Consumer – green brand relationships:

revisiting benefits, relationship

quality and outcomes
Erifili Papista
Athens Laboratory of Research in Marketing, Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece, and
Sergios Dimitriadis
Department of Marketing & Communication, Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece

Abstract
Purpose – The study aims to develop and test a relationship-building model for green brands. It synthesizes findings on the consumer motives
offered by green brands, with relationship marketing and branding literature to the specific context of green brands to build a parsimonious model
testing the links amongst four relational benefits, i.e. confidence, socialization, self-expression and altruism; two relational mediators, i.e.
satisfaction and relationship quality; three behavioural outcomes, i.e. word-of-mouth, expectation of continuity and cross-buying; and two
moderators of the benefits-mediators relationship, i.e. environmental consciousness and relationship length.
Design/methodology/approach – Data are collected from consumers of three brands of natural cosmetic products, totalling 848 questionnaires.
Structural equation modelling is used to test the hypothesized relationships across the three brands.
Findings – The results show that confidence benefit has the strongest influence on relationship quality, followed by self-expression and altruism.
Relationships quality and satisfaction with the green brand have a significant impact on all three behavioural outcomes. Both environmental
consciousness and length of the relationship moderate the hypothesized interrelationships.
Research limitations/implications – A new set of relational benefits for the green context is suggested. Several future research opportunities are
suggested.
Practical implications – The study offers suggestions for managers to leverage relationship benefits for relationship strengthening.
Originality/value – No previous work has studied in an integrated way the relationship benefits and mediators to model the consumer–green brand
relationship. The study provides a better understanding of the antecedents of consumer loyalty towards green brands.
Keywords Relationship quality, Green marketing, Brand relationships, Relationship benefits, Brand loyalty, Green branding
Paper type Research paper

Introduction between the consumer and the green brand. This focus on
relationship development also requires a shift from the concept
The market trend of consumer support for green products has
of the green product to the green brand, which entails a specific
driven a considerable increase in both the number of products
set of attributes and benefits related to the product’s reduced
promoted as environmentally friendly and the sales growth
environmental impact that builds its brand equity and offers a
enjoyed by such brands (Borin et al., 2013; Chen, 2010; Lin
significant eco-advantage over its competitors (Hartmann et al.,
et al., 2017a). The current marketplace reveals a mounting
2005; Lin et al., 2017a).
emphasis on environmental sustainability, and firms are However, the development of the consumer–green brand
increasingly seeking ways to respond by investing significant relationship is an especially difficult task due to the
resources in developing environmentally friendly new products complexities of the specific “green” sector. First of all, the green
(Olsen et al., 2014). The value of the global green market has
consumer faces a number of barriers that inhibit the purchase
experienced a fourfold increase in just four years, rising from
of the product, such as augmented prices, increased time and
US$209bn in 2011 to US$845bn in 2015 (Leonidou and
effort to evaluate and search for the product, extensive
Skarmeas, 2017). This increasing market penetration of green
information search (Gleim et al., 2013), which increase the
products has shifted the focus of both academics and
perception that “it is too hard to be green”, leading ultimately
practitioners from the initial purchase to repeat purchases, i.e.
to inaction (Johnstone and Tan, 2015; Narula and Desore,
the construction of a strong and sustainable relationship
2016). Moreover, due to instances of greenwashing, a growing
number of consumers question corporate motives for greening
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on and doubt the environmental performance of products, which
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Received 16 September 2016

Journal of Product & Brand Management
Revised 30 March 2017
28/2 (2019) 166–187 7 January 2018
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 30 June 2018
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-09-2016-1316] Accepted 4 July 2018

166
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
deters them from new or repeat green purchases (Leonidou and
Skarmeas, 2017). Furthermore, environmentally oriented anti-
consumption emerges as an increasingly recognized means of
inducing a transition towards more sustainable products and
environmentally friendly lifestyle (Garcia-de-Frutos et al.,
2018). These context-specific characteristics create significant
needs to identify factors that can influence green consumption
and present a general framework for green marketing and green
consumption (Groening et al., 2018; He et al., 2015).
Observing such green markets specificities researchers have
called for context-specific work on consumer benefits and
customer-green brand relationship (Hartmann and Apaolaza-
Ibanez, 2006; Lin et al., 2017b), as the consumption of
products with environmental attributes delivers additional
benefits compared to conventional alternatives (Hartmann and
Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2012). Green brands do provide a specific
value offering or set of consumer motivations stemming from
their environmental product design, performance and altruistic
nature, that reinforce supportive consumer behaviour towards
the brand (Ahmad and Thyagaraj, 2015; Chen, 2010).
However existing studies have addressed green brands’
customer benefits and their influence to green brand image,
perceived value and purchase intention in a rather fragmented
way (Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2012; Hartmann et al.,
2005; Lin et al., 2017a), without using integrative relationship
benefits typologies and testing their relative effect to
relationship strength constructs, as the relationship marketing
literature has. Thus, the question as to the benefits that lead to
the construction and strengthening of the consumer–green
brand relationship remains still largely unanswered.
On this basis, our study represents an attempt to adapt
existing consumer–brand relationship literature to the green
branding context to develop and test a specific model consisting
of antecedents, mediators and outcomes of the consumer–
green brand relationship. Specifically, this work intents to
contribute to the existing consumer–green brand relationship
knowledge through testing:

a context-specific set of relational benefits relevant to the
field of green branding;

the two key mediators, relationship quality (RQ) and
satisfaction, simultaneously; and

the effects of two moderators, environmental
consciousness and length of the relationship, on the
relationship between perceived benefits and mediators.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to:

address the important issue of relational benefits in the
green branding context;

apply an integrative relationship quality framework to
measure green consumers’ relational behaviour; and

extend the existing consumer–brand relationship work to
the green branding context.
For practitioners, such an understanding will provide
guidelines on how to strengthen and monitor the bond between
consumers and green brands.
Literature review
Our research model is built on the well-established sequence of
effects suggested by the marketing relationship literature, which
167
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
comprises a set of relational benefits that lead to behavioural
outcomes via the mediating role of satisfaction and/or the
higher-order construct of RQ (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002;
Palmatier et al., 2006). The literature review is structured in
accordance with these three building blocks. For each building
block, the conceptualizations and findings of relevant studies
from the fields of relationship marketing and branding are
reviewed, then existing evidence on the green branding context
is presented and research hypotheses are developed (see
Figure 1).
The consumer–brand relationship background
Relational benefits
The field of relationship marketing is rich in literature on the
factors that motivate the development of relationships
(Bendapudi and Berry, 1997; Gwinner et al., 1998; Reynolds
and Beatty, 1999; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995). Within the
marketing literature, the relational benefits approach is one the
dominant theoretical frameworks that explain why consumers
become involved in a relationship of exchange and maintain the
relationship for long term (Kinard and Capella, 2006;
Palmatier et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2017). The relational
benefits approach is founded on the assumption that, for a
long-term relationship to exist, both the service provider and
the customer must benefit from the relationship (Hennig-
Thurau et al., 2002). Gwinner et al. (1998) define relational
benefits as those benefits that consumers receive from long-
term relationships above and beyond the core product or
service performance and are the first to propose a specific
organized typology of benefits, developed within the context of
services. Building on the Gwinner et al. (1998) initial typology,
subsequent research over time has applied and added several
context-specific benefits (see Table I).
In the branding field, research has rather sporadically
identified various benefits that contribute to the development
of the consumer–brand relationship (Keller, 1993; Orth et al.,
2004), without testing a specific typology as the field of
relationship marketing has. According to Keller (1993),
benefits are the personal value consumers attach to the product
or service attributes; that is what consumers think the product
or service can do for them, which can be distinguished into
three categories according to the underlying needs to which
they relate: functional, experiential and symbolic (Park et al.,
1986). Although functional brand benefits are of great
importance because they correspond to the product-related
attributes, as consumers are faced with more and more brands
having similar functional promises (Biel, 1991), they tend to
Figure 1 The Conceptual Model
Satisfaction
Relational
Benefits Relational
Outcomes
Confidence Relationship Word-of-mouth
Self-expression Quality
Socialization Trust
Expectation of
continuity
Altruistic Commitment Cross-buying
Intimacy
Love/Passion
Self-connection
Moderators
Env.consciousness
Relationship Length
 Consumer–green brand relationships Journal of Product & Brand Management
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187

Table I Representative typologies of relational benefits, research context and outcomes

Study Context and design Relational benefits

Relationship marketing literature
Dwyer et al. (1987) Conceptual paper, B2B context Reduced uncertainty, managed dependence,
exchange efficiency, satisfaction with social
association
Berry (1995) Conceptual paper, services Risk-reducing and social
Bitner (1995) Conceptual paper, services Economic, quality, reduced stress, quality of life and
avoidance of switching costs
Beatty et al. (1996) Qualitative research on customers and retail sales Functional and social
associates
Christy et al. (1996) Conceptual paper, consumer markets Tangible (e.g. money benefits, extra service) and
intangible (e.g. social status and self-esteem
enhancement)
Bendapudi and Berry (1997) Conceptual paper, services Relationship investment, expertise and social
bonding
Gwinner et al. (1998) In-depth interviews and quantitative research on Confidence, social and special treatment
customers in three service categories
Reynolds and Beatty (1999) Quantitative research on customers in a relationship with Functional and social
a clothing/accessories salesperson
Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002) Quantitative research on customers in three service Confidence, social and special treatment
categories
Dholakia et al. (2004) Quantitative research on consumer participation in Social, informational and entertainment
virtual communities
Marzo-Navarro et al. (2004) Quantitative research on consumers of fashion retailers Functional and social
Hess and Story (2005) Quantitative research on customers of retailers and fast- Functional and personal (affiliation, meaning,
food restaurants cognitive consistency)
Kinard and Capella (2006) Quantitative research on consumers in two service Confidence, social and special treatment
categories
Palmatier et al. (2006) Meta-analysis Functional, social and rewards
Molina et al. (2007) Quantitative research on customers in the retail banking Confidence, social and special treatment
setting
Dagger et al. (2011) Quantitative research on consumers of a range of Confidence, social and special treatment
services
Gummerus et al. (2012) Quantitative research on consumer engagement in a Social, entertainment and economic
Facebook brand community
Kang et al. (2014) Quantitative research on consumers of restaurant Functional, social-psychological, hedonic and
Facebook fan pages monetary
Wei et al. (2015) Quantitative research on retailers across three countries Confidence, social and special treatment
Braun et al. (2016) In-depth interviews and quantitative research into Social, relationship, autonomy, economic, altruistic
consumer engagement in offline and online contexts and self-fulfilment
Stathopoulou and Balabanis (2016) Quantitative research on customers of fashion retailers Utilitarian, symbolic and hedonic
Ruiz-Molina et al. (2017) Quantitative research on retail store chains Confidence, social and special treatment
Ryu and Lee (2017) Quantitative research on restaurant customers Confidence, social and special treatment
Yang et al. (2017) Focus group and quantitative research on customers of Confidence, social, special treatment and safety
sharing-economy services
Branding literature
Park et al. (1986) Conceptual paper Functional, symbolic and experiential
Keller (1993) Conceptual paper Functional, symbolic and experiential
Bhat and Reddy (1998) Focus group and quantitative research on brands of Functional and symbolic
several product categories
Orth et al. (2004) Quantitative research on consumers of craft beer Functional, price, social and emotional
Lovett et al. (2013) Data set on online and offline WOM and characteristics Social, emotional and functional brand
for most talked-about US brands characteristics as drivers of WOM
de Oliveira Santini et al. (2018) Meta-analysis of 256 quantitative studies Utilitarian and hedonic
Green marketing literature
Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibanez (2012) Experiment on a fictitious green energy brand Utilitarian, self-expressive, warm glow and nature
experience benefits
(continued)

168
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
Table I
Study Context and design
Hahnel et al. (2014) Quantitative research on consumers – car drivers
Hartmann et al. (2005) Experiment on brands of cars
Barbarossa and De Pelsmacker (2016) Quantitative research on eco-friendly tissue paper
products
Lin et al. (2017a) Quantitative research on consumers of several green
products and services
Lin et al. (2017b) Survey on consumers of electrical products, personal care
products and tourism services
value the symbolic benefits which satisfy needs for social
expression and outer-directed self-esteem (Foxall et al., 2004).
These benefits though have not yet been tested in an integrative
antecedents-relational outcomes framework. Table I presents
the most influential studies on relational benefits as supported
by the different research contexts.
As deduced from Table I, overall, the most commonly
identified brand-related benefits fall into the categories of
confidence, self-expression and socialization benefits, because
social and special treatment benefits are lamented to the
specific context of services. These three benefits are defined as
follows.
Gwinner et al. (1998, p. 104) describe a confidence benefit as
“feelings of reduced anxiety, trust and confidence in the
provider”, which involves a desire for the removal or avoidance
of a problem and is regarded as a considerable advantage that
brands can offer to their customers (Keller, 1993). Confidence
benefits not only diminish risk and enhance knowledge of
brand expectations but also represent customers’ desires for
relationship stability (Dagger et al., 2011). Customers who
perceive high confidence benefits are likely to have a feeling of
security and comfort in having developed a relationship
(Kinard and Capella, 2006); further, confidence benefits
increase relationship efficiency through decreased transaction
costs (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002). Peterson (1995) also
identifies consumer beliefs that the risk related to a product is
reduced due to the predictability of the transaction outcome
and the corresponding sense of security, which is regarded as a
considerable advantage that brands can offer to their customers
(Roselius, 1971; Sheth and Venkatesan, 1968).
Self-expression benefit refers to a brand’s ability to use human
characteristics to express the consumer’s image or personality
(Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Kim et al., 2001). Consumers have an
innate drive to define and express themselves through the
purchases they make (van der Westhuizen, 2018). The
theoretical rationale behind the self-expression benefit is based
on the fact that people have a need for consistency, which arises
from an inborn preference for things that are predictable,
familiar and stable (Bagozzi et al., 1992). Thus, consumers
strive for balance and harmony between their beliefs and
feelings on one hand, and their purchase and consumption
behaviour on the other (Mano and Oliver, 1993; Meyers-Levy
and Tybout, 1989); they avoid alternatives that would be
inconsistent or dissonant with their current belief system and
form relationships with brands or service providers that are in
169
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
Relational benefits
Context specific motives towards car use (ecology,
hedonism, finance, freedom)
Emotional benefits (altruistic, auto-expression,
contact with nature)
Altruistic and ego-centric motives (green self-identity
and moral obligation)
Utilitarian environmental and emotional benefits
Utilitarian and self-expressive benefits
line with their beliefs (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995). The work
on symbolic consumption in consumer behaviour further
confirms the role of products and services in portraying self-
concept, increasing self-esteem and aiding self-presentation
(Belk, 1988; Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Keller, 1993; Park et al.,
1986). As a result of their symbolic nature, brands can be used
to support people’s self-image and to help consumers construct
aspirational self-images and communicate a specific lifestyle to
others (Brunner et al., 2016; Davies et al., 2018; Karjaluoto
et al., 2016), which is an important driver of consumer
preferences and choice (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Ruane and
Wallace, 2015). When a brand represents values that are
congruent with the consumer’s belief system, when it
demonstrates characteristics that enhance the consumer’s self-
image and when it is related to strong and meaningful mental
representations, this can be a strong and enduring relationship
between the brand and the consumer (Kaufmann et al., 2016).
Finally, a socialization benefit is defined as a brand’s ability to
satisfy underlying needs for social approval and outwardly
directed self-esteem by providing the consumer with an
opportunity to behave according to social norms (Bhat and
Reddy, 1998; Braun et al., 2016; Keller, 1993). Through the
process of socialization, the consumer becomes a member of
social groups or identifies reference groups that exert a strong
influence on their purchase and consumption behaviour
(Moschis and Churchill, 1978; Ward et al., 1987).
Conformance to such social pressures and influences is critical
for the consumer to be more closely associated with the
reference group (Goodwin, 1987; Park and Lessig, 1977) or
gain social approval and be accepted by the social groups to
which they belong (Kang et al., 2014; Wallace et al., 2014).
Therefore, the consumer behaves according to social norms,
demonstrating congruency between group membership and
brand usage (Bearden et al., 1989; Childers and Rao, 1992), to
satisfy group’s aspirations or avoid the risk of rejection (Sheth
and Parvatiyar, 1995). As a result, brands serve a social purpose
by reflecting social ties, such as one’s family, community and
cultural groups, as well as brand communities (Muniz and
O’Guinn, 2001; Veloutsou and Guzman, 2017).
Consumers are expected to reciprocate positive feelings and
behaviours towards a firm or brand on receiving functional and
social benefits from this relationship (Braun et al., 2016). The
evidence has repeatedly supported the link between confidence
benefits and customer satisfaction, trust and commitment
(Gwinner et al., 1998; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Kinard and
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
Capella, 2006; Ryu and Lee, 2017; Wei et al., 2015; Yang et al.,
2017), as well as their direct impact to loyalty (Ruiz-Molina
et al., 2017), though findings stem from services marketing
literature. The effect of the self-expression benefit achieved
through brand consumption on satisfaction and trust
(Stathopoulou and Balabanis, 2016), brand love (Karjaluoto
et al., 2016) and on the consumer–brand relationship in general
(Trudeau and Shobeiri, 2016) has also been confirmed.
Consumers prefer benefits that can meet their self-definition
needs and that provide social benefits because with multiple
forms of benefits, consumers enjoy positive emotions towards
the brand and greater embeddedness with the brand or
company (Nyffenegger et al., 2015; Wallace et al., 2014; Wei
et al., 2015). Lovett et al. (2013) provide support for the role of
social, emotional and functional characteristics of the brand as
direct antecedents to WOM.
Relationship quality and satisfaction
The mediating roles of both satisfaction and the higher-order
construct of RQ in the link between relational benefits and
behavioural outcomes is well established in both the
relationship marketing literature and the branding literature
(Aaker et al., 2004; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Kressmann
et al., 2006; Nyffenegger et al., 2015; Palmatier et al., 2006). A
consumer’s brand-related satisfaction results from his/her
cumulative valuation of the brand’s performance relative to
expectations, expresses the sum of positive vs negative
emotions that one party experiences with the other party in a
relationship and reflects a consistent satisfaction with the
decision to consume the brand’s underlying service or product
(Aaker et al., 2004; Giovanis, 2016; Nyffenegger et al., 2015).
RQ is regarded as a higher-order construct composed of
several key components that refer to the cognitive evaluation of
and emotional connection to a brand and reflect the overall
nature of relationships between companies and consumers
(Palmatier et al., 2006). Many components have been used as
dimensions of RQ given that many studies provide context-
specific definitions for this construct (for a detailed review of
the various RQ dimensions, see Athanasopoulou, 2009).
Fournier (1998), borrowing from the human relationship
context, regards the brand as an active partner in the
relationship with the consumer, translating every dimension
of the qualities of human relationships into the context of
consumer–brand relationships. This work is considered one of
the most influential studies in branding (Fetscherin and
Heinrich, 2015; Keller and Lehmann, 2006) and was later
adopted by several relationship marketing studies (Breivik and
Thorbjørnsen, 2008; Ekinci et al., 2004; Park et al., 2002;
Zayer and Neier, 2011).
Fournier’s (1998) conceptualization of consumer–brand RQ
consists of commitment, partner quality, love and passion,
intimacy and self-connection. Commitment indicates the
intention to behave in a manner supportive of a long-term
relationship, including an emotional bond with the brand,
faithfulness and willingness to make small sacrifices (Aaker
et al., 2004; Giovanis, 2016). Partner quality includes the
brand’s positive orientation towards the consumer, along with
judgements about the brand’s overall reliability, safety, honesty
and predictability in fulfilling its role (Chaudhuri and
170
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
Holbrook, 2001; Smit et al., 2007). Love and passion refer to the
long-lasting deep affection for the brand and anticipated
separation distress (Karjaluoto et al., 2016; Kaufmann et al.,
2016). Intimacy is defined as a deep understanding of the
relationship partner and is created through information
disclosure and knowledge about the brand (Nyffenegger et al.,
2015). Finally, self-connection reflects the degree to which the
brand delivers on important identity concerns, tasks or themes
and the degree to which consumers incorporate the brand into
their self-concepts (An et al., 2018; Smit et al., 2007; van der
Westhuizen, 2018).
The satisfaction-relationship quality link. As described by
Fournier, RQ is somewhat affective in nature, whereas the
concept of satisfaction is largely absent. However, satisfaction is
heavily used in both the relationship marketing and branding
fields both as an indication of consumer–brand relationship
strength and as an antecedent to loyalty (Aaker et al., 2004;
Palmatier et al., 2006). Although the majority of studies report
a linear relationship between satisfaction and loyalty (Bolton
and Drew, 1991; Cronin et al., 2000; Mittal and Kamakura,
2001; Seiders et al., 2005), past research has also shown that
customer satisfaction does not always have a direct effect on
loyalty, but often works as an antecedent to the various RQ
dimensions, mainly trust and commitment, which may be
better predictors of WOM (Brown et al., 2005; Hennig-Thurau
et al., 2002; Giovanis, 2016; Menidjel et al., 2017; Wei et al.,
2015). Therefore, whilst customer satisfaction is mostly
positively related to behavioural loyalty measures, by itself, it
does not always result in higher likelihoods of retention, longer
lifetime duration and higher levels of usage.
Then, Kumar et al. (2013) raise the question of the role that
satisfaction plays not only on loyalty but also on trust and
commitment over time, during the evolution of the
relationship. Garbarino and Johnson (1999) demonstrate that,
whereas satisfaction mediates the relationship between trust
and loyalty for transactional exchanges, the mechanism is
different for relational exchanges. In the latter case, trust
mediates the effect of satisfaction on loyalty intentions, and
therefore, the effect of satisfaction in affecting loyalty becomes
less central. It may be possible that, as relationships evolve and
go through different phases, the dynamics amongst variables
change, as well as the role of customer satisfaction on all the
other variables (Kumar et al., 2013). By definition, satisfaction
is a cognitive and evaluative judgement, typically regarded as
both a transaction-specific outcome and the basis for emotional
attachment (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). Hence, the
development of satisfaction may be vital during the early stages
of the relationship and may have a positive influence on
relationship stability and strength (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006;
Fetscherin and Heinrich, 2015); whilst, when the relationship
gets established, greater importance is attributed to
commitment and trust (Kumar et al., 2013).
Relational outcomes
Three behaviours are examined as potential outcomes of the
relationship mediators. Favourable word-of-mouth (WOM) is
either the likelihood of a customer making positive references to
the seller to another potential customer or informal
communication between private parties involving evaluations
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
of goods and services (Ruane and Wallace, 2015; Zeithaml
et al., 1996). Research in relationship marketing has long
considered the role of WOM as an indicator of loyalty,
supporting the positive path from relational benefits and RQ to
WOM (An et al., 2018; de Oliveira Santini et al., 2018; Hennig-
Thurau et al., 2002; Kinard and Capella, 2006; Verhoef et al.,
2002). The extent to which the brand performance meets or
exceeds customers’ expectations motivates them to tell others
about their positive brand experiences (de Oliveira Santini
et al., 2018; Nyffenegger et al., 2015). Customers who spread
favourable WOM about a company can become the company’s
best salespeople (Kumar et al., 2013); thus, WOM has received
a lot of attention as a powerful instrument in increasing sales
and acquiring new customers (Popp and Woratschek, 2017).
For instance, Aaker (1991) noted that the real value of those
customers most loyal to an entity stems more from their impact
on other customers in the marketplace than from their
individual purchase behaviour. Moreover, previous studies
have found that positive emotions towards the brand are
associated with favourable WOM, because brand love predicts
active engagement (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Karjaluoto et al.,
2016; Wallace et al., 2014).
Expectation of continuity refers to the consumer’s intention to
maintain the relationship in the future, thus indicating the
likelihood of continued purchases from the seller (Palmatier
et al., 2006). A meta-analysis conducted by Szymanski and
Henard (2001) finds that satisfaction explains a significant
percentage of the variance in repeat purchase (also Mittal and
Kamakura, 2001; Seiders et al., 2005). Apart from research
supporting the positive links between trust and intention to
continue the relationship (Crosby et al., 1990; Doney and
Cannon, 1997; Johnson and Grayson, 2005), the findings also
demonstrate that the higher-order construct of RQ is positively
related to the expectation of continuity (Huber et al., 2010;
Palmatier et al., 2006; Smit et al., 2007).
Finally, cross-buying is defined as the likelihood that the
consumer will purchase other products within the same brand,
because creating value by cross-selling additional services or
products is also an important aspect of customer relationship
management (Roberts et al., 2003). The higher the satisfaction
with a firm’s product, the greater is the probability that the
customer will buy other products/services from the firm
(Kumar et al., 2013); empirical evidence further supports the
positive link between commitment and cross-buying (Verhoef
et al., 2002).
The context of green branding
Although extant research has paid much attention to exploring
the issues of satisfaction, trust and loyalty, these issues have not
been discussed from a green marketing perspective (Chen,
2013; Martínez, 2015). Furthermore, existing literature points
towards the fact that marketing practitioners lack clarity/insight
on the factors responsible for the purchase of green products,
i.e. the core and peripheral benefits delivered by green products
(Narula and Desore, 2016). Thus, empirical studies integrating
antecedents and outcomes of the consumer–green brand
relationship are limited.
A research stream has focused on the drivers of customer-
based brand equity in the green branding context (Chen, 2010;
171
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
Ng et al., 2014). For example, Chen (2010) and Butt et al.
(2017) demonstrated that perceived green brand image, green
satisfaction and green trust positively contribute to green brand
equity. Ng et al. (2014) argue that traditional features of a
brand such as quality influence consumers’ green decisions
suggesting that consumers’ perceived brand quality and overall
credibility have significant influences on green brand equity.
Further studies explored the influences of functional and the
broadly defined category of emotional benefits on the
development of brand image (Ahmad and Thyagaraj, 2015;
Hartmann et al., 2005; Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2006,
2012). For example, Hartmann et al. (2005) suggest that both
utilitarian benefits and emotional benefits (i.e. nature
experience, warm glow and self-expressive benefits) are
important to the positioning of green brands. However,
emotional or self-expressive benefits refer to both the
socialization opportunity and the symbolic consumption
achieved though the green brand (Ahmad and Thyagaraj,
2015; Lin et al., 2017b). On the other hand, Barbarossa and de
Pelsmacker (2016) use solely the benefits of self-expression and
altruistic as antecedents of purchase behaviour. Thus, the
motivations or value that green brands offer have so far been
studied sporadically and separately, as presented in detail
below, whereas typologies of clearly defined and distinctively
operationalized benefits are absent.
As far as the study of the consumer–green brand relationship
is concerned, Chen (2013) and Martínez (2015) attempt to
adapt the concepts of satisfaction, trust and loyalty in the green
branding field and study their inter-relationships. They both
use the constructs of green satisfaction and green trust, defined
as “a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfilment to
satisfy a customer’s environmental desires, sustainable
expectations and green needs” and “a willingness to depend on
a product or service based on the belief or expectation resulting
from its credibility, benevolence and ability about
environmental performance” (Chen, 2013, p. 296 and p. 297,
respectively). Thus, the definition of constructs focuses solely
on the environmental performance of the green brand; as a
result, the findings do not capture the full range of the
consumer–green brand bonding and relationship building.
As far as the measure of RQ and its building blocks are
concerned, to the best of our knowledge, no research has so far
incorporated a typology of relational benefits to explain the
multi-dimensional concept of RQ and its consequences in an
integrated way.
Thus, the following paragraphs present each benefit’s
contribution to the development of the consumer–brand
relationship within green brands and examine the existence of
the recently proposed context-specific altruistic benefit, stating
the corresponding set of research hypotheses.
Confidence benefit
Consumers look for functional benefits when they consume
environmentally friendly products, which reflect the perceived
utility acquired from a brand’s capacity to fulfil the functional,
utilitarian and physical environmental performance (Lin et al.,
2017a). In addition to the feelings of reduced anxiety and risk
due to the standard functional performance of the brand, in the
specific context, confidence benefits entail the performance
advantages that green brands offer, such as savings in energy
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
consumption or extending the life of the product (Hartmann
and Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2006; Koller et al., 2011; Schuitema and
de Groot, 2015). Consumers think of the utilitarian benefits as
an essential attribute of green brands when these benefits
outweigh the attributes of conventional alternatives (Lin et al.,
2017b). Further studies suggest that a product’s functional and
green attributes form another group of motives that influence
consumers’ green purchase behaviour (Young et al., 2010).
Products with favourable functional and ethical attributes and
high quality act as strong motives for buying and are a necessary
precondition for translating positive attitudes into actual
purchasing actions (Joshi and Rahman, 2015).
Self-expression benefit
The literature on symbolic consumption, as presented in
Section 2.1.1 provides the conceptual framework for
understanding the psychological benefit derived from the self-
expressive consumption of environmentally friendly products
as with any conventional brand (Bagozzi et al., 1992; Belk,
1988; Keller, 1993). According to Butt et al. (2017),
environmentally conscious consumers will hold a positive
image towards green brands, to achieve consistency between
personal goals and behaviour, either to fulfil his/her own
standards or in an effort to generate symbolic recognition.
However, in the specific context, literature tends to confuse this
symbolic benefit with the consumer motive to consume
environmentally friendly products conspicuously to display
environmental attitudes or signal altruism and enhance status
and reputation (Ahmad and Thyagaraj, 2015; Hartmann and
Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2012). Drawing the line between the
socialization benefit and the altruistic benefit presented below,
self-expression benefit clearly refers to the need for consistency
between brand’s personality and consumer’s belief system and
for the respective behaviour expressing aspects of consumer’s
personality and portraying self-concept, which is an antecedent
to preference and choice (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006).
Consumers are assumed to purchase green products because of
a strong self-interest in perceiving themselves as green
consumers; thus, green brands may be a relevant way to satisfy
consumers’ self-definitional needs and enhance personal
satisfaction (Barbarossa and De Pelsmacker, 2016).
Socialization benefit
In the case of green brands, consumers may derive a benefit
from socially visible consumption, which enables them both to
demonstrate their environmental consciousness to important
others, claim a place in the social group of environmentally
conscious consumers and distinguish themselves from their
peers (Aagerup and Nilsson, 2016; Koller et al., 2011; Melnyk
et al., 2013; Narula and Desore, 2016). Having a reputation as
a cooperative and helpful group member can be extremely
valuable: such individuals are not only seen as more
trustworthy, but they are more desirable as friends, allies and
romantic partners (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Thus, consumers
are likely to act in a manner that is consistent with
environmental beliefs expressed by social groups (Gleim et al.,
2013), satisfying their needs for social approval and outer-
directed self-esteem (Lin et al., 2017b). Hartmann and
Apaolaza-Ibanez (2012) support that the expectation of
benefits derived from conspicuous consumption of green
172
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
brands positively influences purchase intentions. Studies have
further reported a positive relationship between subjective/
societal norm or reference groups on green purchase behaviour
(Joshi and Rahman, 2015; Welsch and Kühling, 2016). If a
consumer’s green ideology is in conformance with the group
ideology, it exerts more influence on the green purchase
(Narula and Desore, 2016).
Altruistic benefit
In addition to the previously analyzed relational benefits
supported by both the relationship marketing literature and the
branding literature, the present study integrates the altruistic
benefit which can be particularly relevant in the case of green
brands (Lin et al., 2017a). This benefit describes the intrinsic
value that consumers experience when using green products or
services, an individual motivation driven by contribution and a
warm feeling of giving (Hartmann et al., 2005; Sanchez-
Fernandez et al., 2009) that can be seen as a form of altruism
(Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2012) and a consequence of
the moral satisfaction engendered by contributing to the
environmental common good (Lin et al., 2017b; Narula and
Desore, 2016). Thus, this wider benefit of altruism also entails
the consumer needs to make ethical consumption choices
because they feel they have a responsibility and ethical
obligation to contribute (Jägel et al., 2012). Barbarossa and De
Pelsmacker (2016) refer to altruistic motives as a dominant
antecedent of green product purchasing. Limited research has
also suggested that altruistic benefits may be important for
customer engaging behaviour, both in offline and online
contexts (Braun et al., 2016), tested as a psychological benefit
to brand attitude and purchase intention (Hartmann and
Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2012). Moreover, the effect of this benefit on
brand loyalty has only marginally empirically tested, mediated
through green perceived value and self-brand connection (Lin
et al., 2017b).
As far as the linkage of relational benefits to consumer
behaviour is concerned, green marketing literature has
generally supported the role of green brand benefits, i.e.
utilitarian and self-expressive benefits on attitudes and
purchase intentions (Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2012),
self-expression and altruistic on intentions and purchases
(Barbarossa and de Pelsmacker, 2016) and social norms and
reference groups on actual purchases (Joshi and Rahman,
2015; Welsch and Kühling, 2009, 2016). Limited findings
provide support for the effect of confidence and altruistic
benefit on brand loyalty (Lin et al., 2017b). In this work,
applying relationship marketing and branding knowledge to the
field of green brands, it is proposed that a green brand’s ability
to reassure the consumer about risk avoidance, to serve as a
means of self-expression, to enhance social self-concept and to
provide the opportunity to contribute to environmental
common good will further strengthen the consumer–green
brand relationship.
On the basis of the above discussion, the following research
hypotheses are formulated:
H1. The benefit of confidence positively affects (a)
satisfaction with and (b) the RQ of the green brand.
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
H2. The benefit of consumer self-expression positively
affects (a) satisfaction with and (b) the RQ of the green
brand.
H3. The consumer socialization benefit positively affects (a)
satisfaction with and (b) the RQ of the green brand.
H4. The altruistic benefit positively affects (a) satisfaction
with and (b) the relationship quality of a green brand.
Following the discussion presented in Section 2.1.2, it is
proposed that satisfaction contributes to the development of
consumer–green brand RQ. However, the field of green
branding has no context-specific findings addressing the
satisfaction–RQ relationship to present. Thus, we posit that:
H5. Satisfaction positively affects a green brand’s RQ.
Concerning the effect of relationship mediators to outcomes,
overall empirical evidence, as presented in previous segment,
has supported the positive link between satisfaction and/or RQ
and all three relational outcomes in both research fields
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Hudson et al., 2016; Karjaluoto
et al., 2016; Kinard and Capella, 2006; Nyffenegger et al.,
2015; Popp and Woratschek, 2017; Smit et al., 2007). Yet,
these three outcomes have not been systematically studied in
the green branding context, and practitioners lack insight on
the conditions/antecedents that reassure these positive
outcomes of the consumer–green brand relationship building.
Adding to the existing evidence, the study proposes that both
consumer–green-brand satisfaction and RQ are positively
related to these relational outcomes:
H6. Satisfaction with a green brand positively affects (a)
favourable WOM on behalf of the green brand; (b) the
expectation of relationship continuance; and (c) the
intention to purchase other products within the same
brand.
H7. RQ of a green brand positively affects (a) favourable
WOM on behalf of the green brand; (b) expectation of
relationship continuance; and (c) intention to purchase
other products within the same brand.
Moderators
Given the study’s context, the level of environmental
consciousness is expected to have an impact on the strength of
the relational benefits perceived by consumers. As green
marketing literature has demonstrated, environmentally
conscious consumers are more likely to consider as salient the
environmental consequences of their purchase behaviour
(D’Souza and Taghian, 2005; Hartmann et al., 2005; Klein
and Dawar, 2004; Mohr and Webb, 2005; Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001). Consumers who place a high importance
on environmental issues will demonstrate stronger attitudes
and place greater value on corporate and brand actions in this
domain (Pritchard and Wilson, 2018). More environmentally
conscious consumers, therefore, are expected to pay attention
to marketing information relevant to the environmental
consequences of their consumption, evaluate the associated
product accordingly and indicate higher purchase intentions
173
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
towards those products that have the lowest environmental
impact (Grimmer and Woolley, 2014). Pickett-Baker and
Ozaki (2008) demonstrate that consumers who are more
concerned about the environment are generally more aware of
green product marketing and consider it more engaging and
relevant. The more consumers care about environmental
degradation, the more likely they are to purchase products that
are less damaging to the environment (Barbarossa and de
Pelsmacker, 2016). Other research verifies that consumers with
a favourable attitude towards the environment are more likely
than those with a less favourable attitude to possess the intrinsic
motivation to seek out and use green products (Davari and
Strutton, 2014), to buy environmentally friendly products
more frequently (Collins et al., 2007), or buy products from
companies with good environmental performance (Mohr and
Webb, 2005), because the purchasing intentions of consumers
with strong environmental values will be less influenced by
attributes that fulfil their self-serving motives and more
influenced by green product attributes (Schuitema and de
Groot, 2015). Davari and Strutton (2014) provide empirical
evidence that consumer environmental consciousness
moderates the relationship between a firm’s green marketing
strategy and its consumer-based brand equity. Considering the
effects of environmental consciousness from a relationship
marketing perspective, it is expected that more environmentally
conscious consumers, due to their predisposition to evaluate
green brand’s product attributes and marketing efforts more
favourably, are generally more inclined to develop positive
emotions and build relationships with green brands than less
environmentally conscious consumers.
Further, it has been suggested that, as the length of a
relationship increases, customers are more likely to receive
benefits from the relationship (Gwinner et al., 1998). Just as
interpersonal relationships age, so do relationships between
consumers and brands, and so does the impact of certain
relational variables to outcomes of the relationship (Huber
et al., 2010). In more detail, as the relationship evolves, the
consumer repeatedly interacts with the brand and gains more
substantiated experiences that can be used to assess the brand
as a relationship partner (Nyffenegger et al., 2015). At the same
time, the consumer focuses more on the rational aspects of the
relationship compared to the emotional factors that may have
been the focal point in the beginning of the relationship (Huber
et al., 2010). According to Reynolds and Beatty (1999), longer-
term customers score higher on the perception of social
benefits, salesperson loyalty and WOM. Empirical results
further indicate that length of the relationship enhances not
only levels of trust and RQ (Doney and Cannon, 1997) but also
the link between satisfaction and objective repurchase
behaviour (Seiders et al., 2005). Because longer brand
relationships provide more opportunities for consumers to
understand, interact and bond with the brand and see the
brand as part of the self, it is expected that relationship age will
moderate the perceived levels of relational benefits and
mediators and their corresponding links:
H8. The positive impact of relational benefits on satisfaction
and RQ is greater (a) for more environmentally
conscious consumers than for less environmentally
conscious consumers and (b) for consumers in a longer
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
relationship with the green brand than for consumers in
a shorter relationship with the green brand.
H9. The positive impact of satisfaction and RQ to relational
outcomes is greater (a) for more environmentally
conscious consumers than for less environmentally
conscious consumers and (b) for consumers in a longer
relationship with the green brand than for consumers in
a shorter relationship with the green brand.
Methodology
Research context
A field study focused on natural cosmetics, which are an
expanding niche market implementing green-product
strategies in the cosmetics industry, was designed. To select
brands within this industry that are perceived to follow green
strategies, four focus groups of 8-10 persons each were
convened. First, all nationally available cosmetics brands were
presented to two focus groups, with the aim of identifying those
brands perceived to be the most active in terms of green-
marketing strategies. This led to the creation of a pool of green
brands that was common to both focus groups. This list was
then presented to the other two focus groups to select those
brands that score higher in perceived “greenness”. This process
led to the selection of the brands The Body Shop, Korres and
Apivita, which are the three leading natural cosmetics brands
on the Greek market. The first, although internationally
criticized for its green claims in recent years, is still positioned
as a natural cosmetics brand in Greece. Both Korres and
Apivita are national brands that have been well-known
international brands for more than a decade. They both use
natural ingredients for their products and engage, to a lesser or
greater extent, in other corporate activities to protect the
environment. All three companies offer a similar range of
products and aim their communications at connecting
consumers with their corporate brand, not with product-
specific brands. The authors decided to test the conceptual
model against all three brands rather than sampling only one, to
better increase both the study’s validity and the generalizability
of the findings.
Sample
Data were collected from three samples, each composed of
customers at the stores of the selected natural cosmetics
brands. Given women’s well-documented interest in this
product category (Burton et al., 1994), only female respondents
participated in the study. Questionnaires were collected from
14 stores (five The Body Shop, five Apivita and four Korres
stores and pharmacies) selected to represent the greater Athens
metropolitan area. The number of questionnaires per store was
determined based on the target population residing in each
district. To collect the data, trained researchers inside the stores
would randomly approach customers and engage those that
had either been using the brand for the specific product
category of facial care cosmetics for more than one year or had
purchased the brand at least twice during the last year, ensuring
that some kind of relationship existed. And, 50 per cent of the
customers satisfied the criteria to participate in the study, and
the response rate was 65 per cent. This process produced 269
174
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
completed questionnaires for The Body Shop, 287 for Korres
and 292 for Apivita.
Measures
All of the items in the questionnaire were measured on a seven-
point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to
“strongly agree” (7), borrowed from the relevant literature and
adapted to suit the context of this study. When designing the
questionnaire of the study, the authors decided to use well-
established measurement scales preferably in their original
form avoiding modified versions, because application of each
scale in the green branding context would require some
modifications, e.g. slight adjustments in wording, whereas
subsequent modifications are often context-specific. To
measure the confidence benefit, Gwinner et al.’s (1998) five-
item scale was used. To measure the socialization benefit,
Sweeney and Soutar’s (2001) four-item PERVAL scale was
used. The self-expression benefit was assessed with three items
developed by Kim et al. (2001) and two items borrowed by
Bhat and Reddy (1998). Although this specific benefit has
received ample theoretical support over the decades, research
has been mostly qualitative and experimental in nature; thus,
few validated multi-item scales are available measuring the
specific benefit enjoyed by the consumer. Existing scales
measure the extent of the cognitive consumer–brand overlap
instead, i.e. the theoretically relevant concept of self-
connection which is rather the outcome of the specific benefit.
The compound scale had satisfactory indicators of reliability,
convergent and discriminant validity during the pre-test of the
questionnaire. Given the lack of prior empirical research, to
measure the altruistic benefit, the authors used the three items
of Sanchez-Fernandez et al.’s (2009) scale measuring altruistic
value, as adapted to the environmental context of the study. All
of the other scales have been used in prior studies that report on
their reliabilities and validities, i.e. trust (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001), commitment (Aaker et al., 2004), love and
passion, intimacy and self-connection (Smit et al., 2007),
satisfaction (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002), WOM (Zeithaml
et al., 1996), expectation of continuity and cross-buying
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Kim et al., 2001). Consumer
environmental consciousness was assessed by the scale
developed by Einwiller et al. (2006), whereas relationship
duration with a single item, i.e. “How many years have you
been buying cosmetics of this brand?” To measure perceptions
of “greenness”, Brown and Dacin’s (1997) scale was borrowed
from research on social responsibility and adapted to the
context, i.e. “The brand’s products are environmentally
responsible products/[. . .] are more beneficial to environment’s
welfare than other products/[. . .] contribute something to the
environment”. The high scores of the scale (Table II) confirm
that all three brands are indeed assessed as green. Two pre-
tests, each with 30 respondents, led to slight modifications in
the wording of the items before the final study started.
Results
Measurement model
To analyze the data, structural equation modelling with
Amos 16 was applied. All Cronbach’s a values are above 0.7
(see Table II), confirming construct reliability (Hair et al.,
 Consumer–green brand relationships Journal of Product & Brand Management
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187

Table II Construct intercorrelations, means, standard deviations, reliability estimates (a) and AVE
Korres 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean SD a AVE
          
1. Confidence 0.31 0.37 0.53 0.67 0.59 0.59 0.48 0.46 0.65 0.57 0.37 5.5 1.1 0.86 0.58
2. Socialization 0.75 0.30 0.20 0.32 0.41 0.36 0.53 0.14 0.18 0.11 2.8 1.7 0.94 0.83
3. Self-expression 0.52 0.30 0.39 0.52 0.51 0.70 0.27 0.29 0.22 3.4 1.7 0.93 0.70
4. Altruistic 0.49 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.48 0.53 0.49 0.35 5.3 1.5 0.86 0.69
5. Trust 0.64 0.59 0.58 0.47 0.85 0.73 0.48 5.7 1.0 0.94 0.80
6. Commitment 0.73 0.58 0.56 0.64 0.64 0.35 4.8 1.3 0.85 0.49
7. Love 0.77 0.72 0.57 0.63 0.32 4.3 1.6 0.86 0.64
8. Intimacy 0.67 0.55 0.62 0.35 4.6 1.6 0.88 0.82
9. Self-connection 0.44 0.48 0.26 3.8 1.6 0.93 0.73
10. Satisfaction 0.62 0.58 5.9 1.0 0.94 0.85
11. WOM 0.75 0.56 5.7 1.2 0.93 0.86
12. Expectation of continuity 0.58 5.8 1.2
13. Cross-buying 5.7 1.2
14. Environmental consciousness 6.0 1.1 0.91 0.72
15. Relationship duration 3.8 1.9
16. Product greenness 5.6 1.2 0.91 0.80
Apivita 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean SD a AVE
1. Confidence 0.29 0.34 0.46 0.61 0.54 0.54 0.47 0.39 0.55 0.57 0.39 5.6 1.1 0.87 0.59
2. Socialization 0.73 0.35 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.39 0.45 0.21 0.22 0.27 2.8 1.9 0.96 0.85
3. Self-expression 0.55 0.29 0.37 0.44 0.45 0.65 0.29 0.32 0.48 3.5 1.9 0.93 0.72
4. Altruistic 0.44 0.41 0.43 0.50 0.55 0.38 0.31 0.47 5.3 1.5 0.83 0.73
5. Trust 0.60 0.51 0.55 0.38 0.79 0.62 0.65 6.0 1.0 0.94 0.78
6. Commitment 0.79 0.70 0.58 0.58 0.54 0.57 4.8 1.4 0.87 0.56
7. Love 0.77 0.69 0.50 0.51 0.58 4.3 1.6 0.87 0.63
8. Intimacy 0.71 0.48 0.53 0.55 4.6 1.8 0.93 0.86
9. Self-connection 0.32 0.43 0.40 3.9 1.7 0.94 0.80
10. Satisfaction 0.64 0.59 6.0 1.0 0.95 0.87
11. WOM 0.75 0.56 5.9 1.1 0.94 0.77
12. Expectation of continuity 0.57 6.0 1.1 0.84
13. Cross-buying 5.9 1.1
14. Environmental consciousness 6.3 1.0 0.93 0.82
15. Relationship duration 3.5 1.7
16. Product greenness 5.9 1.1 0.93 0.77
The Body Shop 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean SD a AVE
1. Confidence 0.36 0.46 0.49 0.58 0.50 0.49 0.42 0.43 0.58 0.55 0.60 5.5 1.1 0.85 0.53
2. Socialization 0.71 0.33 0.22 0.44 0.51 0.39 0.51 0.20 0.31 0.45 3.0 1.8 0.95 0.82
3. Self-expression 0.49 0.32 0.50 0.61 0.55 0.68 0.31 0.40 0.52 3.6 1.8 0.93 0.70
4. Altruistic 0.42 0.40 0.46 0.47 0.51 0.39 0.37 0.58 5.5 1.5 0.86 0.76
5. Trust 0.47 0.44 0.48 0.39 0.72 0.60 0.43 5.9 1.0 0.90 0.69
6. Commitment 0.75 0.59 0.58 0.49 0.52 0.38 5.8 1.0 0.83 0.51
7. Love 0.73 0.69 0.41 0.55 0.48 5.9 1.0 0.83 0.68
8. Intimacy 0.71 0.46 0.54 0.57 4.6 1.3 0.82 0.70
9. Self-connection 0.39 0.51 0.39 4.1 1.6 0.94 0.75
10. Satisfaction 5.9 1.0 0.90 0.75
11. WOM 0.58 0.59 5.5 1.2 0.93 0.81
12. Expectation of continuity 0.58 5.8 1.2
13. Cross-buying 5.6 1.1
14. Environmental consciousness 6.3 0.9 0.85 0.77
15. Relationship duration 5.5 1.9
16. Product greenness 5.9 1.0 0.90 0.75

Note: p < 0.01

175
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
1998). Each of the hypothesized factor loadings in the CFA
is statistically significant at a = 0.01, and all loadings are
significant and greater than 0.70 (Table III), supporting
convergent validity (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). In
addition, AVE is greater than 0.50 (Table II),
demonstrating adequate convergent validity (Hair et al.,
1998). Furthermore, the shared variances amongst
constructs are lower than the AVE on the individual
constructs, suggesting satisfactory levels of discriminant
validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Relationship mediators
In accordance with the literature supporting the multidimensional
nature of RQ (Athanasopoulou, 2009), the concept was modelled
as a higher-order construct consisting of the dimensions of trust,
commitment, intimacy, love and passion and self-connection
(Fournier, 1998; Smit et al., 2007). All of the proposed
dimensions have high standardized loadings, supporting the
multidimensional nature of the construct. The results also show
that, across all samples, the perceived feeling of love towards the
brand is the strongest aspect of the consumer–brand relationship,
whereas the effects of commitment and intimacy are equally high,
and next, in terms of priority (see Table IV). Finally, trust in the
brand as a relationship partner, compared to the other dimensions
of the construct, seems to be the least-often perceived contributory
factor to RQ, probably because trust in the brand’s overall
performance as a relationship partner may be more important
during the early stages of the relationship (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001). A multi-group analysis was further conducted to
establish the invariance of the second-order factor model (Table
V), clearly demonstrating across the three samples that the
constrained and unconstrained model do not differ significantly.
The finding is further supported by the insignificant changes in the
fit statistics of the two models across samples (Steenkamp and
Baumgartner, 1998). This demonstrates that RQ is a higher-order
construct consisting of the proposed dimensions.
Structural model estimation
The structural model was evaluated following the guidelines
suggested by Gerbing and Anderson (1988). Three models
were fitted, one for each brand. The fit for the structural
model of each sample is satisfactory, as presented in
Table VI. In light of the theoretical foundation, the values of
the overall goodness-of-fit indices and the high level of
consistency across the samples, no respecifications were
made to the model.
Table VI reports the standardized path coefficients, which
allows the testing of hypotheses. Across the three samples
the effects of confidence, self-expression and altruistic
benefits on RQ are significant, with the exception of the
confidence ! RQ for The Body Shop and the altruistic !
RQ link for Korres. Socialization benefit does not affect
neither satisfaction nor RQ. With respect to the positive
impact of relational benefits on satisfaction, only the effect
of confidence is supported across the three samples. The
role of satisfaction as an antecedent to RQ is well supported.
Finally, both satisfaction and RQ, as expected, have
positive, equally high effects on WOM, expectation of
continuity and cross-buying, although with less effect on the
latter outcome. However, it should be noted at this point
176
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
that standardized path coefficients of the satisfaction effect
to expectation of continuity and cross-buying are higher
than the RQ effect, whereas for Korres the link RQ!CRO is
not statistically significant. The results are discussed at the
next section.
Test of moderating effects
To test H8 and H9, we built separate structural models for the
more/less environmentally conscious consumers and the longer/
shorter relationship duration subsamples, and we conducted
tests of moderation to determine whether the corresponding
path coefficients differed. Table VII summarizes the analyses
and results. The procedure that we used was as follows for each
test. We constructed two multiple-sample models. In the first
model, all of the paths were unconstrained between the two
groups. This is the “unconstrained” or baseline model in
Table VII. In the second model, we constrained each respective
path (e.g. confidence benefit to RQ for H1b) to be equal for both
subsamples. This is the “constrained” model. The difference in
chi-square values between the two models provides a test for the
equality of the path for the two groups. Then, pairwise
comparison between path coefficients reveals which paths are
not equal across the two models.
In light of this procedure, consider the right column of
Table VII. For the Korres consumers, the results indicate that
the paths from RQ to relational outcomes are stronger for the
more conscious consumers and those in a longer relationship,
which lends partial support to H9a and H9b because the role of
satisfaction seems more important to the less conscious and
shorter-relationship consumers. As far as the relative role of
benefits is concerned, the results indicate that, for the more
environmentally conscious consumers, the confidence!RQ
link (Korres sample), whereas for those in a longer relationship
the paths confidence ! satisfaction (Apivita sample) and
altruistic ! satisfaction (Korres) are significantly different
paths, which partially support H8a and H8b.
Comparison of relational benefits across brands
Regarding the effects of relational benefits, the results are
relatively similar across the three samples, with the exception of
altruistic benefit: for Korres, the effect of altruistic benefit on
RQ is not significant, whereas it is significant for Apivita and
The Body Shop. To learn more about the differences in the
means of the three groups, a structured means analysis was
conducted in Amos, following Sorborn’s (1974) guidelines for
drawing inferences about the means. This was achieved
through comparisons between the Korres-Apivita and Korres-
The Body Shop groups in which the means of the Korres group
were fixed at zero, whereas they were estimated for the other
groups (see Table VIII).
Table VIII reveals that, when Korres customers are
compared with Apivita customers and The Body Shop
customers, the factor means for the confidence, socialization
and self-expression benefits are not significantly different. The
structured means analysis of altruistic benefit, however,
provides an interesting picture: although the factor means are
not statistically significant when comparing Korres with
Apivita, this is not the case between Korres and The Body Shop
customers (as indicated by the critical ratio values > 1.96). In
the second case, given that the latent mean parameters are
 Consumer–green brand relationships Journal of Product & Brand Management
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187

Table III Confirmatory factor analysis

Items Standardised loading t-value

Confidence benefit: Using this brand’s products. . .

I believe there is less risk that something will go wrong 0.71 16.45
I feel I can trust the brand 0.82 21.22
I have more confidence the brand will perform correctly 0.85 21.62
I have less anxiety when I buy the brand 0.74 19.56
I know what to expect a 0.69 –
Socialization benefit: This brand. . .
Helps me feel acceptable 0.90 37.65
Improves the way I am perceived 0.92 39.88
Makes a good impression on other people 0.90 38.68
Gives its owner social approval a 0.89 –
Self-expression benefit: This brand. . .
Helps me to express myself 0.83 26.36
Reflects my personality 0.87 28.11
Enhances myself 0.83 26.36
People use this brand as a way of expressing their personality 0.86 34.41
Using this brand says something about the kind of person you area 0.80 –
Altruistic benefit
Buying this brand has an ethical interest for me, considering that the products have been
ecologically produceda 0.73 –
The environmental preservation of this brand is coherent with my ethical values 0.98 23.57
Using this brand has ethical value for me 0.77 22.94
Trust
I trust this brand 0.93 32.97
I rely on this brand 0.93 33.06
This is an honest brand 0.77 32.30
This brand is safea 0.81 –
Commitment
I am very loyal to this brand 0.76 20.01
I am willing to make small sacrifices to keep using this brand 0.78 20.80
I would be willing to postpone my purchase if the product of this brand was temporarily
unavailable 0.73 19.65
I would stick with this brand even if it let me down once or twice 0.64 16.88
I am so happy with this brand that I no longer feel the need to watch out for other alternativesa 0.75 –
Love and passion
I have feelings for this brand that I do not have for a lot of other brandsa 0.70 –
If it is about cosmetics, X is my most favourite brand 0.91 22.27
It is a feeling of loss when I have not been using this brand for a while 0.84 22.27
Intimacy
I have a feeling that I really understand this branda 0.91 –
It feels like I have known this brand for a long time 0.87 32.11
Self-connection
The brand and I have a lot in commona 0.80 –
This brand’s image and my self-image are similar in a lot of ways 0.88 31.08
This brand says a lot about the kind of person I am or want to be 0.92 33.15
This brand reminds me of who I am 0.89 31.24
(continued)

177
 Consumer–green brand relationships Journal of Product & Brand Management
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187

Table III

Items Standardised loading t-value

This brand is a part of me 0.86 30.03

Satisfaction
My choice to use this brand was a wise one 0.90 –
Overall, I am satisfied with this brand 0.92 15.93
I think I did the right thing when I decided to use this brand 0.95 16.28
WOM
I say positive things about this brand to other peoplea 0.85 –
I often recommend this brand provider to others 0.96 39.72
I encourage friends to buy this brand 0.91 36.44
Expectation of continuity
I intend to keep purchasing this brand 0.74 21.59
Cross-buying
I would like to buy new products from this brand 0.52 14.81
Environmental consciousness
It is extremely important to me that companies behave responsibly when it comes to social and
environmental mattersa 0.88 –
I think of myself as someone who is concerned about environmental issues 0.87 19.50
I feel I have an ethical obligation to avoid brands and companies that pollute the environment 0.84 17.58
I feel I have an ethical obligation to support the purchase of environmentally friendly products 0.72 15.44
Notes: N = 848, aItem was fixed to 1 to set the scale of the construct

Table IV Validation of the consumer–green brand RQ Discussion and implications

Korres Apivita The body shop As brands are becoming dynamic experiential entities full of life,
TRU fi RQ 0.67 0.62 0.55 to which consumers can talk to, connect with and with whom
COM fi RQ 0.83 0.92 0.87 they can build long lasting relationships (Veloutsou and
LOV fi RQ 0.97 0.96 0.96 Guzman, 2017), green brands need to keep up with this trend
INT fi RQ 0.88 0.90 0.91 by using contemporary relationship marketing strategies. The
SLC fi RQ 0.80 0.71 0.80 contribution of this study is the conceptualization and empirical
validation of a parsimonious model that integrates both
Fit statistics
relational benefits and relationship strength measures as
v2 513.1 490.4 507.7
antecedents of relational outcomes towards green brands, which
Df 142 142 143
have been theoretically suggested in the past but have rarely
CFI 0.92 0.94 0.91
been empirically tested together in a comprehensive model.
RMSEA 0.09 0.09 0.09
N 286 292 269
Relational benefits
Notes: Numbers appearing in the table correspond to standardized
coefficients; coefficients in italic are significant at p = 0.05; TRU = trust, This work adds evidence in support of the experience of the
COM = commitment, LOV = love/passion, INT = intimacy, SLC = self- typology of relationship benefits as an antecedent to the long-
connection, RQ = relationship quality term emotional bonding in consumer–green brand
relationships, enriching our understanding in the green
branding context on the motivations that drive consumers to
estimated for The Body Shop group and that they represent develop and maintain relationships with green brands.
positive values, customers of The Body Shop brand appear to Moreover, this study contributes to the literature of relational
experience significantly higher levels of altruistic benefit than benefits extending this framework to the new context of green
Korres customers. branding and providing validation of the altruistic benefit,

Table V Goodness-of-fit statistics for test of invariance

Constrained model x2 Df p Dx 2 Ddf p CFI RMSEA
No 1,527.76 425 0.000 0.923 0.055
Yes 1,578.77 465 0.000 51.01 40 Ns 0.922 0.053

178
 Consumer–green brand relationships Journal of Product & Brand Management
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187

Table VI Hypotheses testing and model fit 2017; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Stathopoulou and Balabanis,
2016), as brands that encourage consumers to express
Hypothesis Korres Apivita The body shop
themselves are the most likely to be loved (Karjaluoto et al.,
Hypothesized paths 2016). The socialization benefit shows no significant effect on
CONfiSAT H1a 0.63 0.55 0.68 RQ. This finding contrasts with previous studies suggesting that
CONfiRQ H1b 0.25 0.32 0.14 social approval is an important motivation for preferring and
SEBfiSAT H2a 0.08 0.02 0.11 purchasing a brand (Braun et al., 2016), although product
SEBfiRQ H2b 0.29 0.25 0.42 conspicuousness may be an important parameter of the
SOCfiSAT H3a –0.20 0 –0.22 behaviour expression (Aagerup and Nilsson, 2016; Melnyk
SOCfiRQ H3b 0.03 –0.02 0.09 et al., 2013). One explanation for this result may actually be
ALTfiSAT H4a 0.20 0.12 0.07 found in the context of this study: the social invisibility of the
ALTfiRQ H4b –0.07 0.11 0.14 selected category of facial care cosmetics brands (customers had
SATfiRQ H5 0.59 0.37 0.32 to be using either facial creams, face scrubs and/or masks to
SATfiWOM H6a 0.45 0.45 0.33 belong to the sample and participate in the study, all of which
SATfiEXP H6b 0.52 0.49 0.47 are consumed in private) prevents consumers from
SATfiCRO H6c 0.51 0.37 0.33 demonstrating their environmental consciousness to others, and
RQfiWOM H7a 0.46 0.39 0.49 so this specific product category may not reflect social ties.
RQfiEXP H7b 0.34 0.38 0.27 Previous studies also do not support the hypothesized positive
RQfiCRO H7c 0.13 0.18 0.18 influence of socialization benefits on brand attitude and
R2 purchase intentions, as status motives increased attractiveness
RQ 0.80 0.66 0.71 of environmental products specifically only when people were
SAT 0.58 0.40 0.49 shopping or using them in public (Griskevicius et al., 2010;
WOM 0.75 0.58 0.55 Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2012).
EXP 0.68 0.64 0.45 Moreover, the findings suggest that green brand consumers
CRO 0.39 0.26 0.22 do enjoy an altruistic benefit, which is in line with previous
theories that green brand purchases are linked to concerns
Fit statistics
about how consumption behaviour affects others and the
v2 2,197.56 2,033.66 2,167.57
perceived ethical obligation to contribute (Barbarossa and de
Df 868 869 868
Pelsmacker, 2016; Braun et al., 2016). However, its influence
CFI 0.89 0.91 0.88
on RQ is confirmed for only two of the three brands included in
RMSEA 0.07 0,068 0.07
the study (Apivita, The Body Shop), which can be attributed to
N 286 292 269
the strong environmental positioning of these particular
Notes: Numbers appearing in the table correspond to standardized brands: indeed, it has been suggested that brands fully
coefficients; coefficients in italic are significant at p = 0.05; CON = positioned as socially responsible enjoy increased levels of
confidence benefits, SOC = socialization benefits, SEB = self-expression loyalty and advocacy compared to their competitors (Du et al.,
benefits, ALT = altruistic benefits, RQ = relationship quality, SAT = 2007). On the other hand, for Korres, the effect of altruistic
satisfaction, WOM = word-of-mouth, EXP = expectation of continuity, CRO benefit only as an antecedent to satisfaction is statistically
= cross-buying significant. Amongst the three samples, Korres customers
report the lower environmental consciousness mean (Table II).
Thus, for the specific sample, the experience of altruistic
which can be experienced across a wide range of benefit may be an extra offer evaluated positively when
environmental, ethical and social contexts. assessing the brand as a relationship partner, and not a valued
Such a relational approach has not been tested in the green benefit adding to the emotional bond to the brand.
branding context to date. The findings suggest that the benefit Overall, the relationship benefits approach seems to be
of confidence is the most important antecedent of satisfaction effective in developing the consumer emotional bond to the
across all samples and of RQ (Korres and Apivita sample), brand; as the symbolic aspects of the brand provide the
which is in line with previous research (Dagger et al., 2011; opportunity to the consumer to express his identity, reflect his
Molina et al., 2007; Ruiz-Molina et al., 2017; Ryu and Lee, belief system and enjoy self-fulfilment value, which contributes
2017; Yang et al., 2017). From a consumer’s perspective, only if to the long-term bonding to the brand (Fetscherin and
a product affects his/her individual interests positively in the first Heinrich, 2015; Sheth, 2017). As far as the benefits’ role to
place, he/she is likely to choose a product that scores positively satisfaction is concerned, only the effect of confidence is
on green attributes too (Schuitema and de Groot, 2015). The supported. This finding is in accordance to the functional, risk-
insignificant effect of confidence benefit to RQ noticed at The avoidance character of this benefit, which reinforces the
Body Shop sample can be attributed to the higher than the rest cognitive and rational nature of satisfaction.
samples regression weight of its link to satisfaction; in fact, the
effect of this benefit to RQ may be completely mediated via
satisfaction. The self-expression benefit also has a significant
Consumer–brand relationship quality
impact on RQ across all three brands, confirming that this Extending the literature suggesting that RQ is an important
symbolic benefit is a significant motivation for emotional construct for assessing consumer–brand relationships, the
bonding and relational behaviour towards the brand (Butt et al., current research demonstrates its relevance for green branding

179
 Consumer–green brand relationships Journal of Product & Brand Management
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187

Table VII Moderation analysis

Statistically significant different paths
Korres x2 Df Dx 2 Ddf p CFI RMSEA (standard regression weights)
Moderator: environmental consciousness
Unconstrained model 3,511.53 1,775 0.857 0.059 Low High
Constrained model 3,550.44 1,790 38.91 15 p < 0.001 0.855 0.059 CON ! RQ ns 0.31
SAT ! EXP 0.67 0.28
SAT ! CRO 0.63 ns
SAT ! WOM 0.64 ns
RQ ! WOM 0.27 0.70
Apivita SAT ! RQ 0.50 0.67
Unconstrained model 3457.28 1751 0.874 0.058
Constrained model 3478.46 1766 21.19 15 ns 0.874 0.058
The Body Shop
Unconstrained model 3441.96 1736 0.836 0.610
Constrained model 3459.46 1751 17.51 15 ns 0.836 0.600
Moderator: relationship duration
Korres Statistically sign. different paths
Shorter Longer
Unconstrained model 3,558.22 1,775 . 0.859 0.059 CON ! RQ 0.29 ns
Constrained model 3,666.16 1,790 107.94 15 p < 0.001 0.852 0.061 ALT ! SAT ns 0.37
SEB ! RQ 0.36 ns
RQ ! EXP 0.29 4.27
SAT ! EXP 0.59 –3.46
RQ ! CRO ns 3.19
SAT ! CRO 0.47 –2.52
SAT!WOM 0.50 –2.84
RQ ! WOM 0.40 3.71
SAT ! RQ 0.47 0.97
Apivita
Unconstrained model 3,508.22 1,751 0.866 0.059 CON ! SAT 0.45 0.72
Constrained model 3,534.67 1,766 26.45 15 p < 0.001 0.865 0.059
The Body Shop
Unconstrained model 3,383.64 1,736 0.847 0.600
Constrained model 3,399.56 1,751 15.93 15 ns 0.847 0.059

Table VIII Factor mean differences amongst groups

Construct Korres sample factor mean Apivita sample factor mean CR p Significant
Confidence 0 0.11 1.2 0.21 No
Socialization 0 –0.12 –0.91 0.36 No
Self-expression 0 –0.70 –0.50 0.59 No
Altruistic 0 0.09 0.65 0.51 No
Korres sample factor mean The Body Shop factor sample mean CR p Significant
Confidence 0 0.06 0.76 0.44 No
Socialization 0 0.02 0.19 0.85 No
Self-expression 0 0.10 0.74 0.46 No
Altruistic 0 0.49 3.4 0.00 Yes

and identifies how RQ relates to relational mediators, i.e.
satisfaction, and behavioural outcomes such as cross-buying
and expectation of relationship continuance. The results
contribute to the literature on RQ by applying this
multidimensional construct in the specific context of green
branding. This study provides evidence that the proposed
measure is consistent and valid, serving as a mediator between
relational benefits, satisfaction and relationship outcomes.
Regarding the nature of RQ and its linkage to satisfaction,
the findings suggest its strong affective focus, whereas

180
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
satisfaction, as a transaction-specific outcome and the basis for
emotional attachment (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006), serves as an
antecedent to RQ. Brand satisfaction precedes RQ and loyalty,
because many consumers may be satisfied with a brand but do
not become loyal to it (Fetscherin and Heinrich, 2014).
Satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty formation (Menidjel
et al., 2017), reflecting the functionally driven consumer
engagement aiming at receiving utilitarian benefits from the
brand (Kaufmann et al., 2016), but becomes less significant as
loyalty begins to set through other mechanisms (Garbarino and
Johnson, 1999; Kumar et al., 2013). The findings also suggest
that satisfaction is the stronger driver of the studied relational
outcomes, especially for less environmental and shorter-
relationship consumers. Also for the Korres sample, the effect
of RQ to cross-buying appears statistically insignificant and
satisfaction seems to be the only antecedent. These results are
consistent with the notion that the content of WOM and cross-
buying tend to be more about rational brand-related facts and
specific functional benefits than about the emotional
relationship with a brand (Nyffenegger et al., 2015). Thus, as
the consumer brand relationship research is complex and
multi-dimensional, researchers and practitioners need to look
at brand relationships as a holistic construct and study not just
the relationship between one construct and another but
consider multiple constructs and assess how they all relate and
interact (Fetscherin and Heinrich, 2015).
Moderators
Next, the study examined the role of two moderators in the
benefits–mediators interrelationship. Research has demonstrated
that both environmental consciousness and length of the
relationship positively influence consumer intentions to act in a
supportive way for the relationship longevity; however, the
impact of the specific moderators on perceptions and outcomes
of relational benefits has not been investigated. The results
indicate that the effect of satisfaction to outcomes is statistically
significant amongst the less environmentally concerned
consumers (Korres sample). In line with previous findings that
environmentally conscious consumers are generally more aware
and positively predisposed towards marketing efforts of green
brands and express higher purchase intentions (Barbarossa and
de Pelsmacker, 2016; Grimmer and Woolley, 2014; Schuitema
and de Groot, 2015), the results of Korres sample indicate that
the effects of satisfaction to RQ and of RQ to WOM are higher
amongst the more environmentally conscious consumers.
Moreover, as the relationship evolves, the consumer gathers
more interactions with the brand and knowledge of its
performance as a relationship partner (Nyffenegger et al., 2015),
which increases the significance of the altruistic and confidence
benefit to satisfaction for Korres and Apivita, respectively, as well
as the links satisfaction–RQ and RQ–outcomes for Korres sample
(the effect of satisfaction to relational outcomes is statistically
significant only amongst consumers in a shorter relationship with
the brand, which further supports the hypothesis on the
augmented role of RQ as the relationship duration increases).
These findings are in accordance to Huber et al.’s (2010) study
supporting that the functional aspects attributed to a brand’s
products strengthen the consumer–brand tie with increasing
relationship duration, whereas the effect of symbolic benefits
181
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
remains steady. However, the results as to the effect of
moderators are indicative, expressed mainly in the relationships
amongst mediators and outcomes, and need further investigation
within the green branding context.
Managerial implications
The findings on the importance of relational benefits and the
dimensions of RQ provide marketers with the knowledge
required for designing effective relationship marketing
strategies in the green branding context. Brand and
communication managers should emphasize the provided
benefits of the brand as part of their effort to anthropomorphize
it and strengthen the consumer–green brand relationship.
Especially, when positioning green brands, a combination of
functional and emotional benefits works best (Hartmann et al.,
2005); thus, green brands could be positioned as a means for
the consumer to express environmental concerns whilst
enjoying similar to conventional brands levels of functional
performance. Taking into consideration the cost of information
processing and product evaluation, managers need to educate
consumers as to the benefits of green products in general and
build trust with customers to offset the lack of trust consumers
appear to have in green products. Discounted sample or trial
promotional offers designed to enhance consumers’
perceptions of the green brand performance and their personal
expertise relative to green products are examples to educational
communication strategies likely to be beneficial.
Managers should also emphasize the brand’s self-expressive
nature. For example, marketing communications content
could encourage the consumer to “express yourself” through
associations with the brand. To increase emotional bonding to
the green brand, managers should target consumers with
messages that appeal to the inner self. Most likely, one of the
most critical issues in green branding is the reduced individual
benefit perceived by most consumers; thus, the challenge for
green marketers is to increase the perception of individual
benefits by adding emotional value to green brands (Hartmann
and Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2006).
Furthermore, a major way to win the share of heart of
customers is to make brands more meaningful to them above
and beyond ingredients and benefits. In other words, how can
managers market the brand that make customers feel that they
are serving a higher purpose in life when they procure, consume
and dispose of the brand (Sheth, 2017)? The experience of
altruistic benefit offers possibilities for differentiation, as it
serves as an extra benefit to environmentally conscious
consumers in relation to conventional brands: the opportunity
to contribute to a common cause and feel a warm sense of
altruism. This emotional value can be a valuable asset of the
green brand leading to strongly emotionally bonded
consumers. However, caution is required as positioning the
green brand solely on environmental attributes may deprive the
brand of the most significant relationship-building motivators
(i.e. satisfying risk-avoidance needs, expressing symbolic
aspects of the self) for the majority of consumers. In general,
the application of the relationship benefits approach in the
specific context enables marketing practitioners to provide
different value propositions for consumer segments interested
in different benefits, as, except for the few segments determined
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
to buy green products, a large environmentally conscious
segment still hesitates to take decisions regarding the green
products and managers lack insight on the core and peripheral
benefits delivered by green products (Narula and Desore,
2016).
Moreover, given that green brands are already in a maturity
stage of the market lifecycle, building loyalty and repeat
purchasing becomes a top priority; as the findings of this study
reveal, RQ is strong leverage for that. The suggested and
validated multidimensional measure of RQ may offer marketers
an instrument for setting measurable strategic objectives,
enriching the current managers’ toolkit. Marketers should
monitor the construction of consumer–green brand
relationships, starting with repeating satisfactory transactions
and then offering opportunities for trust, commitment,
intimacy, love and self-connection to the brand. Thus, at the
early stages of the relationships, managers should pay special
attention to stressing and delivering the rational, brand-related
performance facts and functional benefits to ensure behavioural
outcomes towards repeated purchases. As the relationship
evolves, managers should use policies to develop consumers’
emotional bonding to the green brand by providing messages
about the green brand as a trusting and reciprocal partner in the
relationship willing to make the extra effort to maintain the
relationship, rewarding consumer loyalty, showing the green
brand as part of the consumer’s everyday life (and social media
are a powerful tool for that goal), and using
anthropomorphization techniques that express feelings of love
and cognitive closeness to the consumer. To maintain
satisfaction and RQ, marketers should constantly track
changing perceptions of relationship benefits amongst target
markets and upgrade value propositions as necessary to retain
those consumers in their customer base. Finally, green brand
managers should invest in fostering levels of environmental
consciousness amongst consumers, because our results indicate
that such an investment would pay off in augmented levels of
perceived benefits and more intense indicators of relationship
strength by customers of the green brand.
Limitations and directions for future research
These findings are limited to the specific product category of
natural cosmetics and to the national context of the study. As
mentioned earlier, the specific context selected did not allow
for the testing of all of the hypothesized relationships, and
especially for the effect of socialization benefit. Thus, the model
should be further tested in other product categories.
Additionally, in the case of environmentally active companies
offering services, the inclusion of other proposed benefits, such
as social relationships with personnel, special treatment and
experiential benefits, are of particular interest (Gwinner et al.,
1998; Trudeau and Shobeiri, 2016). Extension of this research
could study whether and how green brands deliver the various
perceived benefits throughout all brand touchpoints for both
individuals, brand groups and individuals in their brand group
settings, as it has recently been suggested (Veloutsou and
Guzman, 2017). The effect of brand personality, and especially
the aspects of brand sincerity and credibility regarding its
environmental performance, on the perceived benefits of self-
expression, socialization and altruistic would be of particular
182
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
interest in such context (An et al., 2018; Davies et al., 2018; de
Oliveira Santini et al., 2018). Future research should also
extend to testing for context-specific effects. As Megicks et al.
(2008) suggest, when making decisions about socially
responsible choices, consumers’ motivations will vary by
situation, and therefore will be multidimensional in nature.
The role of altruistic benefit requires further testing, validation
and inclusion of other aspects of ethical behaviour such as
human rights and labour conditions (Doane, 2001). Finally,
replication of this work could shed more light on the dynamic
nature of the consumer–green brand relationship, and in
particular, the intensity of each benefit across the different
stages of the relationship development (Huber et al., 2010).
References
Aagerup, U. and Nilsson, J. (2016), “Green consumer
behavior: being good or seeming good?”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 274-284.
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Aaker, J.L., Fournier, S. and Brasel, S.A. (2004), “When good
brands do bad”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 1-16.
Ahmad, A. and Thyagaraj, K.S. (2015), “Consumer’s
intention to purchase green brands: the roles of
environmental concern, environmental knowledge and self-
expressive benefits”, Current World Environment, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 879-889.
An, J., Do, D.K.X., Ngo, L.V. and Quan, T.H.M. (2018),
“Turning brand credibility into positive word-of-mouth:
integrating the signaling and social identity perspectives”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14, pp. 1-19.
Athanasopoulou, P. (2009), “Relationship quality: a critical
literature review and research agenda”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 5/6, pp. 583-610.
Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, H. and Yi, Y. (1992), “State- vs
action-orientation and the theory of reasoned action: an
application to coupon usage”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 505-518.
Barbarossa, C. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2016), “Positive and
negative antecedents of purchasing eco-friendly products: a
comparison between green and non-green consumers”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 134 No. 2, pp. 229-247.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989),
“Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 473-481.
Beatty, S.E., Mayer, M., Coleman, J.E., Reynolds, K.E. and
Lee, J. (1996), “Customer-sales associate retail
relationships”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 3,
pp. 223-247.
Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-168.
Bendapudi, N. and Berry, L.L. (1997), “Customers’
motivations for maintaining relationship with service
providers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Berry, L.L. (1995), “Relationship marketing of services -
growing interest, emerging perspectives”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 236-245.
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), “Symbolic and functional
positioning of brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Biel, A.L. (1991), “The brandscape: converting Brand image
into equity”, Admap, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 41-46.
Bitner, M.J. (1995), “Building service relationships: it’s all
about promises”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 246-251.
Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991), “A multistage model of
customers’ assessments of service quality and value”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 375-384.
Borin, N., Lindsey-Mullikin, J. and Krishnan, R. (2013), “An
analysis of consumer reactions to green strategies”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 118-128.
Braun, C., Batt, V., Bruhn, M. and Hadwich, K. (2016),
“Differentiating customer engaging behavior by targeted
benefits - an empirical study”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 528-538.
Breivik, E. and Thorbjørnsen, H. (2008), “Consumer brand
relationships: an investigation of two alternative models”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 443-472.
Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), “The company and the
product: corporate associations and consumer product
responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.
Brown, T.J., Barry, T.E., Dacin, P.A. and Gunst, R.F. (2005),
“Spreading the word: investigating antecedents of
consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and
behaviours in a retailing setting”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 123-138.
Brunner, C.B., Ullrich, S., Jungen, P. and Esch, F.R. (2016),
“Impact of symbolic product design on brand evaluations”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 307-320.
Burton, S., Netemeyer, N.G. and Lichtenstein, D.R. (1994),
“Gender differences for appearance-related attitudes and
behaviours: implications for consumer welfare”, Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 60-75.
Butt, M.M., Mushtaq, S., Afzal, A., Khong, K.W., Ong, F.S.
and Ng, P.F. (2017), “Integrating behavioural and branding
perspectives to maximize green brand equity: a holistic
approach”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 507-520.
Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), “Some antecedents
and outcomes of brand love”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 79-89.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Chen, Y.S. (2010), “The drivers of green brand equity: green
brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 307-319.
Chen, Y.S. (2013), “Towards green loyalty: driving from green
perceived value, green satisfaction and green trust”,
Sustainable Development, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 294-308.
Childers, T.L. and Rao, A.R. (1992), “Influence of familial and
peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 198-211.
183
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
Christy, R., Gordon, O. and Penn, J. (1996), “Relationship
marketing in consumer markets”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 12 Nos 1/3, pp. 175-187.
Collins, C.M., Steg, L. and Koning, M.A.S. (2007),
“Customers’ values, beliefs on sustainable corporate
performance, and buying behavior”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 555-577.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000),
“Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2,
pp. 193-218.
Crosby, L., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990), “Relationship
quality in services selling: an interpersonal influence
perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 68-81.
D’Souza, C. and Taghian, M. (2005), “Green advertising
effects on attitude and choice of advertising themes”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 51-66.
Dagger, T.S., David, M.E. and Ng, S. (2011), “Do
relationship benefits and maintenance drive commitment
and loyalty?”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 273-281.
Davari, A. and Strutton, D. (2014), “Marketing mix strategies
for closing the gap between green consumers’ pro-
environmental beliefs and behaviors”, Journal of Strategic
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 563-586.
Davies, G., Rojas-Méndez, J.I., Whelan, S., Mete, M. and Loo,
T. (2018), “Brand personality: theory and dimensionality”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 115-127.
de Oliveira Santini, F., Ladeira, W.J., Sampaio, C.H. and
Pinto, D.C. (2018), “The brand experience extended model:
a meta-analysis”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19,
pp. 1-17.
Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P. and Pearo, L.K. (2004), “A
social influence model of consumer participation in network-
and small-group-based virtual communities”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 2, pp. 241-263.
Doane, D. (2001), Taking Flight: The Rapid Growth of Ethical
Consumerism, New Economics Foundation, London.
Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the
nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 35-51.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2007), “Reaping
relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: the
role of competitive positioning”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 224-241.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing
buyer-seller relationship”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51
No. 2, pp. 11-27.
Einwiller, S.A., Fedorikhin, A., Johnson, A.R. and Kamins, M.
A. (2006), “Enough is enough! When identification no
longer prevents negative corporate associations”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 185-194.
Ekinci, Y., Yoon, T.H. and Opperwal, H. (2004), “An
examination of the brand relationship quality scale in the
evaluation of restaurant brands”, Advances in Hospitality and
Leisure, Vol. 1, pp. 189-197.
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
Fetscherin, M. and Heinrich, D. (2014), “Consumer brand
relationships: a research landscape”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 366-371.
Fetscherin, M. and Heinrich, D. (2015), “Consumer Brand
relationships research: a bibliometric citation meta-analysis”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 380-390.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement
error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 39-50.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing
relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Foxall, G.R., Oliveira-Castro, J.M. and Schrezenmaier, T.C.
(2004), “The behavioural economics of consumer brand
choice: patterns of reinforcement and utility maximization”,
Behavioural Processes, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 235-260.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles
of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2,
pp. 70-87.
Garcia-de-Frutos, N., Ortega-Egea, J.M. and Martinez-del-
Rio, J. (2018), “Anti-consumption for environmental
sustainability: conceptualization, review, and multilevel
research directions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 148,
pp. 411-435.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated
paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 186-192.
Giovanis, A. (2016), “Consumer–brand relationships’
development in the mobile internet market: evidence from an
extended relationship commitment paradigm”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 568-585.
Gleim, M.R., Smith, J.S., Andrew, D. and Cronin, J.J. Jr.
(2013), “Against the green: a multi-method examination of
the barriers to green consumption”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 44-61.
Goodwin, C. (1987), “A social-influence theory of consumer
cooperation”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14,
pp. 378-381.
Grimmer, M. and Woolley, M. (2014), “Green marketing
messages and consumers’ purchase intentions: promoting
personal versus environmental benefits”, Journal of
Marketing Communications, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 231-250.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M. and Van den Bergh, B. (2010),
“Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous
conservation”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 392-404.
Groening, C., Sarkis, J. and Zhu, Q. (2018), “Green marketing
consumer-level theory review: a compendium of applied
theories and further research directions”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 172, pp. 1848-1866.
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E. and Philstrom, M.
(2012), “Customer engagement in a Facebook brand
community”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 9,
pp. 857-877.
Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D. and Bitner, M.J. (1998),
“Relational benefits in service industries: the customer’s
184
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 101-114.
Hahnel, U.J.J., Golz, S. and Spada, H. (2014), “How does
green suit me? Consumers mentally match perceived
product attributes with their domain-specific motives when
making green purchase decisions”, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 317-327.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C.
(1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hartmann, P. and Apaolaza-Ibanez, V. (2006), “Green value
added”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 No. 7,
pp. 673-680.
Hartmann, P. and Apaolaza-Ibanez, V. (2012), “Consumer
attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands:
the roles of psychological benefits and environmental
concern”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 9,
pp. 1254-1263.
Hartmann, P., Apaolaza-Ibanez, V. and Sainz, F.J.F. (2005),
“Green branding effects on attitude: functional versus
emotional positioning strategies”, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
He, A.Z., Cai, T., Deng, T.X. and Li, X. (2015), “Factors
affecting non-green consumer behaviour: an exploratory
study among Chinese consumers”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 345-356.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P. and Gremler, D.D.
(2002), “Understanding relationship marketing outcomes”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 230-247.
Hess, J. and Story, J. (2005), “Trust-based commitment:
multidimensional consumer–brand relationships”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 313-322.
Huber, F., Vollhardt, K., Matthes, I. and Vogel, J. (2010),
“Brand misconduct: consequences on consumer–brand
relationships”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 11,
pp. 1113-1120.
Hudson, S., Huang, L., Roth, M.S. and Madden, J.T. (2016),
“The influence of social media interactions on consumer–
brand relationships: a three-country study of brand
perceptions and marketing behaviors”, International Journal
of Research in Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 27-41.
Jägel, T., Keeling, K., Reppel, A. and Gruber, T. (2012),
“Individual values and motivational complexities in ethical
clothing consumption: a means-end approach”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 373-396.
Johnson, D. and Grayson, K. (2005), “Cognitive and affective
trust in service relationships”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 500-507.
Johnstone, M.L. and Tan, L.P. (2015), “Exploring the gap
between consumers’ green rhetoric and purchasing
behaviour”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 132 No. 2,
pp. 311-328.
Joshi, Y. and Rahman, Z. (2015), “Factors affecting green
purchase behaviour and future research directions”,
International Strategic Management Review, Vol. 3 Nos 1/2,
pp. 128-143.
Kang, J., Tang, L. and Fiore, A.M. (2014), “Enhancing
consumer–brand relationships on restaurant Facebook fan
pages: maximizing consumer benefits and increasing active
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
participation”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 36, pp. 145-155.
Karjaluoto, H., Munnukka, J. and Kiuru, K. (2016), “Brand
love and positive word of mouth: the moderating effects of
experience and price”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 527-537.
Kaufmann, H.R., Loureiro, S.M.C. and Manarioti, A. (2016),
“Exploring behavioural branding, brand love and brand co-
creation”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25
No. 6, pp. 516-526.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and
managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and
branding: research findings and future priorities”, Marketing
Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-759.
Kim, C.K., Han, D. and Park, S.B. (2001), “The effect of
brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty:
applying the theory of social identification”, Japanese
Psychological Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 195-206.
Kinard, B.R. and Capella, M.L. (2006), “Relationship
marketing: the influence of consumer involvement on
perceived service benefits”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 359-368.
Klein, J. and Dawar, N. (2004), “Corporate social
responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand
evaluations in a product-harm crisis”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 203-217.
Koller, M., Floh, A. and Zauner, A. (2011), “Further insights
into perceived value and consumer loyalty: a ‘Green’
perspective”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 12,
pp. 1154-1176.
Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber,
S. and Lee, D.J. (2006), “Direct and indirect effects of self-
image congruence on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 955-964.
Kumar, V., Pozza, I.D. and Ganesh, J. (2013), “Revisiting the
satisfaction-loyalty relationship: empirical generalizations
and directions for future research”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 246-262.
Leonidou, C.N. and Skarmeas, D. (2017), “Grey shades of
green: causes and consequences of green scepticism”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 144 No. 2, pp. 401-415.
Lin, J., Lobo, A. and Leckie, C. (2017a), “The role of benefits
and transparency in shaping consumers’ green perceived
value, self-brand connection and brand loyalty”, Journal of
Retailing & Consumer Services, Vol. 35, pp. 133-141.
Lin, J., Lobo, A. and Leckie, C. (2017b), “Green brand
benefits and their influence on brand loyalty”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 425-440.
Lovett, M.J., Peres, R. and Shachar, R. (2013), “On brands
and word of mouth”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 50N
No. 4, pp. 427-444.
Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Assessing the
dimensionality and structure of consumption experience:
evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 451-466.
Martínez, P. (2015), “Customer loyalty: exploring its
antecedents from a green marketing perspective”,
185
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 896-917.
Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M. and Rivera-Torres,
M.P. (2004), “The benefits of relationship marketing for the
consumer and for the fashion retailers”, Journal of Fashion
Marketing & Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 425-436.
Megicks, P., Memery, J. and Williams, J. (2008), “Influences
on ethical and socially responsible shopping: evidence from
the UK grocery sector”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 24 Nos 5/6, pp. 637-659.
Melnyk, V., van Herpen, E., Fischer, A.R.H. and van
Trijp, H.C.M. (2013), “Regulatory fit effects for
injunctive versus descriptive social norms: evidence from
the promotion of sustainable products”, Marketing
Letters, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 191-203.
Menidjel, C., Benhabib, A. and Bilgihan, A. (2017),
“Examining the moderating role of personality traits in the
relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 631-649.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Tybout, A. (1989), “Schema congruity as
a basis for product evaluation”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W.A. (2001), “Satisfaction,
repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior: investigating the
moderating effect of customer characteristics”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 131-142.
Mohr, L.A. and Webb, D.J. (2005), “The effects of corporate
social responsibility and price on consumer responses”,
Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 121-147.
Molina, A., Martin-Consuegra, D. and Esteban, A. (2007),
“Relational benefits and customer satisfaction in retail
banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 253-271.
Moschis, G.P. and Churchill, G. (1978), “Consumer
socialization: a theoretical and empirical analysis”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 599-609.
Muniz, A.M. and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand
community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 412-432.
Narula, S.A. and Desore, A. (2016), “Framing green consumer
behaviour research: opportunities and challenges”, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Ng, P.F., Butt, M.M., Khong, K.W. and Ong, F.S. (2014),
“Antecedents of green brand equity: an integrated
approach”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 121 No. 2,
pp. 203-215.
Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D. and Malaer, L.
(2015), “Service brand relationship quality: hot or cold?”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 90-106.
Olsen, M.C., Slotengraaf, R.J. and Chandukala, S.R. (2014),
“Green claims and message frames: how green new products
change brand attitude”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78 No. 5,
pp. 119-137.
Orth, U.R., McDaniel, M., Shellhammer, T. and Lopetcharat,
(2004), “Promoting brand benefits: the role of consumer
psychographics and lifestyle”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 97-108.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K.R.
(2006), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
marketing: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70
No. 4, pp. 136-153.
Park, C.W. and Lessig, V.P. (1977), “Students and
housewives, differences in susceptibility to reference group
influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 102-110.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnes, D. (1986),
“Strategic brand concept image management”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 135-145.
Park, J.W., Kim, K.H. and Kim, J.K. (2002), “Acceptance of
brand extensions: influences of product category similarity,
typicality of claimed benefits, and brand relationship quality”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29, pp. 190-198.
Peterson, R.A. (1995), “Relationship marketing and the
consumer”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 278-281.
Pickett-Baker, J. and Ozaki, R. (2008), “Pro-environmental
products: marketing influence on consumer purchase
decision”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 281-293.
Popp, B. and Woratschek, H. (2017), “Consumer–brand
identification revisited: an integrative framework of brand
identification, customer satisfaction, and price image and
their role for Brand loyalty and word of mouth”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 250-270.
Pritchard, M. and Wilson, T. (2018), “Building corporate
reputation through consumer responses to green new
products”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 38-53.
Reynolds, E.K. and Beatty, S.E. (1999), “Customer benefits
and company consequences of customer-salesperson
relationships in retailing”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 1,
pp. 11-32.
Roberts, K., Varki, S. and Brodie, R. (2003), “Measuring the
quality of relationship in consumer services: an empirical
study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 1/2,
pp. 169-196.
Roselius, T. (1971), “Consumer rankings of risk reduction
methods”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 56-61.
Ruane, L. and Wallace, E. (2015), “Brand tribalism and self-
expressive brands: social influences and brand outcomes”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 333-348.
Ruiz-Molina, A.E., Gil-Saura, I. and Servera, F., D. (2017),
“Innovation as a key to strengthen the effect of relationship
benefits on loyalty in retailing”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 131-141.
Ryu, K. and Lee, J.S. (2017), “Examination of restaurant
quality, relationship benefits, and customer reciprocity from
the perspective of relationship marketing investments”,
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 66-92.
Sanchez-Fernandez, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A. and Holbrook,
M.B. (2009), “The conceptualization and measurement of
consumer value in services”, International Journal of Market
Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 93-113.
Schuitema, G. and De Groot, J.I.M. (2015), “Green
consumerism: the influence of product attributes and values
on purchasing intentions”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
186
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Grewal, D. and Godfrey, A.L. (2005),
“Do satisfied customers buy more? Examining moderating
influences in a retail context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69
No. 4, pp. 26-43.
Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good
always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate
social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 225-243.
Sheth, J. (2017), “Revitalizing relationship marketing”, Journal
of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 6-10.
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “Relationship marketing
in consumer markets: antecedents and consequences”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 255-271.
Sheth, J.N. and Venkatesan, M. (1968), “Risk reduction
processes in repetitive consumer behaviour”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 307-310.
Smit, E., Bronner, F. and Tolboom, M. (2007), “Brand
relationship quality and its value for personal contact”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 627-633.
Sorborn, D. (1974), “A general method for studying
differences in factor means and factor structure between
groups”, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 229-239.
Stathopoulou, A. and Balabanis, G. (2016), “The effects of
loyalty programs on customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty
toward high-and low-end fashion retailers”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5801-5808.
Steenkamp, J.B. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), “Assessing
measurement invariance in cross-national consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 78-90.
Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Consumer perceived
value: the development of a multiple item scale”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Szymanski, D.M. and Henard, D.H. (2001), “Customer
satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 16-35.
Trudeau, S.H. and Shobeiri, S. (2016), “The relative impacts
of experiential and transformational benefits on consumer–
brand relationship”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 586-599.
van der Westhuizen, L.M. (2018), “Brand loyalty: exploring
self-brand connection and brand experience”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 172-184.
Veloutsou, C. and Guzman, F. (2017), “The evolution of
brand management thinking over the last 25 years as
recorded in the journal of product and brand management”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 2-12.
Verhoef, P.C., Franses, P.H. and Hoekstra, J.C. (2002), “The
effect of relational constructs on customer referrals and
number of services purchased from a multiservice provider:
does age of relationship matter?”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 202-216.
Wallace, E., Buil, I. and de Chernatony, L. (2014), “Consumer
engagement with self-expressive brands: brand love and
 Consumer–green brand relationships
Erifili Papista and Sergios Dimitriadis
WOM outcomes”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 33-42.
Ward, S., Klees, D.M. and Robertson, T.S. (1987),
“Consumer socialization in different settings: an
international perspective”, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 14, pp. 468-472.
Wei, Y., McIntyre, F.S. and Soparnot, R. (2015), “Effects of
relationship benefits and relationship proneness on
relationship outcomes: a three-country comparison”, Journal
of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 436-456.
Welsch, H. and Kühling, J. (2009), “Determinants of pro-
environmental consumption: the role of reference groups
and routine behavior”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 69 No. 1,
pp. 166-176.
Welsch, H. and Kühling, J. (2016), “Green status seeking and
endogenous reference standards”, Environmental Economics
and Policy Studies, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 625-643.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
187
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 166–187
Yang, S., Song, Y., Chen, S. and Xia, X. (2017), “Why are
customers loyal in sharing-economy services? A relational
benefits perspective”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 48-62.
Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S. and Oates, C.J. (2010),
“Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when
purchasing products”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 18,
pp. 20-31.
Zayer, T.L. and Neier, S. (2011), “An exploration of men’s
brand relationships”, Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 83-104.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The
behavioural consequences of service quality”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Corresponding author
Erifili Papista can be contacted at: epapista@aueb.gr