theory of
consumption values: A fuzzy-set approach. Journal of Business Research 69, 1484-1491. [CrossRef]
13. Yixing (Lisa) Gao, Anna S. Mattila, Seoki Lee. 2016. A meta-analysis of behavioral intentions for environment-friendly initiatives
in hospitality research. International Journal of Hospitality Management 54, 107-115. [CrossRef]
14. Chengyan Yue, Ben Campbell, Charles Hall, Bridget Behe, Jennifer Dennis, Hayk Khachatryan. 2016. Consumer Preference for
Sustainable Attributes in Plants: Evidence from Experimental Auctions. Agribusiness 32:2, 222-235. [CrossRef]
15. Sapna A. Narula Department of Business Sustainability, TERI University, New Delhi, India Anupriya Desore Department of
Policy Studies, TERI University, New Delhi, India . 2016. Framing green consumer behaviour research: opportunities and
challenges. Social Responsibility Journal 12:1, 1-22. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. S M Fatah Uddin Department of Business Administration, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India Mohammed Naved Khan
Department of Business Administration , Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India . 2016. Exploring green purchasing behaviour
of young urban consumers. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research 5:1, 85-103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Meenakshi Gandhi Institute of Management & Research, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, New Delhi, India Neeraj
Kaushik Department of Business Administration, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, India . 2016. Socially responsive
consumption behaviour – an Indian perspective. Social Responsibility Journal 12:1, 85-102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Heesup Han, Haejin Yoon, David Paul Woods. 2016. Role of Environmental Consciousness in Golfers’ Decision Formation in
the Traditional and Screen-Golf Industries. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 1-21. [CrossRef]
19. Jin Young Chung, Yeong Gug Kim. 2016. Structural Relationships among Health Benefits, Price Comparison, and Price Fairness.
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 21, 312-327. [CrossRef]
20. Brahim Chekima, Sohaib Chekima, Syed Azizi Wafa Syed Khalid Wafa, Oswald @ Aisat Igau, Stephen Laison Sondoh. 2016.
Sustainable consumption: the effects of knowledge, cultural values, environmental advertising, and demographics. International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 23, 210-220. [CrossRef]
21. Chung-Wha Ki, Youn-Kyung Kim. 2016. Sustainable Versus Conspicuous Luxury Fashion Purchase: Applying Self-
Determination Theory. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 44:10.1111/fcsr.2016.44.issue-3, 309-323. [CrossRef]
22. Justin Paul, Ashwin Modi, Jayesh Patel. 2016. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and
reasoned action. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 29, 123-134. [CrossRef]
23. Jinhuan Tang, Shoufeng Ji, Liwen Jiang. 2016. The Design of a Sustainable Location-Routing-Inventory Model Considering
Consumer Environmental Behavior. Sustainability 8, 211. [CrossRef]
24. Mario Castellanos-Verdugo, Manuela Vega-Vázquez, M. Ángeles Oviedo-García, Francisco Orgaz-Agüera. 2016. The relevance of
psychological factors in the ecotourist experience satisfaction through ecotourist site perceived value. Journal of Cleaner Production
. [CrossRef]
25. Carman K.M. Lai, Eddie W.L. Cheng. 2016. Green purchase behavior of undergraduate students in Hong Kong. The Social
Science Journal 53, 67-76. [CrossRef]
26. Todd Green, Julie Tinson, John Peloza. 2016. Giving the Gift of Goodness: An Exploration of Socially Responsible Gift-Giving.
Journal of Business Ethics 134, 29-44. [CrossRef]
27. Afamia Elnakat. 2016. The C3 of conservation: The influence of cool, convenience and cash on residential household energy
conservation. The Electricity Journal 29:2, 22-25. [CrossRef]
28. Tong Shu, Huaisi Liao, Shou Chen, Shouyang Wang, Kin Keung Lai, Lu Gan. 2016. Analysing remanufacturing decisions of
supply chain members in uncertainty of consumer preferences. Applied Economics 1-20. [CrossRef]
29. Professor John Ford and Professor Vicky Crittenden Reto Felix Department of Marketing, The University of Texas Rio
Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas, USA Karin Braunsberger Kate Tiedemann College of Business, University of South Florida
St. Petersburg, Florida, USA . 2016. I believe therefore I care. International Marketing Review 33:1, 137-155. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
30. Lauri Linkosalmi, Roope Husgafvel, Anna Fomkin, Hilppa Junnikkala, Tiina Witikkala, Matti Kairi, Olli Dahl. 2016. Main
factors influencing greenhouse gas emissions of wood-based furniture industry in Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production 113,
596-605. [CrossRef]
31. Chen-Yu Lin, Dinara Syrgabayeva. 2016. Mechanism of environmental concern on intention to pay more for renewable energy:
Application to a developing country. Asia Pacific Management Review . [CrossRef]
32. Nachiappan Subramanian, Muhammad D. Abdulrahman, Lin Wu, Prithwiraj Nath. 2016. Green competence framework: evidence
from China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27, 151-172. [CrossRef]
33. Hye Jin Yoon, Yeo Jung Kim. 2016. Understanding Green Advertising Attitude and Behavioral Intention: An Application of the
Health Belief Model. Journal of Promotion Management 22, 49-70. [CrossRef]
34. Jian Xu, Mei Zhang, Long Shao, Jian Kang. 2016. Subjective evaluation of the environmental quality in China's industrial
corridors. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management 24, 21-36. [CrossRef]
35. Daniel Remar, Jeffrey Campbell, Robin B. DiPietro. 2016. The impact of local food marketing on purchase decision and
willingness to pay in a foodservice setting. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 19, 89-108. [CrossRef]
36. Helena Lindh, Annika Olsson, Helen Williams. 2016. Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging: Contributing to or
Counteracting Environmentally Sustainable Development?. Packaging Technology and Science 29:10.1002/pts.v29.1, 3-23.
[CrossRef]
37. Pietro Lanzini, Francesco Testa, Fabio Iraldo. 2016. Factors affecting drivers' willingness to pay for biofuels: the case of Italy.
Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 2684-2692. [CrossRef]
38. Lydia Hanks, Anna S. Mattila. 2016. Consumer response to organic food in restaurants: A serial mediation analysis. Journal of
Foodservice Business Research 19, 109-121. [CrossRef]
39. Jutta Geldermann, Lutz M. Kolbe, Andreas Krause, Carsten Mai, Holger Militz, Victoria-Sophie Osburg, Anita Schöbel, Matthias
Schumann, Waldemar Toporowski, Stephan Westphal. 2016. Improved resource efficiency and cascading utilisation of renewable
materials. Journal of Cleaner Production 110, 1-8. [CrossRef]
40. Onur Sapci, Aaron D. Wood, Jason F. Shogren, Jolene F. Green. 2016. Can verifiable information cut through the noise about
climate protection? An experimental auction test. Climatic Change 134, 87-99. [CrossRef]
41. Ali Quazi, Azlan Amran, Mehran Nejati. 2016. Conceptualizing and measuring consumer social responsibility: a neglected aspect
of consumer research. International Journal of Consumer Studies 40:10.1111/ijcs.2016.40.issue-1, 48-56. [CrossRef]
42. Shaofu Du, Wenzhi Tang, Malin Song. 2016. Low-carbon production with low-carbon premium in cap-and-trade regulation.
Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]
43. Brahim Chekima, Syed Azizi Wafa Syed Khalid Wafa, Oswald Aisat Igau, Sohaib Chekima, Stephen Laison Sondoh. 2016.
Examining green consumerism motivational drivers: does premium price and demographics matter to green purchasing?. Journal
of Cleaner Production 112, 3436-3450. [CrossRef]
44. Minli Wan, Anne Toppinen. 2016. Effects of perceived product quality and Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS) on
consumer price preferences for children's furniture in China. Journal of Forest Economics 22, 52-67. [CrossRef]
45. Khan Md Raziuddin Taufique, Chamhuri Siwar, Norshamliza Chamhuri, Farah Hasan Sarah. 2016. Integrating General
Environmental Knowledge and Eco-Label Knowledge in Understanding Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior. Procedia
Economics and Finance 37, 39-45. [CrossRef]
46. Yu Chiang Lin. 2015. The willingness of heritage tourists to pay for perceived authenticity in Pingxi, Taiwan. Current Issues in
Tourism 1-26. [CrossRef]
47. Maxwell Chipulu, Alasdair Marshall, Udechukwu Ojiako, Caroline Mota. 2015. Reasoned Ethical Engagement: Ethical Values of
Consumers as Primary Antecedents of Instrumental Actions Towards Multinationals. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
48. Ruixue Guo, Hau L. Lee, Robert Swinney. 2015. Responsible Sourcing in Supply Chains. Management Science . [CrossRef]
49. Johan Jansson, Ellen Dorrepaal. 2015. Personal Norms for Dealing with Climate Change: Results from a Survey Using Moral
Foundations Theory. Sustainable Development 23, 381-395. [CrossRef]
50. Micael-Lee Johnstone, Lay Peng Tan. 2015. Exploring the Gap Between Consumers’ Green Rhetoric and Purchasing Behaviour.
Journal of Business Ethics 132, 311-328. [CrossRef]
51. Suhaiza Zailani, Kannan Govindan, Mohammad Iranmanesh, Mohd Rizaimy Shaharudin, Yia Sia Chong. 2015. Green innovation
adoption in automotive supply chain: the Malaysian case. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 1115-1122. [CrossRef]
52. Sandro Sillani, Federico Nassivera. 2015. Consumer behavior in choice of minimally processed vegetables and implications for
marketing strategies. Trends in Food Science & Technology 46, 339-345. [CrossRef]
53. Lohyd Terrier, Benedicte Marfaing. 2015. Using social norms and commitment to promote pro-environmental behavior among
hotel guests. Journal of Environmental Psychology 44, 10-15. [CrossRef]
54. Yu-Shan Chen, Yu-Hsien Lin, Ching-Ying Lin, Chih-Wei Chang. 2015. Enhancing Green Absorptive Capacity, Green Dynamic
Capacities and Green Service Innovation to Improve Firm Performance: An Analysis of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).
Sustainability 7, 15674-15692. [CrossRef]
55. Minli Wan, Jiao Chen, Anne Toppinen. 2015. Consumers' Environmental Perceptions of Children's Furniture in China. Forest
Products Journal 65, 395-405. [CrossRef]
56. Jingze Jiang. 2015. Peer Pressure in Voluntary Environmental Programs: a Case of the Bag Rewards Program. Journal of Industry,
Competition and Trade . [CrossRef]
57. Anett Wins Department of Statistics, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany Bernhard Zwergel Department of Finance,
University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany . 2015. Private ethical fund investors across countries and time: a survey-based review.
Qualitative Research in Financial Markets 7:4, 379-411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Joanne Labrecque HEC Montreal, Montreal, Canada Bertrand Dulude HEC Montreal, Montreal, Canada Sylvain Charlebois
College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada . 2015. Sustainability and strategic advantages
using supply chain-based determinants in pork production. British Food Journal 117:11, 2630-2648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Lynn Sudbury-Riley, Florian Kohlbacher. 2015. Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and validation.
Journal of Business Research . [CrossRef]
60. Faruk Anıl Konuk, Saleem Ur Rahman, Jari Salo. 2015. Antecedents of green behavioral intentions: a cross-country study of
Turkey, Finland and Pakistan. International Journal of Consumer Studies 39:10.1111/ijcs.2015.39.issue-6, 586-596. [CrossRef]
61. Ágata M. Ritter, Miriam Borchardt, Guilherme L.R. Vaccaro, Giancarlo M. Pereira, Francieli Almeida. 2015. Motivations for
promoting the consumption of green products in an emerging country: exploring attitudes of Brazilian consumers. Journal of
Cleaner Production 106, 507-520. [CrossRef]
62. Erin Cho, Shipra Gupta, Youn-Kyung Kim. 2015. Style consumption: its drivers and role in sustainable apparel consumption.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39:10.1111/ijcs.2015.39.issue-6, 661-669. [CrossRef]
63. HyoJung Suk. 2015. Consumers' Perception of Fashion Companies' Sustainability and Its Effect on Trust, Preference, and
Purchase Intention. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 39, 656-671. [CrossRef]
64. Soojeong Han, Keum-Jumg Kim, Kyung-Hee Lee. 2015. Impact of Choice Motives on Consumer Attitudes and Purchase
Intentions regarding Organic Coffee - Study Performed at Organic Coffee Shops in and around Seoul - . Journal of the East
Asian Society of Dietary Life 25, 911. [CrossRef]
65. Nathaniel D. Line, Lydia Hanks. 2015. The effects of environmental and luxury beliefs on intention to patronize green hotels:
the moderating effect of destination image. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1-22. [CrossRef]
66. George Karavasilis Department of Business Administration, Technological Education Institute of Central Macedonia, Serres,
Greece Dafni-Maria Nerantzaki Department of Business Administration, Technological Education Institute of Central Macedonia,
Serres, Greece Panagiotis Pantelidis Department of Business Administration, Technological Education Institute of Central
Macedonia, Serres, Greece Dimitrios Paschaloudis Department of Business Administration, Technological Education Institute
of Central Macedonia, Serres, Greece Vasiliki Vrana Department of Business Administration, Technological Education Institute
of Central Macedonia, Serres, Greece . 2015. What Generation Y in Greece thinks about Green Hotels. World Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 11:4, 268-280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Baris Yilmazsoy Department of Business Administration, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey. Harald Schmidbauer
Department of Business Administration, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey. Angi Rösch FOM University of Applied
Sciences, Munich, Germany. . 2015. Green segmentation: a cross-national study. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:7, 981-1003.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Hyo Jung (Julie) Chang Department of Hospitality and Retail Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA Tun-
Min (Catherine) Jai Department of Hospitality and Retail Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA . 2015. Is
fast fashion sustainable? The effect of positioning strategies on consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions. Social Responsibility
Journal 11:4, 853-867. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. Hyeyoon Choi, Jichul Jang, Jay Kandampully. 2015. Application of the extended VBN theory to understand consumers’ decisions
about green hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 51, 87-95. [CrossRef]
70. Ebru Tümer Kabadayı, İnci Dursun, Alev Koçak Alan, Ahmet Tuğrul Tuğer. 2015. Green Purchase Intention of Young Turkish
Consumers: Effects of Consumer's Guilt, Self-monitoring and Perceived Consumer Effectiveness. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 207, 165-174. [CrossRef]
71. Rafia Afroz, Muhammad Mehedi Masud, Rulia Akhtar, Md. Ashraful Islam, Jarita Bt Duasa. 2015. Consumer purchase intention
towards environmentally friendly vehicles: an empirical investigation in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research 22, 16153-16163. [CrossRef]
72. Norazah Mohd Suki. 2015. Consumer environmental concern and green product purchase in Malaysia: structural effects of
consumption values. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]
73. Graça Martinho, Ana Pires, Gonçalo Portela, Miguel Fonseca. 2015. Factors affecting consumers’ choices concerning sustainable
packaging during product purchase and recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 103, 58-68. [CrossRef]
74. Ying Qu, Mengru Li, Han Jia, Lingling Guo. 2015. Developing More Insights on Sustainable Consumption in China Based on
Q Methodology. Sustainability 7, 14211-14229. [CrossRef]
75. Björn Frank, Takao Enkawa, Shane J. Schvaneveldt, Boris Herbas Torrico. 2015. Antecedents and consequences of innate
willingness to pay for innovations: Understanding motivations and consumer preferences of prospective early adopters.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 99, 252-266. [CrossRef]
76. Edward Ramirez Department of Marketing & Management, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas, United States Fernando
R. Jiménez Department of Marketing and Management, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas, United States
Roland Gau Department of Marketing and Management, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas, United States .
2015. Concrete and abstract goals associated with the consumption of environmentally sustainable products. European Journal of
Marketing 49:9/10, 1645-1665. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. Shaofu Du, Li Hu, Li Wang. 2015. Low-carbon supply policies and supply chain performance with carbon concerned demand.
Annals of Operations Research . [CrossRef]
78. Professor Marios Sotiriadis and Dr Alexandros Apostolakis Irene Tilikidou Department of Business Administration, Alexander
Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Antonia Delistavrou Department of Business
Administration, Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece . 2015. Preferring green
and rejecting “unethical” hotels. EuroMed Journal of Business 10:3, 285-296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Sihem Dekhili, Mohamed Akli Achabou. 2015. The Influence of the Country-of-Origin Ecological Image on Ecolabelled Product
Evaluation: An Experimental Approach to the Case of the European Ecolabel. Journal of Business Ethics 131, 89-106. [CrossRef]
80. Jing Dai, David E. Cantor, Frank L. Montabon. 2015. How Environmental Management Competitive Pressure Affects a
Focal Firm's Environmental Innovation Activities: A Green Supply Chain Perspective. Journal of Business Logistics 36, 242-259.
[CrossRef]
81. Christian Felix Böttcher, Martin Müller. 2015. Drivers, Practices and Outcomes of Low-carbon Operations: Approaches of
German Automotive Suppliers to Cutting Carbon Emissions. Business Strategy and the Environment 24:10.1002/bse.v24.6, 477-498.
[CrossRef]
82. Constantinos N. Leonidou, Dionysis Skarmeas. 2015. Gray Shades of Green: Causes and Consequences of Green Skepticism.
Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
83. Imran Rahman Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Hospitality Management, College of Human Sciences, Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama, USA Jeongdoo Park Department of Apparel, Design and Hospitality Management, College of Human
Development and Education, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA Christina Geng-qing Chi School of
Hospitality Business Management, Carlson College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA . 2015.
Consequences of “greenwashing”. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27:6, 1054-1081. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
84. Heesup Han, Haejin Yoon. 2015. Customer retention in the eco-friendly hotel sector: examining the diverse processes of post-
purchase decision-making. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23, 1095-1113. [CrossRef]
85. Prof. Demetris Vrontis ,Dr. Michael Christofi Bahri-Ammari Nedra Department of Marketing, IHEC, Carthage, Tunis,
Tunisia. Sandhir Sharma Department of Marketing, Chitkara Business School, Chitkara University, Chandigarh, India. Aymen
Dakhli Department of Marketing, FSEG, Tunis, Tunisia. . 2015. Perception and motivation to purchase organic products in
Mediterranean countries. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship 17:1, 67-90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
86. Patricia Martínez Business Administration Department, University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain . 2015. Customer loyalty:
exploring its antecedents from a green marketing perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27:5,
896-917. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

87. Dimitrios Chatzoudes Department of Production and Management Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece
Dimitrios Papadopoulos Department of Business Administration, Technological Educational Institute of Kavala, Kavala, Greece
Efstathios Dimitriadis Department of Business Administration, Technological Educational Institute of Kavala, Kavala, Greece .
2015. Investigating the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies. International Journal of Law and Management
57:4, 265-280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
88. Hyojin Kim, Mark A. Bonn. 2015. The Moderating Effects of Overall and Organic Wine Knowledge on Consumer Behavioral
Intention. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 15, 295-310. [CrossRef]
89. Helena Martins Gonçalves, Adriana Viegas. 2015. Explaining consumer use of renewable energy: determinants and gender and
age moderator effects. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 25, 198-215. [CrossRef]
90. Judy Rex, Antonio Lobo, Civilai Leckie. 2015. Evaluating the Drivers of Sustainable Behavioral Intentions: An Application and
Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 27, 263-284. [CrossRef]
91. Ronnie Cheung, Aris Y.C. Lam, Mei Mei Lau. 2015. Drivers of green product adoption: the role of green perceived value, green
trust and perceived quality. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 25, 232-245. [CrossRef]
92. Johannes Stolz, Rafael Bautista. 2015. Corporate sustainability: perception and response by older consumers. International Journal
of Consumer Studies 39, 343-351. [CrossRef]
93. Panayiota Alevizou, Caroline Oates, Seonaidh McDonald. 2015. The Well(s) of Knowledge: The Decoding of Sustainability
Claims in the UK and in Greece. Sustainability 7, 8729-8747. [CrossRef]
94. Yeliang Sun, Dong Mu, Qian ZhangResearch on emission reduction decisions in multi-echelon supply chain with low-carbon
policy considered 1-6. [CrossRef]
95. Wu Zhenrui, Cai Songbo, Luo YingProduction strategy of carbon sensitive products under low-carbon policies 1-4. [CrossRef]
96. Seo Yeon Jang, Jin Young Chung, Yeong Gug Kim. 2015. Effects of Environmentally Friendly Perceptions on Customers' Intentions
to Visit Environmentally Friendly Restaurants: An Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research
20, 599-618. [CrossRef]
97. Masoumeh Hosseinpou, Zainalabidin Mohamed, Golnaz Rezai, Mad Nasir Shamsudin, Ismail AbdLatif. 2015. How Go Green
Campaign Effects on Malaysian Intention towards Green Behaviour. Journal of Applied Sciences 15, 929-933. [CrossRef]
98. Till Gnann, Patrick Plötz, Simon Funke, Martin Wietschel. 2015. What is the market potential of plug-in electric vehicles as
commercial passenger cars? A case study from Germany. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 37, 171-187.
[CrossRef]
99. Teodora Roman, Ionel Bostan, Adriana Manolică, Iustin Mitrica. 2015. Profile of Green Consumers in Romania in Light of
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability 7, 6394-6411. [CrossRef]
100. Won-Moo Hur, Hanna Kim, Joon Hyo Jang. 2015. The Role of Gender Differences in the Impact of CSR Perceptions on
Corporate Marketing Outcomes. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
101. Ana Ribeiro, Marilene Estanqueiro, M. Oliveira, José Sousa Lobo. 2015. Main Benefits and Applicability of Plant Extracts in
Skin Care Products. Cosmetics 2, 48-65. [CrossRef]
102. Leonidas C. Leonidou, Dafnis N. Coudounaris, Olga Kvasova, Paul Christodoulides. 2015. Drivers and Outcomes of Green Tourist
Attitudes and Behavior: Sociodemographic Moderating Effects. Psychology & Marketing 32:10.1002/mar.2015.32.issue-6, 635-650.
[CrossRef]
103. Nawel Ayadi, Alexandre Lapeyre. 2015. Consumer purchase intentions for green products: Mediating role of WTP and moderating
effects of framing. Journal of Marketing Communications 1-18. [CrossRef]
104. Ainsworth Anthony Bailey, Aditya Mishra, Mojisola F. Tiamiyu. 2015. Green advertising receptivity: An initial scale development
process. Journal of Marketing Communications 1-19. [CrossRef]
105. Dr Anne Wiese, Associate Professor Stephan Zielke and Professor Waldemar Toporowski John P. Wilson Continuing Professional
Development, Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK . 2015. The triple bottom line.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 43:4/5, 432-447. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
106. Andrea K. Moser Pforzheim University, Pforzheim, Germany and Centre for Sustainability Management, Leuphana University,
Lueneburg, Germany . 2015. Thinking green, buying green? Drivers of pro-environmental purchasing behavior. Journal of
Consumer Marketing 32:3, 167-175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
107. Prashant Kumar Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, India Bhimrao M Ghodeswar Department of
Marketing, National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India . 2015. Factors affecting consumers’ green product
purchase decisions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:3, 330-347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
108. Sharmin Attaran Department of Marketing, Bryant University, Smithfield, RI, USA. Bilge Gokhan Celik Construction
Management Program, Roger Williams University, Bristol, RI, USA. . 2015. Students’ environmental responsibility and their
willingness to pay for green buildings. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 16:3, 327-340. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
109. Norazah Mohd Suki, Norbayah Mohd Suki. 2015. Consumption values and consumer environmental concern regarding green
products. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 22, 269-278. [CrossRef]
110. James D. Abbey, Joseph D. Blackburn, V. Daniel R. Guide. 2015. Optimal pricing for new and remanufactured products. Journal
of Operations Management 36, 130-146. [CrossRef]
111. Ozlem Gurel, A. Zafer Acar, Ismail Onden, Islam Gumus. 2015. Determinants of the Green Supplier Selection. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences 181, 131-139. [CrossRef]
112. Heesup Han, Jinsoo Hwang, Joohyun Kim, Heekyoung Jung. 2015. Guests’ pro-environmental decision-making process:
Broadening the norm activation framework in a lodging context. International Journal of Hospitality Management 47, 96-107.
[CrossRef]
113. Won-Moo Hur, Jeong-Ju Yoo, Jin Hur. 2015. Exploring the Relationship Between Green Consumption Value, Satisfaction, and
Loyalty to Hybrid Car in Elderly Consumers. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 25:10.1002/
hfm.v25.4, 398-408. [CrossRef]
114. Rui Guo, Lan Tao, Caroline Bingxin Li, Tao Wang. 2015. A Path Analysis of Greenwashing in a Trust Crisis Among Chinese
Energy Companies: The Role of Brand Legitimacy and Brand Loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
115. F. Testa, F. Iraldo, A Vaccari, E. Ferrari. 2015. Why Eco-labels can be Effective Marketing Tools: Evidence from a Study on
Italian Consumers. Business Strategy and the Environment 24:10.1002/bse.v24.4, 252-265. [CrossRef]
116. Aindrila Biswas, Mousumi Roy. 2015. Leveraging factors for sustained green consumption behavior based on consumption value
perceptions: testing the structural model. Journal of Cleaner Production 95, 332-340. [CrossRef]
117. Longzhu Liu, Rong Chen, Feng He. 2015. How to promote purchase of carbon offset products: Labeling vs. calculation?. Journal
of Business Research 68, 942-948. [CrossRef]
118. Manisha Singal, Tanvi Kothari, Ioana DollingerPERSPECTIVES OF ECO-INNOVATION IN THE HOSPITALITY
INDUSTRY 91-112. [CrossRef]
119. Dr Ming Lim, Dr Joana Cesar Machado and Dr Oriol Iglesias Norman Peng University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom
Annie Huiling Chen Ming Chuan University, Taipei, Taiwan . 2015. Diners’ loyalty toward luxury restaurants: the moderating
role of product knowledge. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:2, 179-196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
120. Alisa Sony Asian Institute of Technology David Ferguson School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani,
Thailand Rian Beise-Zee College of International Management, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Oita, Japan . 2015. How to
go green: unraveling green preferences of consumers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 7:1, 56-72. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
121. Mairna H. Mustafa. 2015. Gender and Behavior in Archaeological Sites. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration 16, 183-201. [CrossRef]
122. Sarah Tanford, Kristin Malek. 2015. Segmentation of Reward Program Members to Increase Customer Loyalty: The Role of
Attitudes Towards Green Hotel Practices. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 24, 314-343. [CrossRef]
123. Wenjun Gu, Dilip Chhajed, Nicholas C. Petruzzi, Baris Yalabik. 2015. Quality design and environmental implications of green
consumerism in remanufacturing. International Journal of Production Economics 162, 55-69. [CrossRef]
124. Andrea Pérez, Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque. 2015. How customers construct corporate social responsibility images: Testing the
moderating role of demographic characteristics. BRQ Business Research Quarterly 18, 127-141. [CrossRef]
125. Yew-Ngin Sang, Hussain Ali Bekhet. 2015. Modelling electric vehicle usage intentions: an empirical study in Malaysia. Journal
of Cleaner Production 92, 75-83. [CrossRef]
126. Hanna Kim, Won-Moo Hur, Junsang Yeo. 2015. Corporate Brand Trust as a Mediator in the Relationship between Consumer
Perception of CSR, Corporate Hypocrisy, and Corporate Reputation. Sustainability 7, 3683-3694. [CrossRef]
127. Heesup Han, Jinsoo Hwang. 2015. Norm-based loyalty model (NLM): Investigating delegates’ loyalty formation for
environmentally responsible conventions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 46, 1-14. [CrossRef]
128. Yang Jiang Department of Tourism Management, Hefei University, Hefei, China Youngtae Kim Department of Hotel &
Convention Management, Paichai University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea . 2015. Developing multi-dimensional green value.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27:2, 308-334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
129. Sabrina Cocca, Walter Ganz. 2015. Requirements for developing green services. The Service Industries Journal 35, 179-196.
[CrossRef]
130. Todd Green, Gary Sinclair, Julie Tinson. 2015. Do they Know it’s CSR at all? An Exploration of Socially Responsible Music
Consumption. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
131. Iddrisu Yahaya Agricultural Economics Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, United States Fred A.
Yamoah Kent Business School, University of Kent, Chatham Maritime, United Kingdom Faizal Adams Agricultural Economics
Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana . 2015. Consumer
motivation and willingness to pay for “safer” vegetables in Ghana. British Food Journal 117:3, 1043-1065. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
132. Sharmila Pudaruth Faculty of Law and Management, University of Mauritius, Moka, Mauritius Thanika Devi Juwaheer Faculty
of Law and Management, University of Mauritius, Moka, Mauritius Yogini Devi Seewoo Faculty of Law and Management,
University of Mauritius, Moka, Mauritius . 2015. Gender-based differences in understanding the purchasing patterns of eco-
friendly cosmetics and beauty care products in Mauritius: a study of female customers. Social Responsibility Journal 11:1, 179-198.
133. Federico Nassivera Agrofood and Rural Economics Section, Department of Food Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy Sandro
Sillani Agrofood and Rural Economics Section, Department of Food Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy . 2015. Consumer
perceptions and motivations in choice of minimally processed vegetables. British Food Journal 117:3, 970-986. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
134. Itsaso Leceta, Jone Uranga, Pilar Arana, Sara Cabezudo, Koro de la Caba, Pedro Guerrero. 2015. Valorisation of fishery industry
wastes to manufacture sustainable packaging films: modelling moisture-sorption behaviour. Journal of Cleaner Production 91,
36-42. [CrossRef]
135. Christian John Reynolds, Julia Piantadosi, Jonathan David Buckley, Philip Weinstein, John Boland. 2015. Evaluation of the
environmental impact of weekly food consumption in different socio-economic households in Australia using environmentally
extended input–output analysis. Ecological Economics 111, 58-64. [CrossRef]
136. Long-Chuan Lu, Hsiu-Hua Chang, Alan Chang. 2015. Consumer Personality and Green Buying Intention: The Mediate Role
of Consumer Ethical Beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics 127, 205-219. [CrossRef]
137. Mazlan Hj Hassan, Masoumeh Hosseinpou, Hossein Nezakati, Manouchehr Jofreh. 2015. Highlighting Influential Factor to
Inculcate Green Behaviour. Journal of Applied Sciences 15, 405-410. [CrossRef]
138. James D. Abbey, Margaret G. Meloy, V. Daniel R. Guide, Selin Atalay. 2015. Remanufactured Products in Closed-Loop Supply
Chains for Consumer Goods. Production and Operations Management 24:10.1111/poms.2015.24.issue-3, 488-503. [CrossRef]
139. IpKin Anthony Wong, Yim King Penny Wan, Shanshan Qi. 2015. Green events, value perceptions, and the role of consumer
involvement in festival design and performance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23, 294-315. [CrossRef]
140. Shih-Jui Tung Graduate Institute of Bio-industry Management, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan Jenner
C. Tsay Department of Early Childhood Development and Education, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan
Meng-Chu Lin Graduate Institute of Bio-industry Management, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan . 2015.
Life course, diet-related identity and consumer choice of organic food in Taiwan. British Food Journal 117:2, 688-704. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
141. Rohit H Trivedi Mudra Institute of Communications Ahmedabad (MICA), Ahmedabad, India Jayesh D Patel V M Patel Institute
of Management, Ganpat University Jignasa R Savalia Shayona Institute of Business Management, Ahmedabad, India . 2015. Pro-
environmental behaviour, locus of control and willingness to pay for environmental friendly products. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning 33:1, 67-89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
142. Heesup Han, Hae Jin Yoon. 2015. Hotel customers’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention: Impact of key constructs
on decision in green consumerism. International Journal of Hospitality Management 45, 22-33. [CrossRef]
143. Linghong Zhang, Jingguo Wang, Jianxin You. 2015. Consumer environmental awareness and channel coordination with two
substitutable products. European Journal of Operational Research 241, 63-73. [CrossRef]
144. Mehmet Seckin Aday Department of Food Engineering, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey Ugur Yener
Department of Food Engineering, Canakkale Onsekis Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey . 2015. Assessing consumers’ adoption
of active and intelligent packaging. British Food Journal 117:1, 157-177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
145. Sigal Segev, Juliana Fernandes, Weirui Wang. 2015. The Effects of Gain Versus Loss Message Framing and Point of Reference
on Consumer Responses to Green Advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 36, 35-51. [CrossRef]
146. Hasti Khorasanizadeh, Jussi Parkkinen, Rajendran Parthiban. 2015. Adoption of Energy Efficient New Technologies from the
Point of View of Malaysian Experts and Consumers: A Qualitative Analysis. Journal of Clean Energy Technologies 3, 236-241.
[CrossRef]
147. Leaksmy Chhay, Md Manik Mian, Rathny Suy. 2015. Consumer Responses to Green Marketing in Cambodia. Open Journal of
Social Sciences 03, 86-94. [CrossRef]
148. Aindrila Biswas, Mousumi Roy. 2015. Green products: an exploratory study on the consumer behaviour in emerging economies
of the East. Journal of Cleaner Production 87, 463-468. [CrossRef]
149. Joseph Agebase Awuni, Jianguo Du. 2015. Sustainable Consumption in Chinese Cities: Green Purchasing Intentions of Young
Adults Based on the Theory of Consumption Values. Sustainable Development n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
150. 晓晓晓. 2015. The Research on Environmental Conscious and Green Consumption Behavior in China. Service Science and
Management 04, 30-36. [CrossRef]
151. Rachel J.C. Chen. 2015. From sustainability to customer loyalty: A case of full service hotels’ guests. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 22, 261-265. [CrossRef]
152. Yoon Jung Jang, Woo Gon Kim, Hae Young Lee. 2015. Coffee shop consumers’ emotional attachment and loyalty to green stores:
The moderating role of green consciousness. International Journal of Hospitality Management 44, 146-156. [CrossRef]
153. Peter Seele, Lucia Gatti. 2015. Greenwashing Revisited: In Search of a Typology and Accusation-Based Definition Incorporating
Legitimacy Strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
154. Nicole E. Filby, Karen A. Stockin, Carol Scarpaci. 2015. Social science as a vehicle to improve dolphin-swim tour operation
compliance?. Marine Policy 51, 40-47. [CrossRef]
155. Julen Izagirre-Olaizola, Ana Fernández-Sainz, M. Azucena Vicente-Molina. 2015. Internal determinants of recycling behaviour by
university students: a cross-country comparative analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies 39, 25-34. [CrossRef]
156. Fenna R. M. Leijten, Jan Willem Bolderdijk, Kees Keizer, Madelijne Gorsira, Ellen van der Werff, Linda Steg. 2014. Factors
that influence consumers’ acceptance of future energy systems: the effects of adjustment type, production level, and price. Energy
Efficiency 7, 973-985. [CrossRef]
157. Leila Hamzaoui-Essoussi, Jonathan D Linton. 2014. Offering branded remanufactured/recycled products: at what price?. Journal
of Remanufacturing 4. . [CrossRef]
158. Stanley E. Griffis, Chad W. Autry, LaDonna M. Thornton, Anis ben Brik. 2014. Assessing Antecedents of Socially Responsible
Supplier Selection in Three Global Supply Chain Contexts. Decision Sciences 45:10.1111/deci.2014.45.issue-6, 1187-1215.
[CrossRef]
159. Lukumon O. Oyedele, Saheed O. Ajayi, Kabir O. Kadiri. 2014. Use of recycled products in UK construction industry: An empirical
investigation into critical impediments and strategies for improvement. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93, 23-31. [CrossRef]
160. Jeff Joireman, Richie L. Liu. 2014. Future-oriented women will pay to reduce global warming: Mediation via political orientation,
environmental values, and belief in global warming. Journal of Environmental Psychology 40, 391-400. [CrossRef]
161. Nelson A. Barber, Melissa Bishop, Thomas Gruen. 2014. Who pays more (or less) for pro-environmental consumer goods? Using
the auction method to assess actual willingness-to-pay. Journal of Environmental Psychology 40, 218-227. [CrossRef]
162. Narjes Hazar, Mojgan Karbakhsh, Masud Yunesian, Saharnaz Nedjat, Kazem Naddafi. 2014. Perceived risk of exposure to indoor
residential radon and its relationship to willingness to test among health care providers in Tehran. Journal of Environmental Health
Science and Engineering 12. . [CrossRef]
163. Hossein Nezakati, Masoumeh Hosseinpou, Mazlan Hj Hassan. 2014. Government Concerns of Consumers' Intention to Purchase
Green Products (Preliminary Study-Malaysia Evidence). Journal of Applied Sciences 14, 1757-1762. [CrossRef]
164. Lisbeth Ku, Charles Zaroff. 2014. How far is your money from your mouth? The effects of intrinsic relative to extrinsic values
on willingness to pay and protect the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 40, 472-483. [CrossRef]
165. Yi-Man Teng, Kun-Shan Wu, Di-Man Huang. 2014. The Influence of Green Restaurant Decision Formation Using the VAB
Model: The Effect of Environmental Concerns upon Intent to Visit. Sustainability 6, 8736-8755. [CrossRef]
166. Eric Siu-wa Chan. 2014. Green Marketing: Hotel Customers’ Perspective. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 31, 915-936.
[CrossRef]
167. Mark Gleim Department of Marketing and International Business, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA Stephanie J. Lawson
Department of Management and Marketing, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, South Carolina, USA . 2014. Spanning the gap: an
examination of the factors leading to the green gap. Journal of Consumer Marketing 31:6/7, 503-514. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
168. Lyndsey Scott, Debbie Vigar-Ellis. 2014. Consumer understanding, perceptions and behaviours with regard to environmentally
friendly packaging in a developing nation. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38, 642-649. [CrossRef]
169. Patrick Plötz, Till Gnann, Martin Wietschel. 2014. Modelling market diffusion of electric vehicles with real world driving data
— Part I: Model structure and validation. Ecological Economics 107, 411-421. [CrossRef]
170. Tatiana Anisimova, Parves Sultan. 2014. The Role of Brand Communications in Consumer Purchases of Organic Foods: A
Research Framework. Journal of Food Products Marketing 20, 511-532. [CrossRef]
171. Vilma Tamulienė, Akvilė Mažrimė. 2014. Factors affecting consumption culture for organic products in Lithuania. Management
Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development 36, 663-671. [CrossRef]
172. Golnaz Rezai, Mad Nasir Shamsudin, Zainalabidin Mohamed, Chong Sook Ann. 2014. Quality-Labeled Vegetable Consumption
in Malaysia: Factors Affecting Attitude and Purchase Intent. Journal of Food Products Marketing 20, 1-12. [CrossRef]
173. Jennifer Maloney, Min-Young Lee, Vanessa Jackson, Kimberly A. Miller-Spillman. 2014. Consumer willingness to purchase
organic products: Application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 5, 308-321. [CrossRef]
174. Yong-ki Lee, Sally Kim, Min-seong Kim, Jeang-gu Choi. 2014. Antecedents and interrelationships of three types of pro-
environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research 67, 2097-2105. [CrossRef]
175. Robert Glenn Richey, Carolyn F. Musgrove, Stephanie T. Gillison, Colin B. Gabler. 2014. The effects of environmental focus
and program timing on green marketing performance and the moderating role of resource commitment. Industrial Marketing
176. Shih-Tse Wang Graduate Institute of Bio-industry Management, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan . 2014.
Consumer characteristics and social influence factors on green purchasing intentions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 32:7,
177. Siti Hasnah Hassan School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia . 2014. The role of Islamic values
on green purchase intention. Journal of Islamic Marketing 5:3, 379-395. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
178. Yao-Hsu Tsai, Chung-Tai Wu, Ta-Ming Wang. 2014. Attitude Towards Green Hotel by Hoteliers and Travel Agency Managers
in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 19, 1091-1109. [CrossRef]
179. Diego Costa Pinto, Márcia M. Herter, Patricia Rossi, Adilson Borges. 2014. Going green for self or for others? Gender and
identity salience effects on sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:10.1111/ijcs.2014.38.issue-5,
540-549. [CrossRef]
180. Mitchell C. Olsen, Rebecca J. Slotegraaf, Sandeep R. Chandukala. 2014. Green Claims and Message Frames: How Green New
Products Change Brand Attitude. Journal of Marketing 78, 119-137. [CrossRef]
181. Kirsten Cowan, Tammy Kinley. 2014. Green spirit: consumer empathies for green apparel. International Journal of Consumer
Studies 38:10.1111/ijcs.2014.38.issue-5, 493-499. [CrossRef]
182. R. Bret Leary, Richard J. Vann, John D. Mittelstaedt, Patrick E. Murphy, John F. Sherry,. 2014. Changing the marketplace
one behavior at a time: Perceived marketplace influence and sustainable consumption. Journal of Business Research 67, 1953-1958.
[CrossRef]
183. Lynn Sudbury-Riley, Agnes Hofmeister-Toth, Florian Kohlbacher. 2014. A cross-national study of the ecological worldview of
senior consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:10.1111/ijcs.2014.38.issue-5, 500-509. [CrossRef]
184. Seong-Rae Ju, Myung-Sun Chung. 2014. A study on the consumers' attitudes toward pro-environment and purchasing behavior
of eco-friendly fashion products for green marketing strategy. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture 22, 511-525. [CrossRef]
185. Ioannis Papadopoulos Department of Wood & Furniture Design and Technology, Technological and Educational Institute of
Thessaly, Karditsa, Greece Glykeria Karagouni Department of Wood & Furniture Design and Technology, Technological and
Educational Institute of Thessaly, Karditsa, Greece Marios Trigkas Department of Wood & Furniture Design and Technology,
Technological and Educational Institute of Thessaly, Karditsa, Greece Zoi Beltsiou Department of Wood & Furniture Design
and Technology, Technological and Educational Institute of Thessaly, Karditsa, Greece . 2014. Mainstreaming green product
strategies. EuroMed Journal of Business 9:3, 293-317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
186. Nelson A. Barber, Young Hoon Kim, Sean Barth. 2014. The Importance of Recycling to U.S. Festival Visitors: A Preliminary
Study. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 23, 601-625. [CrossRef]
187. Anna-Luisa Müller. 2014. Sustainability and customer relationship management: current state of research and future research
opportunities. Management Review Quarterly 64, 201-224. [CrossRef]
188. Esther Sanyé-Mengual, Paula Pérez-López, Sara González-García, Raul Garcia Lozano, Gumersindo Feijoo, Maria Teresa Moreira,
Xavier Gabarrell, Joan Rieradevall. 2014. Eco-Designing the Use Phase of Products in Sustainable Manufacturing. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 18, 545-557. [CrossRef]
189. Janet A. Lorenzen. 2014. Green Consumption and Social Change: Debates over Responsibility, Private Action, and Access.
Sociology Compass 8, 1063-1081. [CrossRef]

190. Martin Grimmer, Meghann Woolley. 2014. Green marketing messages and consumers' purchase intentions: Promoting personal
versus environmental benefits. Journal of Marketing Communications 20, 231-250. [CrossRef]
191. Heesup Han, Hyungshin Baek, Kyungsik Lee, Bumyoung Huh. 2014. Perceived Benefits, Attitude, Image, Desire, and Intention
in Virtual Golf Leisure. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 23, 465-486. [CrossRef]
192. Eric S.W. Chan, Alice H.Y. Hon, Wilco Chan, Fevzi Okumus. 2014. What drives employees’ intentions to implement green
practices in hotels? The role of knowledge, awareness, concern and ecological behaviour. International Journal of Hospitality
193. Hao-Chen Huang, Tzong-Huei Lin, Mei-Chi Lai, Tzu-Ling Lin. 2014. Environmental consciousness and green customer
behavior: An examination of motivation crowding effect. International Journal of Hospitality Management 40, 139-149. [CrossRef]
194. Matjaz Knez, Borut Jereb, Matevz Obrecht. 2014. Factors influencing the purchasing decisions of low emission cars: A study of
Slovenia. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 30, 53-61. [CrossRef]
195. Katherine Taken Smith, L. Murphy Smith, Seth Dunbar. 2014. Using corporate advertising to improve public perception of
energy companies. Journal of Strategic Marketing 22, 347-356. [CrossRef]
196. Michele Manfredi, Giuseppe Vignali. 2014. Life cycle assessment of a packaged tomato puree: a comparison of environmental
impacts produced by different life cycle phases. Journal of Cleaner Production 73, 275-284. [CrossRef]
197. Jian Ai Yeow, Poh Kiat Ng, Kian Siong Jee, Poh Chuan Goh. 2014. Reinforcing the Need for Green Practices Through a Green
Knowledge Society. Journal of Applied Sciences 14, 510-517. [CrossRef]
198. Cheng-Tang Zhang, Hong-Xi Wang, Ming-Lun Ren. 2014. Research on pricing and coordination strategy of green supply chain
under hybrid production mode. Computers & Industrial Engineering 72, 24-31. [CrossRef]
199. Yiming Tang Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University, Australia Xiucun Wang School of Management
and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China Pingping Lu School of Management and Economics, Beijing
Institute of Technology, Beijing, China . 2014. Chinese consumer attitude and purchase intent towards green products. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Business Administration 6:2, 84-96. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
200. Kefu Lao Business School, Guangxi University, Nanning, China . 2014. Research on mechanism of consumer innovativeness
influencing green consumption behavior. Nankai Business Review International 5:2, 211-224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
201. Fei Lee Weisstein Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of Texas – Pan American, Edinburg,
Texas, USA Mohammadreza Asgari Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of Texas – Pan
American, Edinburg, Texas, USA Shir-Way Siew Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of
Texas – Pan American, Edinburg, Texas, USA . 2014. Price presentation effects on green purchase intentions. Journal of Product
& Brand Management 23:3, 230-239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
202. Matthew Tingchi Liu Marketing Department, FBA, University of Macau, Taipa, Macau Ipkin Anthony Wong Institute
for Tourism Studies, Colina de Mong-Ha, Macau Guicheng Shi Marketing Department, Macau University of Science and
Technology, Cotai, Macau Rongwei Chu Management School, Fudan University, Shanghai, China James L. Brock School of
Business, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, Washington, USA . 2014. The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
performance and perceived brand quality on customer-based brand preference. Journal of Services Marketing 28:3, 181-194.
203. Ying Kong, Lingling Zhang. 2014. When does green advertising work? The moderating role of product type. Journal of Marketing
Communications 20, 197-213. [CrossRef]
204. Bryan W. Husted, Michael V. Russo, Carlos E. Basurto Meza, Suzanne G. Tilleman. 2014. An exploratory study of environmental
attitudes and the willingness to pay for environmental certification in Mexico. Journal of Business Research 67, 891-899. [CrossRef]
205. Grace K. Dagher, Omar Itani. 2014. Factors influencing green purchasing behaviour: Empirical evidence from the Lebanese
consumers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 13:10.1002/cb.v13.3, 188-195. [CrossRef]
206. Chin-Huang Huang Department of Sport Management, National Taiwan University of Physical Education and Sport, Chiayi,
Taiwan Chun-Hung Lee Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien,
Taiwan . 2014. Consumer willingness to pay for organic fresh milk in Taiwan. China Agricultural Economic Review 6:2, 198-211.
207. Yi-Chun Huang Department of Business Administration, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Minli Yang Department of Business Administration, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Yu-Chun Wang Department of Applied Foreign Languages, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan . 2014. Effects of green brand on green purchase intention. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 32:3, 250-268. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
208. Heesup Han, Jinsoo Hwang, David Paul Woods. 2014. Choosing Virtual – Rather than Real – Leisure Activities: An Examination
of the Decision–making Process in Screen-Golf Participants. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 19, 428-450. [CrossRef]
209. Todd Green, John Peloza. 2014. Finding the Right Shade of Green: The Effect of Advertising Appeal Type on Environmentally
Friendly Consumption. Journal of Advertising 43, 128-141. [CrossRef]
210. Ratchaneekorn Dansiricha, Opal Suwunnamek. 2014. A Comparison of Thai Consumers Purchasing Behaviour with the
Environmental Characteristics: Electric Appliances Market. Research Journal of Business Management 8, 338-352. [CrossRef]
211. Khan Taufique, Chamhuri Siwar, Basri Talib, Farah Sarah, Norshamliza Chamhuri. 2014. Synthesis of Constructs for Modeling
Consumers’ Understanding and Perception of Eco-Labels. Sustainability 6, 2176-2200. [CrossRef]
212. Rajyalakshmi Nittala. 2014. Green Consumer Behavior of the Educated Segment in India. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing 26, 138-152. [CrossRef]
213. Alexandra Simon Department of Business Administration, Management and Product Development, University of Girona, Girona,
Spain Luc Honore Petnji Yaya Faculty of Economics, International University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain Stanislav Karapetrovic
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Marti Casadesus Department of Business
Administration, Management and Product Development, University of Girona, Girona, Spain . 2014. Can integration difficulties
affect innovation and satisfaction?. Industrial Management & Data Systems 114:2, 183-202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
214. Carsten Herbes, Iris Ramme. 2014. Online marketing of green electricity in Germany—A content analysis of providers’ websites.
Energy Policy 66, 257-266. [CrossRef]
215. Arian C.T. Borgers, Rachel A.J. Pownall. 2014. Attitudes towards socially and environmentally responsible investment. Journal
of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 1, 27-44. [CrossRef]
216. Giovanni Camera-Roda, Antonio Cardillo, Vittorio Loddo, Leonardo Palmisano, Francesco Parrino. 2014. Improvement of
Membrane Performances to Enhance the Yield of Vanillin in a Pervaporation Reactor. Membranes 4, 96-112. [CrossRef]
217. Shahid N. Bhuian Management and Marketing, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar Douglas A. Amyx College of Business, Louisiana
Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana, USA Hamed M. Shamma School of Business, American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt .
2014. An extension of consumer environmental behavior research among expatriates. International Journal of Commerce and
Management 24:1, 63-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
218. William C. Martin, Connie R. Bateman. 2014. Consumer religious commitment's influence on ecocentric attitudes and behavior.
Journal of Business Research 67, 5-11. [CrossRef]
219. Marleen C. Onwezen, Jos Bartels, Gerrit Antonides. 2014. The self-regulatory function of anticipated pride and guilt in a
sustainable and healthy consumption context. European Journal of Social Psychology 44:10.1002/ejsp.v44.1, 53-68. [CrossRef]
220. Orie Berezan, Michelle Millar, Carola Raab. 2014. Sustainable Hotel Practices and Guest Satisfaction Levels. International Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 15, 1-18. [CrossRef]
221. Arminda do Paço, Helena Alves, Chris Shiel, Walter Leal Filho. 2014. An analysis of the measurement of the construct “buying
behaviour” in green marketing. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 11, 55-69. [CrossRef]
222. Jos Bartels, Marleen C. Onwezen. 2014. Consumers' willingness to buy products with environmental and ethical claims: the roles
of social representations and social identity. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:10.1111/ijcs.2014.38.issue-1, 82-89.
[CrossRef]
223. Mei-Fang Chen, Pei-Ju Tung. 2014. Developing an extended Theory of Planned Behavior model to predict consumers’ intention
to visit green hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 36, 221-230. [CrossRef]
224. Liangjie Xia, Longfei He. 2014. Game Theoretic Analysis of Carbon Emission Reduction and Sales Promotion in Dyadic Supply
Chain in Presence of Consumers’ Low-Carbon Awareness. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 2014, 1-13. [CrossRef]
225. Liang-jie Xia, Hua-wei Zhi. 2014. Ananlysis of Carbon Emission Reduction and Power Dominance between Single Manufacturer
and Single Retailer in Regulatory Cap and Trade System. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 2014, 1-12. [CrossRef]
226. Irene Tilikidou, Antonia Delistavrou, Nikolaos Sapountzis. 2014. Customers’ Ethical Behaviour towards Hotels. Procedia
Economics and Finance 9, 425-432. [CrossRef]
227. Chialin Chen, Lucy Qian Liu. 2014. Pricing and quality decisions and financial incentives for sustainable product design with
recycled material content under price leadership. International Journal of Production Economics 147, 666-677. [CrossRef]
228. Hui-hui Zhao, Qian Gao, Yao-ping Wu, Yuan Wang, Xiao-dong Zhu. 2014. What affects green consumer behavior in China? A
case study from Qingdao. Journal of Cleaner Production 63, 143-151. [CrossRef]
229. Aditi Jamalpuria. 2013. On information dissemination as an informal environmental regulation. Environment and Development
Economics 18, 749-772. [CrossRef]

230. Arminda do Paço, Helena Alves, Chris Shiel, Walter Leal Filho. 2013. A multi-country level analysis of the environmental attitudes
and behaviours among young consumers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56, 1532-1548. [CrossRef]
231. 晓晓晓, 晓晓晓. 2013. Cross-cultural comparison of New Environmental Paradigm and pro-environmental purchase behavior in Korea,
USA & Sweden. Journal of Consumption Culture 16, 49-77. [CrossRef]
232. María Azucena Vicente-Molina, Ana Fernández-Sáinz, Julen Izagirre-Olaizola. 2013. Environmental knowledge and other variables
affecting pro-environmental behaviour: comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. Journal of
Cleaner Production 61, 130-138. [CrossRef]
233. Annika H. Holmbom, Samuel Ronnqvist, Peter Sarlin, Tomas Eklund, Barbro BackGreen vs. Non-Green Customer Behavior:
A Self-Organizing Time Map over Greenness 529-535. [CrossRef]
234. Ingo Balderjahn, Anja Buerke, Manfred Kirchgeorg, Mathias Peyer, Barbara Seegebarth, Klaus-Peter Wiedmann. 2013.
Consciousness for sustainable consumption: scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’
sustainability. AMS Review 3, 181-192. [CrossRef]
235. Sihem Dekhili, Mohamed Akli Achabou. 2013. Price Fairness in the Case of Green Products: Enterprises' Policies and Consumers'
Perceptions. Business Strategy and the Environment 22:10.1002/bse.v22.8, 547-560. [CrossRef]
236. Abhijeet K. Digalwar based in the Mechanical Engineering Department, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani,
India Ashok R. Tagalpallewar based in the Mechanical Engineering Department, SIES Graduate School of Technology, Navi
Mumbai, India Vivek K. Sunnapwar based in the Mechanical Engineering Department Lokmanya Tilak College of Engineering,
Navi Mumbai, India . 2013. Green manufacturing performance measures: an empirical investigation from Indian manufacturing
industries. Measuring Business Excellence 17:4, 59-75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
237. ÅSA Lindman, Kristina Ek, Patrik Söderholm. 2013. Voluntary citizen participation in carbon allowance markets: the role of
norm-based motivation. Climate Policy 13, 680-697. [CrossRef]
238. Shih-Chang Tseng, Shiu-Wan Hung. 2013. A framework identifying the gaps between customers' expectations and their
perceptions in green products. Journal of Cleaner Production 59, 174-184. [CrossRef]
239. Soyoung Boo, Eerang Park. 2013. An examination of green intention: the effect of environmental knowledge and educational
experiences on meeting planners’ implementation of green meeting practices. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21, 1129-1147.
[CrossRef]
240. Stefan Hoffmann, Julia Schlicht. 2013. The impact of different types of concernment on the consumption of organic food.
241. Andrea Pérez, Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque. 2013. Customer Personal Features as Determinants of the Formation Process of
Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions. Psychology & Marketing 30:10.1002/mar.2013.30.issue-10, 903-917. [CrossRef]
242. R. H. Berry, F. Yeung. 2013. Are Investors Willing to Sacrifice Cash for Morality?. Journal of Business Ethics 117, 477-492.
[CrossRef]
243. Sunny Ham, Heesup Han. 2013. Role of Perceived Fit With Hotels’ Green Practices in the Formation of Customer Loyalty:
Impact of Environmental Concerns. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 18, 731-748. [CrossRef]
244. Seoki Lee, Kwanglim Seo, Amit Sharma. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and firm performance in the airline industry: The
moderating role of oil prices. Tourism Management 38, 20-30. [CrossRef]
245. David Martín-Ruiz, Isabel María Rosa-Díaz, F. Javier Rondán-Cataluña. 2013. Efectos de los cambios de precios en el valor de
la cartera de clientes: estudio del caso de la venta online de carne de ternera ecológica. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía
de la Empresa 22, 169-176. [CrossRef]
246. Eric S.W. Chan School of Hotel & Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong
SAR . 2013. Gap analysis of green hotel marketing. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25:7, 1017-1048.
247. Pradipta Halder, Janne Pietarinen, Sari Havu-Nuutinen, Paavo Pelkonen, Chun-Yen Chang, Pavol Prokop, Muhammet Usak.
2013. Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitudes as Determinants of Youths’ Intentions to Use Bioenergy—A Cross-National
Perspective. International Journal of Green Energy 10, 797-813. [CrossRef]
248. Fernando Robles Professor Walker Matthew Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA . 2013. Does green
management matter for donation intentions?. Management Decision 51:8, 1716-1732. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
249. Jeou-Shyan Horng, Chih-Hsing Liu, Sheng-Fang Chou, Chang-Yen Tsai. 2013. Professional conceptions of creativity in
restaurant space planning. International Journal of Hospitality Management 34, 73-80. [CrossRef]
250. Eric S.W. Chan. 2013. Managing green marketing: Hong Kong hotel managers’ perspective. International Journal of Hospitality

251. Małgorzata Koszewska. 2013. A typology of Polish consumers and their behaviours in the market for sustainable textiles and
clothing. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37, 507-521. [CrossRef]
252. Yong Joong Kim, David Njite, Murat Hancer. 2013. Anticipated emotion in consumers’ intentions to select eco-friendly restaurants:
Augmenting the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management 34, 255-262. [CrossRef]
253. Nelson A. BarberDepartment of Hospitality Management, Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics, University of New
Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA D. Christopher TaylorCollege of Business, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales,
New Mexico, USA. 2013. Experimental approach to assessing actual wine purchase behavior. International Journal of Wine Business
Research 25:3, 203-226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
254. Kavita SharmaDepartment of Commerce, University of Delhi, Delhi, India Monika BansalShri Ram College of Commerce,
University of Delhi, Delhi, India. 2013. Environmental consciousness, its antecedents and behavioural outcomes. Journal of Indian
Business Research 5:3, 198-214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
255. Matthew Walker, Aubrey Kent. 2013. The Roles of Credibility and Social Consciousness in the Corporate Philanthropy-Consumer
Behavior Relationship. Journal of Business Ethics 116, 341-353. [CrossRef]
256. Ying Kong, Aihua Zhang. 2013. Consumer response to green advertising: the influence of product involvement. Asian Journal
of Communication 23, 428-447. [CrossRef]
257. B. DiPietro Robin School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South
Carolina, USA Cao Yang School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South
Carolina, USA Partlow Charles School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia,
South Carolina, USA . 2013. Green practices in upscale foodservice operations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
258. Katelyn FultonApparel Merchandising and Design Program, Department of Human Environmental Studies, Central Michigan
University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan, USA Seung‐Eun LeeApparel Merchandising and Design Program, Department of Human
Environmental Studies, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan, USA. 2013. Assessing sustainable initiatives of
apparel retailers on the internet. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 17:3, 353-366. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
259. Mostafa Mohamed Ahmed Al-kerdawy. 2013. The Role of Environmental Innovation Strategy in Reinforcing the Impact of Green
Managerial Practices on Competitive Advantages of Fertilizer Companies in Egypt. International Journal of Customer Relationship
Marketing and Management 2:10.4018/IJCRMM.20110101, 36-54. [CrossRef]
260. Annika H. Holmbom, Peter Sarlin, Zhiyuan Yao, Tomas Eklund, Barbro BackVisual Data-Driven Profiling of Green Consumers
291-298. [CrossRef]
261. Arminda do Paço, Helena Alves, Chris Shiel, Walter Leal Filho. 2013. Development of a green consumer behaviour model.
262. Chad W. Autry and Judith M. WhippleAnu BaskAcademy of Finland and Aalto University School of Business, Helsinki,
Finland Merja HalmeDepartment of Information and Service Economy, Aalto University School of Business, Helsinki, Finland
Markku KallioDepartment of Information and Service Economy, Aalto University School of Business, Helsinki, Finland Markku
KuulaDepartment of Information and Service Economy, Aalto University School of Business, Helsinki, Finland. 2013. Consumer
preferences for sustainability and their impact on supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 43:5/6, 380-406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
263. Damon E. Campbell, John D. Wells, Joseph S. Valacich. 2013. Breaking the Ice in B2C Relationships: Understanding Pre-
Adoption E-Commerce Attraction. Information Systems Research 24, 219-238. [CrossRef]
264. Erifili Papista, Athanasios Krystallis. 2013. Investigating the Types of Value and Cost of Green Brands: Proposition of a Conceptual
Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 115, 75-92. [CrossRef]
265. Cody Jones. 2013. Moving Beyond Profit: Expanding Research to Better Understand Business Environmental Management.
Sustainability 5, 2693-2721. [CrossRef]
266. G. Camera-Roda, V. Augugliaro, A. Cardillo, V. Loddo, G. Palmisano, L. Palmisano. 2013. A pervaporation photocatalytic reactor
for the green synthesis of vanillin. Chemical Engineering Journal 224, 136-143. [CrossRef]
267. Paul H. Driessen, Bas Hillebrand, Robert A. W. Kok, Theo M. M. Verhallen. 2013. Green New Product Development: The
Pivotal Role of Product Greenness. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 60, 315-326. [CrossRef]
268. HyoJung Suk, Eun-Jin Lee. 2013. The Value, Knowledge, and Sustainable Consumption Behavior of Fashion Consumers. Journal
of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 37, 424-438. [CrossRef]
269. Irene TilikidouDepartment of Marketing, Technological Educational Institution of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2013.
Evolutions in the ecologically conscious consumer behaviour in Greece. EuroMed Journal of Business 8:1, 17-35. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
270. Norm BorinDepartment of Marketing, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA Joan
Lindsey‐MullikinDepartment of Marketing, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA R.
KrishnanDepartment of Marketing, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA. 2013. An analysis of consumer reactions
to green strategies. Journal of Product & Brand Management 22:2, 118-128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
271. Sun-Hwa Kim, Youngsoo Choi. 2013. Hotel Employees' Perception of Green Practices. International Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Administration 14, 157-178. [CrossRef]
272. Leonidas C. Leonidou, Constantinos N. Leonidou, Thomas A. Fotiadis, Athina Zeriti. 2013. Resources and capabilities as drivers
of hotel environmental marketing strategy: Implications for competitive advantage and performance. Tourism Management 35,
94-110. [CrossRef]
273. Maheshwar Dwivedy, R.K. Mittal. 2013. Willingness of residents to participate in e-waste recycling in India. Environmental
Development 6, 48-68. [CrossRef]
274. Narendra SinghProfessor based at the Department of Commerce, Kurukshetra University, Haryana, India Karnika GuptaResearch
Fellow based at the Department of Commerce, Kurukshetra University, Haryana, India. 2013. Environmental attitude and
ecological behaviour of Indian consumers. Social Responsibility Journal 9:1, 4-18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
275. B. Bynum Boley, Norma P. Nickerson. 2013. Profiling geotravelers: an a priori segmentation identifying and defining sustainable
travelers using the Geotraveler Tendency Scale (GTS). Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21, 314-330. [CrossRef]
276. Jonathon P. Schuldt, Mary Hannahan. 2013. When good deeds leave a bad taste. Negative inferences from ethical food claims.
Appetite 62, 76-83. [CrossRef]
277. Jeong-Ju Yoo, Lorynn Divita, Hye-Young Kim. 2013. Environmental awareness on bamboo product purchase intentions: do
consumption values impact green consumption?. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 6, 27-34.
[CrossRef]
278. Helen Arce Salazar, Leon Oerlemans, Saskia van Stroe-Biezen. 2013. Social influence on sustainable consumption: evidence from
a behavioural experiment. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37:10.1111/ijcs.2013.37.issue-2, 172-180. [CrossRef]
279. Melanie Yeoh, Angela Paladino. 2013. Prestige and environmental behaviors: Does branding matter?. Journal of Brand Management
20, 333-349. [CrossRef]
280. Katie Baca-Motes, Amber Brown, Ayelet Gneezy, Elizabeth A. Keenan, Leif D. Nelson. 2013. Commitment and Behavior Change:
Evidence from the Field. Journal of Consumer Research 39, 1070-1084. [CrossRef]
281. Svetlana Pevnitskaya, Dmitry Ryvkin. 2013. Environmental context and termination uncertainty in games with a dynamic public
bad. Environment and Development Economics 18, 27-49. [CrossRef]
282. Celia Stall-Meadows, Anne Davey. 2013. Green marketing of apparel: consumers' price sensitivity to environmental marketing
claims. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 4, 33-43. [CrossRef]
283. Alexandra Marques, João Rodrigues, Manfred Lenzen, Tiago Domingos. 2012. Income-based environmental responsibility.
Ecological Economics 84, 57-65. [CrossRef]
284. Elizabeth M. Tucker, Nora J. Rifon, Eun Mi Lee, Bonnie B. Reece. 2012. Consumer Receptivity to Green Ads. Journal of
Advertising 41, 9-23. [CrossRef]
285. Ioannis Kareklas, Jeffrey R. Carlson, Darrel D. Muehling. 2012. The Role of Regulatory Focus and Self-View in “Green”
Advertising Message Framing. Journal of Advertising 41, 25-39. [CrossRef]
286. Wenxia Guo, Kelley J. Main. 2012. The vulnerability of defensiveness: The impact of persuasion attempts and processing
motivations on trust. Marketing Letters 23, 959-971. [CrossRef]
287. Hwai-Shuh Shieh. 2012. The greener, the more cost efficient? An empirical study of international tourist hotels in Taiwan.
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 19, 536-545. [CrossRef]
288. Hsuan-Hsuan Ku, Chien-Chih Kuo, Ching-Luen Wu, Chih-Ying Wu. 2012. Communicating Green Marketing Appeals
Effectively. Journal of Advertising 41, 41-50. [CrossRef]
289. Marla B. Royne, Jennifer Martinez, Jared Oakley, Alexa K. Fox. 2012. The Effectiveness of Benefit Type and Price Endings in
Green Advertising. Journal of Advertising 41, 85-102. [CrossRef]
290. Sang-June Park, Sungchul Choi, Eun-Jeong Kim. 2012. The Relationships between Socio-demographic Variables and Concerns
about Environmental Sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 19:10.1002/csr.v19.6,
343-354. [CrossRef]
291. Jieun Lee, Heewon Sung. 2012. A Comparative Study of Korean and British Consumers for the Diffusion of Green Fashion
Products. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 36, 1087-1099. [CrossRef]
292. Lorena CarreteBusiness School, Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Toluca, Toluca, Mexico Raquel CastañoEGADE Business
School, Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Monterrey, San Pedro Garza García, Mexico Reto FelixDepartment of Business
Administration, Universidad de Monterrey, San Pedro Garza García, Mexico Edgar CentenoBusiness School, Tecnológico de
Monterrey Campus Mexico City, Mexico City, Mexico Eva GonzálezBusiness School, Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus
Guadalajara, Zapopan, Mexico. 2012. Green consumer behavior in an emerging economy: confusion, credibility, and compatibility.
Journal of Consumer Marketing 29:7, 470-481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
293. Annie Chen, Norman Peng. 2012. Green hotel knowledge and tourists’ staying behavior. Annals of Tourism Research 39, 2211-2216.
[CrossRef]
294. Haylee Uecker-Mercado, Matthew Walker. 2012. The Value of Environmental Social Responsibility to Facility Managers:
Revealing the Perceptions and Motives for Adopting ESR. Journal of Business Ethics 110, 269-284. [CrossRef]
295. Katherine Taken Smith, Tracy R. Brower. 2012. Longitudinal study of green marketing strategies that influence Millennials.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 20, 535-551. [CrossRef]
296. Bonnie J. K. Simpson, Scott K. Radford. 2012. Consumer Perceptions of Sustainability: A Free Elicitation Study. Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 24, 272-291. [CrossRef]
297. Justin PaulNagoya University of Commerce & Business, Nagoya City, Japan, and Foster School of Business, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA Jyoti RanaDAV Centenary College, Faridabad, India. 2012. Consumer behavior and
purchase intention for organic food. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29:6, 412-422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
298. Caroline Fisher, Shristy Bashyal, Bonnie Bachman. 2012. Demographic impacts on environmentally friendly purchase behaviors.
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 20, 172-184. [CrossRef]
299. Joan L. EllisDepartment of Apparel, Merchandising, Design and Textiles, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington,
USA Vicki A. McCrackenSchool of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA Nathan
SkuzaSchool of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA. 2012. Insights into willingness to
pay for organic cotton apparel. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 16:3, 290-305. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
300. Yong Joong Kim, Radesh Palakurthi, Murat Hancer. 2012. The Environmentally Friendly Programs in Hotels and Customers'
Intention to Stay: An Online Survey Approach. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 13, 195-214.
[CrossRef]
301. Dinele Momberg, Bertha Jacobs, Nadine Sonnenberg. 2012. The role of environmental knowledge in young female consumers'
evaluation and selection of apparel in South Africa. International Journal of Consumer Studies 36, 408-415. [CrossRef]
302. Chris MasonSwinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia John SimmonsThe University of Liverpool, Liverpool,
UK. 2012. Are they being served? Linking consumer expectation, evaluation and commitment. Journal of Services Marketing 26:4,
303. Shih‐Jui TungGraduate Institute of Bio‐Industry Management, National Chung‐Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan Ching‐
Chun ShihDepartment of Beauty Science, Chienkuo Technology University, Changhua, Taiwan Sherrie WeiDepartment of
International Business Administration, Chienkuo Technology University, Changhua, Taiwan Yu‐Hua ChenDepartment of Bio‐
Industry Communication and Development, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. 2012. Attitudinal inconsistency toward
organic food in relation to purchasing intention and behavior. British Food Journal 114:7, 997-1015. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
304. Nelson BarberDepartment of Hospitality Management, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA Pei‐
Jou KuoDepartment of Hospitality Management, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA Melissa
BishopDepartment of Hospitality Management, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA Raymond
Goodman JrDepartment of Hospitality Management, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA. 2012.
Measuring psychographics to assess purchase intention and willingness to pay. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29:4, 280-292.
305. 晓晓晓, 晓晓. 2012. Predicting customer's intention to participate in eco-friendly program in a hotel room: Applying an extended
theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the moderating role of message reception. Jounal of Korea Service Management Society
13, 219-246. [CrossRef]
306. Angela Paladino, Ameet P. Pandit. 2012. Competing on service and branding in the renewable electricity sector. Energy Policy
45, 378-388. [CrossRef]
307. So-Yun Kim, Jungsung Yeo, Sang Hee Sohn, Jong-Youn Rha, Shinae Choi, A-young Choi, Suhyun Shin. 2012. Toward a
Composite Measure of Green Consumption: An Exploratory Study Using a Korean Sample. Journal of Family and Economic Issues
33, 199-214. [CrossRef]
308. Brian Low, Yiming Tang, Milind Medhekar. 2012. Green power electricity, public policy and disjointed incrementalism. Journal
of Business Research 65, 802-806. [CrossRef]
309. Tsan‐Ming Choi, Chris K. Y. Lo, Christina W.Y. Wong, Rachel W. Y. YeeMarie‐Cécile CervellonDepartment of Marketing,
International University of Monaco, Monte‐Carlo, Monaco Anne‐Sophie WernerfeltDepartment of Marketing, International
University of Monaco, Monte Carlo, Monaco. 2012. Knowledge sharing among green fashion communities online. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 16:2, 176-192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
310. Zugang (Leo) Liu, Trisha D. Anderson, Jose M. Cruz. 2012. Consumer environmental awareness and competition in two-stage
supply chains. European Journal of Operational Research 218, 602-613. [CrossRef]
311. Constanza Bianchi, Grete Birtwistle. 2012. Consumer clothing disposal behaviour: a comparative study. International Journal of
Consumer Studies 36:10.1111/ijc.2012.36.issue-3, 335-341. [CrossRef]
312. Michelle Millar, Karl J. Mayer, Seyhmus Baloglu. 2012. Importance of Green Hotel Attributes to Business and Leisure Travelers.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 21, 395-413. [CrossRef]
313. Josep F. Mària SJDavid H. Tobey, SrNational Board of Information Security Examiners, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA B.
Yasanthi PereraManagement Department, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA. 2012. Corporate social
responsibility initiatives. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies 3:1, 95-115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
314. Yung Yau. 2012. WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND PREFERENCES FOR GREEN HOUSING ATTRIBUTES IN HONG
KONG. Journal of Green Building 7, 137-152. [CrossRef]
315. Ruoh-Nan Yan, Karen H. Hyllegard, LaVon F. Blaesi. 2012. Marketing eco-fashion: The influence of brand name and message
explicitness. Journal of Marketing Communications 18, 151-168. [CrossRef]
316. Cynthia S. Deale, Nelson Barber. 2012. How Important Is Sustainability Education to Hospitality Programs?. Journal of Teaching
in Travel & Tourism 12, 165-187. [CrossRef]
317. Anne WieseGeorg‐August‐Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany Julian KellnerGeorg‐August‐Universität Göttingen,
Göttingen, Germany Britta LietkeGeorg‐August‐Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany Waldemar ToporowskiGeorg‐
August‐Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany Stephan ZielkeDepartment of Business Administration, Aarhus University,
Aarhus, Denmark. 2012. Sustainability in retailing – a summative content analysis. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
318. Michael E. Naylor, Brian S. Gordon, Jeffrey D. James. 2012. A societal perspective of sport: scale development in two settings.
Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 22, 101-116. [CrossRef]
319. Lynn Sudbury Riley, Florian Kohlbacher, Agnes Hofmeister. 2012. A cross-cultural analysis of pro-environmental consumer
behaviour among seniors. Journal of Marketing Management 28, 290-312. [CrossRef]
320. Vaidyanathan Jayaraman, Rakesh Singh, Ajay Anandnarayan. 2012. Impact of sustainable manufacturing practices on consumer
perception and revenue growth: an emerging economy perspective. International Journal of Production Research 50, 1395-1410.
[CrossRef]
321. Pei-Chun Lin, Yi-Hsuan Huang. 2012. The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green products based on the theory
of consumption values. Journal of Cleaner Production 22, 11-18. [CrossRef]
322. Thanika Devi JuwaheerFaculty of Law and Management, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius Sharmila PudaruthFaculty
of Law and Management, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius Marie Monique Emmanuelle NoyauxMC Design Limited,
Port Louis, Mauritius. 2012. Analysing the impact of green marketing strategies on consumer purchasing patterns in Mauritius.
World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 8:1, 36-59. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
323. Esen Andiç, Öznur Yurt, Tunçdan Baltacıoğlu. 2012. Green supply chains: Efforts and potential applications for the Turkish
market. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 58, 50-68. [CrossRef]
324. Nelson Barber. 2012. Consumers' Intention to Purchase Environmentally Friendly Wines: A Segmentation Approach. International
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 13, 26-47. [CrossRef]
325. Leila Hamzaoui-Essoussi, Mehdi Zahaf. 2012. Canadian Organic Food Consumers' Profile and Their Willingness to Pay Premium
Prices. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 24, 1-21. [CrossRef]
326. Monika Koller, Arne Floh, Alexander Zauner. 2011. Further insights into perceived value and consumer loyalty: A “Green”
perspective. Psychology and Marketing 28:10.1002/mar.v28.12, 1154-1176. [CrossRef]
327. Clare Weeden. 2011. Responsible tourist motivation: how valuable is the Schwartz value survey?. Journal of Ecotourism 10, 214-234.
[CrossRef]
328. Misung Lee, Heesup Han, Greg Willson. 2011. The Role of Expected Outcomes in the Formation of Behavioral Intentions in
the Green-Hotel Industry. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 28, 840-855. [CrossRef]
329. Anne Holst Andersen. 2011. Organic food and the plural moralities of food provisioning. Journal of Rural Studies 27, 440-450.
[CrossRef]
330. Piya Parnphumeesup, Sandy A. Kerr. 2011. Classifying carbon credit buyers according to their attitudes towards and involvement
in CDM sustainability labels. Energy Policy 39, 6271-6279. [CrossRef]
331. K. Jayaraman, Hasnah Haron, Gooi Bee Sung, Soh Keng Lin. 2011. Consumer reflections on the usage of plastic bags to parcel
hot edible items: an empirical study in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 1527-1535. [CrossRef]
332. Isaac CheahCurtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia Ian PhauCurtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia. 2011.
Attitudes towards environmentally friendly products. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 29:5, 452-472. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
333. Seahee Lee. 2011. Consumers’ Value, Environmental Consciousness, and Willingness to Pay more toward Green-Apparel Products.
Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 2, 161-169. [CrossRef]
334. Bing Hu, Yunxin Fu, Ye WangAn Empirical Study on the Dimensions of Consumer Perceived Value in Green Hotels 1-4.
[CrossRef]
335. Victoria K. Wells, Cerys A. Ponting, Ken Peattie. 2011. Behaviour and climate change: Consumer perceptions of responsibility.
Journal of Marketing Management 27, 808-833. [CrossRef]
336. Jason Draper, Mary Dawson, Emma Casey. 2011. An Exploratory Study of the Importance of Sustainable Practices in the Meeting
and Convention Site Selection Process. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 12, 153-178. [CrossRef]
337. David Njite, Murat Hancer, Lisa Slevitch. 2011. Exploring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Managers' Perspective on How
and Why Small Independent Hotels Engage with Their Communities. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 12,
177-201. [CrossRef]
338. Satu Reijonen. 2011. Environmentally friendly consumer: from determinism to emergence. International Journal of Consumer
Studies 35:10.1111/ijc.2011.35.issue-4, 403-409. [CrossRef]
339. Sanjukta Pookulangara, Arlesa Shephard, Jaime Mestres. 2011. University community's perception of sweatshops: a mixed method
data collection. International Journal of Consumer Studies 35:10.1111/ijc.2011.35.issue-4, 476-483. [CrossRef]
340. Hasrini Sari, FirmanzahSegmentation for environmental friendly products and its implication to product design: Indonesian
context 168-171. [CrossRef]
341. Eng-Tuck Cheah, Dima Jamali, Johnnie E.V. Johnson, Ming-Chien Sung. 2011. Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility
Attitudes: The Demography of Socially Responsible Investors. British Journal of Management 22:10.1111/bjom.2011.22.issue-2,
305-323. [CrossRef]
342. Heesup Han, Li-Tzang Jane Hsu, Jin-Soo Lee, Chwen Sheu. 2011. Are lodging customers ready to go green? An examination
of attitudes, demographics, and eco-friendly intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30, 345-355. [CrossRef]
343. MARLA B. ROYNE, MARIAN LEVY, JENNIFER MARTINEZ. 2011. The Public Health Implications of Consumers'
Environmental Concern and Their Willingness to Pay for an Eco-Friendly Product. Journal of Consumer Affairs 45, 329-343.
[CrossRef]
344. Yunxin Fu, Bing HuThe effects of low-carbon consumption on consumer perceived value in green hotels 344-347. [CrossRef]
345. Stefano Pogutz, Valerio Micale. 2011. Sustainable consumption and production. Society and Economy 33, 29-50. [CrossRef]
346. Tamer A. AwadDepartment of Management and Marketing, University of Bahrain, Manama, Bahrain. 2011. Environmental
segmentation alternatives: buyers' profiles and implications. Journal of Islamic Marketing 2:1, 55-73. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
347. Marcel van Birgelen, Janjaap Semeijn, Pia Behrens. 2011. Explaining pro-environment consumer behavior in air travel. Journal
of Air Transport Management 17, 125-128. [CrossRef]
348. Jerome K. Vanclay, John Shortiss, Scott Aulsebrook, Angus M. Gillespie, Ben C. Howell, Rhoda Johanni, Michael J. Maher,
Kelly M. Mitchell, Mark D. Stewart, Jim Yates. 2011. Customer Response to Carbon Labelling of Groceries. Journal of Consumer
Policy 34, 153-160. [CrossRef]
349. Heesup Han, Sungil Lee, Choong-Ki Lee. 2011. Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: Visa Exemptions and the Traveller
Decision-making Process. Tourism Geographies 13, 45-74. [CrossRef]
350. John Peloza, Jingzhi Shang. 2011. How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic
review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39, 117-135. [CrossRef]
351. Norm BorinOrfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, California,
USA Douglas C. CerfOrfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo,
California, USA R. KrishnanMarketing Department, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA. 2011. Consumer effects
of environmental impact in product labeling. Journal of Consumer Marketing 28:1, 76-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
352. Todd GreenSimon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada John PelozaSimon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada. 2011. How does
corporate social responsibility create value for consumers?. Journal of Consumer Marketing 28:1, 48-56. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
353. Sara Dolnicar, Anna Hurlimann, Bettina Grün. 2011. What affects public acceptance of recycled and desalinated water?. Water
Research 45, 933-943. [CrossRef]
354. Elham Rahbar, Tan Shwu Shyan, Nabsiah Abdul Wahi. 2011. actors Influencing the Green Purchase Behavior of Penang
Environmental Volunteers. International Business Management 5, 38-49. [CrossRef]
355. Nelson Barber, Cynthia Deale, Raymond Goodman. 2011. Environmental Sustainability in the Hospitality Management
Curriculum: Perspectives from Three Groups of Stakeholders. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 23, 6-17. [CrossRef]
356. Leonidas C. Leonidou, Constantinos N. Leonidou, Olga Kvasova. 2010. Antecedents and outcomes of consumer environmentally
friendly attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management 26, 1319-1344. [CrossRef]
357. Arminda do Paço, Lília Varejão. 2010. Factors affecting energy saving behaviour: a prospective research. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 53, 963-976. [CrossRef]
358. Ken Peattie. 2010. Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35, 195-228. [CrossRef]
359. Nelson BarberWhittemore School of Business, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA. 2010. “Green”
wine packaging: targeting environmental consumers. International Journal of Wine Business Research 22:4, 423-444. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
360. Ernesto López-Valeiras Sampedro, María Beatriz González Sánchez, José Carlos Yáñez López, Estefanía Rodríguez González. 2010.
The Environment as a Critical Success Factor in the Wine Industry: Implications for Management Control Systems. Journal of
Wine Research 21, 179-195. [CrossRef]
361. Hae Jin Gam, Huantian Cao, Cheryl Farr, Mihyun Kang. 2010. Quest for the eco-apparel market: a study of mothers' willingness
to purchase organic cotton clothing for their children. International Journal of Consumer Studies 34:10.1111/ijc.2010.34.issue-6,
648-656. [CrossRef]
362. Yunhi Kim, Heesup Han. 2010. Intention to pay conventional-hotel prices at a green hotel – a modification of the theory of
planned behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18, 997-1014. [CrossRef]
363. Katherine T. Smith. 2010. An examination of marketing techniques that influence Millennials' perceptions of whether a product
is environmentally friendly. Journal of Strategic Marketing 18, 437-450. [CrossRef]
364. Cody Jones. 2010. Exploring new ways of assessing the effect of regulation on environmental management. Journal of Cleaner
Production 18, 1229-1250. [CrossRef]
365. Marius C. Claudy, Claus Michelsen, Aidan O’Driscoll, Michael R. Mullen. 2010. Consumer awareness in the adoption of
microgeneration technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, 2154-2160. [CrossRef]
366. Jin-Soo Lee, Li-Tzang (Jane) Hsu, Heesup Han, Yunhi Kim. 2010. Understanding how consumers view green hotels: how a
hotel's green image can influence behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18, 901-914. [CrossRef]
367. Leila Hamzaoui EssoussiTelfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada Jonathan D. LintonTelfer School
of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 2010. New or recycled products: how much are consumers willing to
pay?. Journal of Consumer Marketing 27:5, 458-468. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
368. Ioannis PapadopoulosDepartment of Wood & Furniture Design and Technology, Technological and Educational Institute of
Larissa, Kardhitsa, Greece Glykeria KaragouniDepartment of Wood & Furniture Design and Technology, Technological and
Educational Institute of Larissa, Kardhitsa, Greece Marios TrigkasDepartment of Wood & Furniture Design and Technology,
Technological and Educational Institute of Larissa, Kardhitsa, Greece Evanthia PlatogianniDepartment of Wood & Furniture
Design and Technology, Technological and Educational Institute of Larissa, Kardhitsa, Greece. 2010. Green marketing. EuroMed
Journal of Business 5:2, 166-190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
369. Shu-Hwa Lin. 2010. A case study in Hawaii: who will pay more for organic cotton?. International Journal of Consumer Studies
34:10.1111/ijc.2010.34.issue-4, 481-489. [CrossRef]
370. Arminda M. Finisterra do Paço, Mário Lino Barata Raposo. 2010. Green consumer market segmentation: empirical findings from
Portugal. International Journal of Consumer Studies 34:10.1111/ijc.2010.34.issue-4, 429-436. [CrossRef]

371. Jonas Nilsson, Anna-Carin Nordvall, Sofia Isberg. 2010. The information search process of socially responsible investors. Journal
of Financial Services Marketing 15, 5-18. [CrossRef]
372. Heesup Han, Li-Tzang (Jane) Hsu, Chwen Sheu. 2010. Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to green hotel choice:
Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tourism Management 31, 325-334. [CrossRef]
373. Jodyanne Kirkwood, Sara Walton. 2010. How ecopreneurs’ green values affect their international engagement in supply chain
management. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 8, 200-217. [CrossRef]
374. Rafael Bravo Gil, Jorge Matute Vallejo, José Miguel Pina Pérez. 2010. Las asociaciones de la imagen como determinantes de la
satisfacción en el sector bancario español. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 13:43, 9-35. [CrossRef]
375. Monzurul HoqueJoan C. JunkusDepartment of Finance, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USA Thomas C. BerryDepartment
of Finance, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2010. The demographic profile of socially responsible investors. Managerial
Finance 36:6, 474-481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
376. Jodyanne KirkwoodCentre for Entrepreneurship, School of Business, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Sara
WaltonCentre for Entrepreneurship, School of Business, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 2010. What motivates
ecopreneurs to start businesses?. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 16:3, 204-228. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
377. Samantha Smith, Angela Paladino. 2010. Eating clean and green? Investigating consumer motivations towards the purchase of
organic food. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 18, 93-104. [CrossRef]
378. Marcelo Vinhal NepomucenoJohn Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada Juliana Barreiros
PortoPsychology Department, Catholic University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil. 2010. Human values and attitudes toward bank
services in Brazil. International Journal of Bank Marketing 28:3, 168-192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
379. Nina Michaelidou, Louise M. Hassan. 2010. Modeling the factors affecting rural consumers’ purchase of organic and free-range
produce: A case study of consumers’ from the Island of Arran in Scotland, UK. Food Policy 35, 130-139. [CrossRef]
380. Jason D. OliverEast Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA Seung‐Hee LeeSchool of Fashion Design and
Merchandising, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA. 2010. Hybrid car purchase intentions: a cross‐cultural analysis. Journal
of Consumer Marketing 27:2, 96-103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
381. Jennifer YurchisinUniversity of North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA Sara B. MarckettiIowa State University, Ames,
Iowa, USA. 2010. Collectors behaving ethically: an emerging consumption constellation. Social Responsibility Journal 6:1, 45-61.
382. Hee Won Sung, Doris H. Kincade. 2010. Typology of Korean Eco-sumers: Based on Clothing Disposal Behaviors. Journal of
Global Academy of Marketing Science 20, 59-69. [CrossRef]
383. P. Lin, Y. Huang, J. WangApplying the theory of consumption values to choice behavior toward green products 348-353.
[CrossRef]
384. Israel Boxer, Hanna Oirik Menahem, Gabor Rekettye. 2010. Ecological awareness, price and psychological wellbeing as main
dimensions of senior citizens' green sheltered housing buying intentions. International Journal of Business Performance Management
12, 86. [CrossRef]
385. Heesup Han, Li-Tzang (Jane) Hsu, Jin-Soo Lee. 2009. Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors,
overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality
386. Juan Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, Jose-Rodrigo Cordoba-Pachon, Gonzalo Wandosell Fernandez de Bobadilla. 2009. Creating
environmental knowledge through ‘green communities’ in the Spanish pharmaceutical industry. The Service Industries Journal
29, 1745-1761. [CrossRef]
387. Professor Heikki KarjaluotoPatrali ChatterjeeSchool of Business, Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, New Jersey, USA.
2009. Green brand extension strategy and online communities. Journal of Systems and Information Technology 11:4, 367-384.
388. Shu‐Hwa LinUniversity of Hawaii at Ma¯noa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. 2009. Exploratory evaluation of potential and current
consumers of organic cotton in Hawaii. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 21:4, 489-506. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
389. Bradford F. Mills, Joachim Schleich. 2009. Profits or preferences? Assessing the adoption of residential solar thermal technologies.
Energy Policy 37, 4145-4154. [CrossRef]
390. Leila Hamzaoui EssoussiTelfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada Mehdi ZahafFaculty of Business
Administration, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Canada. 2009. Exploring the decision‐making process of Canadian organic
food consumers. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 12:4, 443-459. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
391. Yau-Yuh TsayThe impacts of economic crisis on green consumption in Taiwan 2367-2374. [CrossRef]
392. Dominic BoyleUniversity of Chester, West Kirby, UK Tony ProctorDepartment of Leadership and Management, Chester Business
School, University of Chester, Chester, UK. 2009. The nature, role and value of marketing within the road safety team in a City
Council. Management Research News 32:8, 707-715. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
393. Efthimia Tsakiridou, Konstadinos Mattas, Zoi Mpletsa. 2009. Consumers' Food Choices for Specific Quality Food Products.
Journal of Food Products Marketing 15, 200-212. [CrossRef]
394. Arminda do PaçoResearch Unit NECE, Department of Business and Economics, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
Mário RaposoResearch Unit NECE, Department of Business and Economics, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.
2009. “Green” segmentation: an application to the Portuguese consumer market. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 27:3, 364-379.
395. Arminda M Finisterra do Paço, Mário Lino Barata Raposo, Walter Leal Filho. 2009. Identifying the green consumer: A
segmentation study. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 17, 17-25. [CrossRef]
396. Jonas NilssonUmeå School of Business, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. 2009. Segmenting socially responsible mutual fund
investors. International Journal of Bank Marketing 27:1, 5-31. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
397. Mehmet Mehmetoglu Predictors of sustainable consumption in a tourism context: a CHAID approach 3-23. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
398. Minna Autio, Eva Heiskanen, Visa Heinonen. 2009. Narratives of ‘green’ consumers - the antihero, the environmental hero and
the anarchist. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 8:10.1002/cb.v8:1, 40-53. [CrossRef]
399. Olle Hage, Patrik Söderholm, Christer Berglund. 2009. Norms and economic motivation in household recycling: Empirical
evidence from Sweden. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53, 155-165. [CrossRef]
400. M. RuckerConsumer perceptions of recycled textile fibers 203-213. [CrossRef]
401. Kristina Ek, Patrik Söderholm. 2008. Norms and economic motivation in the Swedish green electricity market. Ecological
Economics 68, 169-182. [CrossRef]
402. Berenice Maldonado-Hernández, Eva Conraud-Koellner, Luis Arturo Rivas-Tovar. 2008. Evaluation of the programs of
environmental marketing in the Metropolitan Zone of the city of Mexico. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing
5, 141-166. [CrossRef]
403. Jonas Nilsson. 2008. Investment with a Conscience: Examining the Impact of Pro-Social Attitudes and Perceived Financial
Performance on Socially Responsible Investment Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 83, 307-325. [CrossRef]
404. Arminda M. Finisterra do Paço, Mário Lino Barata Raposo. 2008. Determining the characteristics to profile the “green” consumer:
an exploratory approach. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 5, 129-140. [CrossRef]
405. Ari Paloviita, Pentti Järvi. 2008. Environmental value chain management of laundry detergents in the use phase. International
Journal of Consumer Studies 32:10.1111/ijc.2008.32.issue-6, 607-612. [CrossRef]
406. Isabel Buil-Carrasco, Elena Fraj-Andrés, Jorge Matute-Vallejo. 2008. Corporate environmentalism strategy in the Spanish
consumer product sector: a typology of firms. Business Strategy and the Environment 17:10.1002/bse.v17:6, 350-368. [CrossRef]
407. Carmen Valor. 2008. Can Consumers Buy Responsibly? Analysis and Solutions for Market Failures. Journal of Consumer Policy
31, 315-326. [CrossRef]
408. Jesús Cambra-Fierro, Yolanda Polo-Redondo, Alan Wilson. 2008. The Influence of an Organisation’s Corporate Values on
Employees Personal Buying Behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics 81, 157-167. [CrossRef]
409. Nina Michaelidou, Louise M. Hassan. 2008. The role of health consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on
attitudes and intentions towards organic food. International Journal of Consumer Studies 32:10.1111/ijc.2008.32.issue-2, 163-170.
[CrossRef]
410. Efthimia TsakiridouDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Christina
BoutsoukiDepartment of Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Yorgos ZotosDepartment of
Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Kostantinos MattasDepartment of Agricultural Economics,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2008. Attitudes and behaviour towards organic products: an
exploratory study. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 36:2, 158-175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
411. Sami Alsmadi. 2007. Green Marketing and the Concern over the Environment: Measuring Environmental Consciousness of
Jordanian Consumers. Journal of Promotion Management 13, 339-361. [CrossRef]
412. Mahavir Sehrawet, Subhash C. Kundu. 2007. Buying behaviour of rural and urban consumers in India: the impact of packaging.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 31:10.1111/ijc.2007.31.issue-6, 630-638. [CrossRef]
413. Ian PhauSchool of Marketing, Curtin Business School, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia Denise OngSchool of
Marketing, Curtin Business School, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia. 2007. An investigation of the effects of
environmental claims in promotional messages for clothing brands. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 25:7, 772-788. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
414. Dr Shaun Powell, Professor John M.T. Balmer, Professor T.C. MelewarKlement PodnarFaculty of Social Sciences, University
of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia Urša GolobFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 2007. CSR
expectations: the focus of corporate marketing. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12:4, 326-340. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
415. Shukri Mohamed ., Muhamad Lukhman Ibrahim .. 2007. Preliminary Study on Willingness to Pay for Environmentally Certified
Wood Products Among Consumers in Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences 7, 1339-1342. [CrossRef]
416. Adam Faiers, Matt Cook, Charles Neame. 2007. Towards a contemporary approach for understanding consumer behaviour in the
context of domestic energy use. Energy Policy 35, 4381-4390. [CrossRef]
417. Vinnie JauhariHewlett Packard, IndiaKamal ManaktolaSchool of Hospitality & Tourism Management, Institute for International
Management & Technology, Haryana, India Vinnie JauhariSchool of Hospitality & Tourism Management, Institute for
International Management & Technology, Haryana, India. 2007. Exploring consumer attitude and behaviour towards green
practices in the lodging industry in India. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19:5, 364-377. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
418. RajagopalBusiness Division, Department of Marketing, Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education, ITESM,
Mexico. 2007. Buying decisions towards organic products: an analysis of customer value and brand drivers. International Journal
of Emerging Markets 2:3, 236-251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
419. Irene Tilikidou. 2007. The effects of knowledge and attitudes upon Greeks' pro-environmental purchasing behaviour. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 14:10.1002/csr.v14:3, 121-134. [CrossRef]
420. Clare D?Souza, Mehdi Taghian, Peter Lamb, Roman Peretiatko. 2007. Green decisions: demographics and consumer
understanding of environmental labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies 31:10.1111/ijc.2007.31.issue-4, 371-376.
[CrossRef]
421. Charles Dennis and Tamira KingTony KentThe School of Creative Enterprise, London College of Communication, University
of the Arts London, London, UK and Dominic StoneThe School of Creative Enterprise, London College of Communication,
University of the Arts London, London, UK. 2007. The Body Shop and the role of design in retail branding. International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management 35:7, 531-543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
422. Hilary Nixon, Oladele A. Ogunseitan, Jean-Daniel Saphores, Andrew A. ShapiroElectronic Waste Recycling Preferences in
California: The Role of Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors 251-256. [CrossRef]
423. Mohamed M. Mostafa. 2007. A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian consumer. Psychology and
Marketing 24:10.1002/mar.v24:5, 445-473. [CrossRef]
424. Elena Fraj-Andrés, Eva Martínez-Salinas. 2007. Impact of Environmental Knowledge on Ecological Consumer Behaviour. Journal
of International Consumer Marketing 19, 73-102. [CrossRef]
425. Jean-Daniel M. Saphores, Hilary Nixon, Oladele A. Ogunseitan, Andrew A. Shapiro. 2007. California households' willingness to
pay for ‘green’ electronics. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50, 113-133. [CrossRef]
426. Pentti Järvi, Ari Paloviita. 2007. Product-related information for sustainable use of laundry detergents in Finnish households.
Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 681-689. [CrossRef]
427. John Connolly, Deirdre Shaw. 2006. Identifying fair trade in consumption choice. Journal of Strategic Marketing 14, 353-368.
[CrossRef]
428. Athanassios Krystallis, Christos Fotopoulos, Yiorgos Zotos. 2006. Organic Consumers' Profile and Their Willingness to Pay
(WTP) for Selected Organic Food Products in Greece. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 19, 81-106. [CrossRef]
429. Adam Faiers, Charles Neame. 2006. Consumer attitudes towards domestic solar power systems. Energy Policy 34, 1797-1806.
[CrossRef]
430. Efthimia Tsakiridou, Yorgos Zotos, Konstantinos Mattas. 2006. Employing a Dichotomous Choice Model to Assess Willingness
to Pay (WTP) for Organically Produced Products. Journal of Food Products Marketing 12, 59-69. [CrossRef]
431. Suku BhaskaranFood Marketing Research Unit, Victoria University (Werribee Campus), Melbourne, Australia Michael
PolonskyVictoria University, Melbourne, Australia John CaryInstitute of Innovation and Sustainability, Victoria University,
Melbourne, Australia Shadwell FernandezProject Officer at the Food Marketing Research Unit, Victoria University, Melbourne,
Australia. 2006. Environmentally sustainable food production and marketing. British Food Journal 108:8, 677-690. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]

432. Elena Fraj, Eva Martinez. 2006. Influence of personality on ecological consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour
5:10.1002/cb.v5:3, 167-181. [CrossRef]
433. Caner DincerGalatasaray University, Turkey Banu DincerGalatasaray University, Turkey. 2006. Has Environmental Investment a
Marketing Effect in Turkish Banking Industry?. Social Responsibility Journal 2:1, 88-95. [Abstract] [PDF]
434. Sharifah A. Haron, Laily Paim, Nurizan Yahaya. 2005. Towards sustainable consumption: an examination of environmental
knowledge among Malaysians. International Journal of Consumer Studies 29:10.1111/ijc.2005.29.issue-5, 426-436. [CrossRef]
435. Mark ClevelandFaculty of Social Science, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada Maria KalamasJohn Molson
School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Michel LarocheJohn Molson School of Business, Concordia
University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2005. Shades of green: linking environmental locus of control and pro‐environmental
behaviors. Journal of Consumer Marketing 22:4, 198-212. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
436. Athanasios KrystallisAgribusiness Laboratory, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece George
ChryssohoidisAgribusiness Laboratory, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 2005. Consumers' willingness to pay
for organic food. British Food Journal 107:5, 320-343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
437. Efthalia DimaraDepartment of Economics, University of Patras, Patras, Greece Dimitris SkurasDepartment of Economics,
University of Patras, Patras, Greece. 2005. Consumer demand for informative labeling of quality food and drink products: a
European Union case study. Journal of Consumer Marketing 22:2, 90-100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
438. Michael GetznerDepartment of Economics, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria Sonja Grabner‐KräuterDepartment
of Marketing and International Management, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria. 2004. Consumer preferences and
marketing strategies for “green shares”. International Journal of Bank Marketing 22:4, 260-278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
439. Bozena PoksinskaQuality and Human System Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linköping University,
Linköping, Sweden Jens Jörn DahlgaardQuality and Human System Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden Jörgen A.E. EklundQuality and Human System Engineering, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 2003. Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden: motives, benefits
and comparisons with ISO 9000. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 20:5, 585-606. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
440. Robert RedfernThe University of Salford, UK Caroline L. DaveyThe University of Salford, UK. 2003. Supply chain market
orientation in new product development in the UK. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 7:1,
441. Ian H. Rowlands, Daniel Scott, Paul Parker. 2003. Consumers and green electricity: profiling potential purchasers. Business Strategy
and the Environment 12:10.1002/bse.v12:1, 36-48. [CrossRef]
442. Michel Laroche, Marc-Alexandre Tomiuk, Jasmin Bergeron, Guido Barbaro-Forleo. 2002. Cultural Differences in Environmental
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviours of Canadian Consumers. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne
des Sciences de l'Administration 19:10.1111/cjas.2002.19.issue-3, 267-282. [CrossRef]
443. Mostafa Mohamed Ahmed Al-kerdawyThe Role of Environmental Innovation Strategy in Reinforcing the Impact of Green
Managerial Practices on Competitive Advantages of Fertilizer Companies in Egypt 37-53. [CrossRef]
444. Product Development and Market Governance 88-117. [CrossRef]
445. Lisa Watson, Anne M. LavackUsing Social Marketing to Encourage the Purchase of Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 253-277. [CrossRef]
446. Jeen Wei Ong, Choon Yih Goh, Marianne Shing Mei Too, Gerald Guan Gan Goh, Lee Pheng GohPremium Price for
Environmentally Friendly Products in the Malaysian Market 33-46. [CrossRef]
447. Elif Yolbulan Okan, Neva YalmanAnatomy of Green Marketing 1033-1051. [CrossRef]
448. Elif Yolbulan Okan, Neva YalmanAnatomy of Green Marketing 125-142. [CrossRef]
View publication stats

JCM 2001targeting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JCM 2001targeting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Journal of Consumer Marketing · November 2001

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

British Food Journal, Vol. 107 Iss 8 pp. 606-625 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700510611002

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Keywords Green marketing, Consumer behaviour, Segmentation, Environment, Canada

The research register for this journal is available at

time in the future, the idea of ``environmental justice'' may be accorded a

Profiles of green consumers: a literature review

Consumers' demographic characteristics

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

504 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001

(Berkowitz and Lutterman, 1968; Anderson and Cunningham, 1972; Van

Consumers' knowledge or ecoliteracy

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001 505

collectivism implies cooperation, helpfulness, and consideration of the goals

506 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001

corporations. We might expect this attitude to impact the willingness of

Sampling procedures and data collection

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001 507

how often they engaged in particular friendly/unfriendly behaviors. These

Measure of the endogenous variable

508 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001

environmentally is too much trouble 0.866

Table I. Measures and reliability analyses

To be admissible in the first group, respondents had to answer to all three

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001 509

classified as the opposite. Therefore, we will qualify the 666 others

Analyses and results

Our results are presented according to the methodological approach defined

Comparison of the two demographic profiles

510 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001

Factors that influences consumers' willingness to pay more for

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001 511

Table VI. Characteristics of the discriminant function

Table VII. Results of t-tests and the discriminant analysis

512 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001

the severity of ecological problems and to the importance of being

Discussion and managerial implications

The impact of attitudes

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001 513

by the severity of ecological problems. With current high levels of

The impact of values

The impact of behaviors

514 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001

Other managerial implications

Limitations, research opportunities and conclusion

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001 515

``green behavior'' measure since even experts cannot agree on a product's

516 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001 517

research'', in Parasuraman, A. et al. (Eds), AMA Summer Educators' Conference

Figure A1. Test to measure the respondents' ecoliteracy

518 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001

towards the environment and that behaving in an ecologically favourable

How marketers can target green consumers

Some words of warning

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001 519

Persuading the undecided

520 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 6 2001

896-917. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Sociology Compass 8, 1063-1081. [CrossRef]

Economics 18, 749-772. [CrossRef]