Kautish 2018

Journal of Indian Business Research
Study on relationships among terminal and instrumental values, environmental

consciousness and behavioral intentions for green products
Pradeep Kautish, Rajesh Sharma,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Pradeep Kautish, Rajesh Sharma, (2018) "Study on relationships among terminal and instrumental
values, environmental consciousness and behavioral intentions for green products", Journal of Indian
Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-01-2018-0013
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-01-2018-0013
Downloaded on: 09 October 2018, At: 09:24 (PT)
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:24 09 October 2018 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 217 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1755-4195.htm
Green
Study on relationships among products
terminal and instrumental values,
environmental consciousness and
behavioral intentions for
green products Received 18 January 2018
Revised 10 March 2018
6 May 2018
Pradeep Kautish and Rajesh Sharma Accepted 19 June 2018
College of Business Management, Economics and Commerce,
Mody University of Science and Technology, Rajasthan, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the functional relationships among terminal and
instrumental values, environmental consciousness and behavioral intentions for green products in India in
light of the value–attitude–behavior framework.
Design/methodology/approach – This study adopts a hypo-deductive research design. A conceptual
model was developed to relate the terminal and instrumental values to environmental consciousness and
behavioral intentions, which are substantiated with a comprehensive literature review. Covariance-based
structural equation modeling was used along with Anderson and Gerbing’s two-step research approach to
measure the dimensions of the measurement model, as well as the specifications of the structural model.
Findings – The findings of the research indicate that terminal and instrumental values significantly
influence environmental consciousness, and environmental consciousness has a significant influence on
behavioral intentions. Instrumental value shows a greater influence on environmental consciousness
and behavioral intentions, rather than terminal value. Furthermore, this study discloses that
environmental consciousness acts as a partial mediator while establishing a link between instrumental/
terminal value and behavioral intentions.
Research limitations/implications – The present research is based on two distinct forms of human
values, namely, terminal values and instrumental values. The study found that consumers who favored
instrumental values to terminal values revealed a tendency to frame confused and incoherent judgments on
environmental issues.
Practical implications – The study will help green marketing practitioners understand the important
role of values, that is, both terminal and instrumental values, in promoting environmental consciousness and
behavioral intentions for green products. The findings of the study will facilitate decision-making processes in
relation to marketing for green product consumers in the Indian context.
Social implications – Values are the guiding forces for human behavior, both socially and individually.
Moreover, values have a long-lasting impression on consumers in varied forms. This study will pave the way
forward by contributing to the societal understanding of consumer values within the realms of human values
for green marketing, green consumerism and sustainable businesses.
Originality/value – The paper is the first attempt of its kind to explore the relationships among two
distinct forms of values that are the foundation of human values, namely, terminal and instrumental
values, and their effect on environmental consciousness and behavioral intentions for green products in
the Indian market. The paper is unique in understanding factors contributing to green marketing
beyond consumer values and differs from previous research in specifying the significance of human
values.
Journal of Indian Business
Research
Keywords Marketing, Consumer behaviour © Emerald Publishing Limited
1755-4195
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/JIBR-01-2018-0013
JIBR 1. Introduction
Across the globe, environmental deterioration has long become a matter of great concern. To
address this challenge to human life, the corporate world is trying to initiate efforts to create
better environmental protection schemes and garner green movement sponsorships
(McDonald and Oates, 2006; Rugman and Verbeke, 2000). Owing to these corporate
initiatives, the past few decades has witnessed a steady rise in environmental consciousness
among the consumers and society at large (Adnan et al., 2017; Garvey and Bolton, 2017;
Mishal et al., 2017; Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Sharma and Bansal, 2013; Zabkar and Hosta,
2013). In recent times, the incorporation of sustainability attributes and ensuing green
claims for products has become alluring to consumers who lay emphasis on such values. In
addition, it has been noted that the value system of such customers is gradually advancing
in this direction (Twomey et al., 2010; Nguyen et al., 2017a). The research on green consumer
behavior has gained a significant attention of scholars owing to improved environmental
awareness among consumers (Aertsens et al., 2011; Kalafatis et al., 1999). de Groot and Steg
(2007) studied the relationships between value orientations and behavior-specific beliefs
about the environment in five countries to understand egoistic, altruistic and bio-spheric
value orientations. Because consumers are enthusiastically showing interest for green food
options, environment-friendly products, green orientation (Kumar and Ghodeshwar, 2015;
Leonidou et al., 2010) and sustainable consumption (Kautish and Punyani, 2017), which can
be categorized under green marketing and green product segment, a contemporary
development in the environmental movement is underway.
The theoretical foundation of green consumer behavior (Anderson and Cunningham,
1972; Brown and Wahlers, 1998; Ellen, 1994; Gray, 1985) and environment-friendly
attitudinal framework has its foundation in social psychological research and consumer
value expectancy behavior model (Bamberg and Möser, 2007; Cohen et al., 1972; Vinson
et al., 1977b). An overabundance of researches is available on varied environmental
marketing themes, that is, green consumers (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003), green brands
(Huang et al., 2014), green marketing (Kalafatis et al., 1999), green purchase behavior (Jägel
et al., 2012; Wang, 2014), environmentally responsible behavior (Follows and Jobber, 2000;
Khare, 2014; Kautish and Soni, 2012; Urien and Kilbourne, 2011), recycling behavior
(McCarty and Shrum, 1994), energy-efficient products (Ha and Janda, 2012) and pro-
environmental behavior patterns (Soyez, 2012; Steg and Vlek, 2009).
The value orientation theory proposed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) describes
that at any point of time, human values answer a limited number of global challenges, as the
value-based explanations are limited in number and universally acknowledged, but different
cultures have different dispositions for them. The ever-pervasive and rising role of human
values in all walks of life has motivated empirical research in a number of social science
disciplines, and management is no exception (Jackson, 1973; Nilson, 1992). Pitts and
Woodside (1983) explored that consumer value structures were related to the prominence of
choice criteria for product classes and brands. Consumers purchase decisions are based on
their personal values (Kahle and Xie, 2008; Prakash, 1984). Many of the marketing
researchers have long concentrated on the environmental value aspects of consumer
behavior, which often get categorized as pro-environmental behavior (Dunlap et al., 1983;
Karp, 1996; Schultz and Zelezny, 1999). Pro-environmental behavior is imperative for
environment-friendly green purchase behavior (Cheah and Phau, 2011; Cho et al., 2013) and
is now getting highlighted in emerging countries such as India, along with consumers’
support and corporate efforts (Kautish, 2018; Kautish and Dash, 2017; Mishal et al., 2017).
Mainardes et al. (2017) investigated the relationship between personal values and attitudes
in an emerging market and the intention to purchase organic food.
A number of scholars have shown interest in the value dimensions of consumption Green
behavior, particularly, researchers have recognized the potential and significance of products
personal consumer values (Chryssohoidis and Krystallis, 2005), attitude (Grunert and Juhl,
1995; Maio and Olson, 1995; Paswan et al., 2017) and value orientation toward
environmental concern and its behavioral intention dispositions (Lee et al., 2014; McCarty
and Shrum, 1994; Satterfield and Kalof, 2005; Stern and Dietz, 1994). Consumers may
consider a product bearing in mind the attributes that deliver desired consequences, which
in turn contribute to personal value fulfillment (Kahle, 1980; Thøgersen, 2011). Green
product consumption has been considered as terminal value-oriented, which is categorized
under social values (Kahle, 1996), as it is primarily driven by the societal or individualistic
desire to satisfy a specific necessity (Krystallis et al., 2008) or symbolic gesture or to
accomplish a functional task, for example, recycling (McCarty and Shrum, 1994); however,
instrumental value-oriented consumption is described as goal-driven, which is primarily
motivated by the desire to make affective judgment in terms of environment-friendly and
pro-environmental projection, for example, green product purchases and sustainable
consumption (Grankvist and Biel, 2001; Prothero et al., 2011; Thøgersen, 2011). Ünal et al.
(2017) indicate that consumer values better explain the motivational force behind pro-
environmental intentions than environmental knowledge.
Research suggests that not all consumption experiences and processes evoke the similar
behavioral and value statuses (Xie et al., 2013). Marketing-centered justifications for green
products’ acquisition may not fully reflect the totality of environment-conscious consumer
behavior, and there are counterintuitive views existing to oppose such corporate claims
(Barbarossa and De Pelsmacker, 2016; Barbarossa and Pastore, 2015; Cho et al., 2013; Gupta
and Ogden, 2009). The feelings associated with goal-oriented consumption or in the case of
essential green consumption (e.g. purchasing green products even if they are costly in
comparison to other options) may not be the same as the emotional state associated with
more task-oriented or utility-oriented consumption (e.g. product reuse intentions or recycling
behavior). Wiseman and Bogner (2003) demarcated that environmental values are
determined by one’s locus on two orthogonal dimensions: first, bio-centric dimension that
divulges conservation and the protection of the environment (P or protection/preservation)
and, second, anthropocentric dimension that reverberates the utilization of natural resources
(U or utilization).
In spite of the usual acceptance of the role of values, empirical attention has been
relatively limited to the potential importance of consumer values from the terminal vs
instrumental point of views (Schwartz, 1996; Thøgersen et al., 2016). Still there is little doubt
whether green purchasing indeed is a resultant of consumers’ value orientation and is
environmental behavior disposition centered on human values; if yes, to what extent and
with what intensity does it exist? This refined conceptualization may carve different
sustainable development settings for green marketers and businesses.
Most researches have focused on the effects of single values (Aoyagi-Usui, 2001; Becker
and Connor, 1981), thereby overlooking the complex nature of the value structures (Karp,
1996; Schwartz, 1994) and their holistic phenomenon to bridge the gap between values and
actions (Feather, 1990; Maio and Olson, 1995). On the basis of these reflections from the
literature, some distinction should be made between both forms of consumption values that
differ in perceived benefits. Therefore, measures to provide better understanding for
consumption values, both terminal and instrumental, are needed.
Instrumental value is considered to be more subjective, individualistic and personal than
its terminal counterpart because it stems from an affective judgment rather than a specific
task completion, and its purpose is to achieve some stated consumption objective
JIBR (Thompson and Barton, 1994; Wiseman and Bogner, 2003). Past studies endorse the notion
that consumers put equal weight to the value proposition of the goal-oriented aspects and
the task-oriented aspects of green consumptions (Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000; Noppers
et al., 2016; Steg, 2016).
We must highlight that despite the increasing importance of the environment-conscious
consumer behavior to attain sustainable development in society (Kautish and Punyani,
2017) and the rise of the green consumer segment, researchers have paid meagre attention to
advance the understanding regarding terminal and instrumental value aspects from a green
behavior point of view. Therefore, doing so is the prime thrust of the present study to
advance the knowledge in favor of the green movement. The role and relative importance of
instrumental characteristics versus terminal aspects will likely vary across green marketing
contexts. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how consumers’ value orientation varies
across different backgrounds to aim for a holistic understanding of value framework,
perceptions of the consumer values and their subsequent internal (i.e. environmental
consciousness) and external responses (e.g. behavioral intentions). Some of the green
consumers might greatly value terminal aspects, whereas others might predominantly value
the instrumental aspects of green consumption behavior or experiences. Precisely, there has
been no investigation of whether consumers in the green market are driven by emotional
value or real-life valued circumstances. This study aims to fill the research gaps related to
value orientations, environmental consciousness and subsequent behavioral intentions. Our
purpose, therefore, was to explore the relationships among consumer values (terminal and
instrumental values), environmental consciousness and behavioral intentions for green
products.
The specific objectives of the current study were to:
investigate the relative importance of terminal and instrumental values on
environmental consciousness and subsequent behavioral intentions for green
products;
explore the mediating role of environmental consciousness between consumer
values and behavioral intentions for green products; and
examine the relationships between consumer values regarding green products and
the importance of green management.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Terminal value and instrumental value
Values had been extensively debated and deliberated theme in human life since Aristotle.
Kluckhohn (1951) defined the values as, “A conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an
individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences the selection from
available modes, means and ends of action” (p. 395). Values have been determined as a
dominant force in guiding individual behavior in all walks of life (Rokeach, 1968). Human
values are enduring beliefs that one specific state of existence or mode of conduct for an
individual’s life is preferable over an alternative end state or mode of conduct (Rokeach,
1973, 1979). Oishi et al. (1998) provided empirical evidence that values are related to goals,
individualism–collectivism constructs and self-concepts. Perhaps, Rokeach (1973) made the
first rudimentary distinction between terminal (i.e. beliefs about preferred end states such as
comfortable life) and instrumental values (i.e. beliefs about desired mode of action). In
modern work, utility theory provided the theoretical foundation for the value construct
(Lancaster, 1971). Schwartz (1996) defined values as “desirable, trans situational goals, Green
varying in importance that serves as guiding principles in people’s lives” (p. 2). products
The concept of “value” has evidenced to be a tenacious endeavor for a wide range of
philosophers and researchers in the marketing domain as well (Clawson and Vinson, 1978;
Grunert and Juhl, 1995; Pepper et al., 2009; Thøgersen et al., 2016; Wang, 2010). Human
values are being gradually used as a basis for market segmentation and to explain a variety
of behavioral phenomena such as consumer behavior (Kamakura and Novak, 1992; Scott
and Lamont, 1973). Extent literature proves that marketing researchers have long focused
on the terminal and instrumental values of consumer behavior (Richins, 1994; Vinson et al.,
1977a, 1977b), which categorized utilitarian explanations concerned with expectations of
consequences to means-end variety, such as task-related, emotional and rational disposition
(Zeithaml, 1988). The differences emerge in the state of mind associated with goal-directed
or vivacious consumptions (e.g. purchasing green product for better health benefits or
purchasing recycled products for self-image), which may not be the same as the state of
mind associated with more responsive or mature consumption (e.g. purchasing green
products for environmental protection or showing concern for environment). Terminal value
is considered to be the desired end state, and instrumental values are those needed to
achieve those desired end states by participating in specific tasks linked to it (Vinson et al.,
1977b).
Researchers are continually seeking a thorough understanding about values and its
relationship with environmental aspects (Fraj and Martinez, 2006; Freeman, 2003). In the
environmental marketing domain, previous research predominantly focuses on green
consumers’ goal-oriented consumption perspectives (Fraj and Martinez, 2006; Paswan et al.,
2017; Krystallis et al., 2008; Pepper et al., 2009; Thøgersen et al., 2016). Carfora et al. (2017)
indicated that pro-environmental self-identity of consumers significantly moderates the
effect of perceived behavioral control on intentions and the effect of past behavior on both
intentions and behaviors. de Groot and Steg (2010) proved that altruistic and bio-spheric
values are better predictive of pro-environmental intentions than self-determined types of
motivations. Bio-spheric values encourage active engagement in pro-environmental
purchase behavior by enhancing consumers’ attitudes towards environmental protection
(Nguyen et al., 2016).
Traditional green product acquisition explanations may inadequately reflect the
totalitarian view on green consumption phenomenon. If we assume that consumption
activities are evaluated exclusively on the benefits of green products acquired, we fail to
distinguish several value predispositions that should be examined before we can understand
the green consumption involvement in totality (Aertsens et al., 2011; Aoyagi-Usui, 2001;
Brunsø et al., 2004; Nguyen et al., 2017b; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2008). Extant literature
recognized and well established the notion that food consumption may get affected by
terminal or instrumental explanations (Chen, 2007; Ellen, 1994; Grunert and Juhl, 1995;
Klaus et al., 2014; Walker, 2013; McCarty and Shrum, 1994). Allen (2002) proposed a
cognitive development process by which consumers form product/service preference, as
well as address and/or channelize the human values symbolized by a product/service, in
contrast to the values they possess or endorse. This conception has been epitomized in
consumer studies by the themes of forms of consumption behavior, “attribution-mediation
and consumer choices” (Allen, 2000), “direct and indirect relationships of human values and
consumer purchases” (Allen, 2001), “theory of consumption values” (Sheth et al., 1991),
“connecting product with self” (Walker and Olsen, 1991) and direct and indirect influences of
human values on product ownership (Allen and Ng, 1999).
JIBR The environmental value classification is exemplified as multi-directionality of
dichotomization of protection (P) and utilization (U) values, namely, terminal and instrumental
values (Bogner and Wiseman, 2006; Dunlap and Jones, 2002; Gray, 1985; Kaiser and Wilson,
2004). Thompson and Barton (1994) presented two types of environmental values by
developing a scale measuring both terminal and instrumental values in the form of eco-
centrism – valuing nature for its own sake – and anthropocentrism – valuing nature because of
material or physical benefits it can provide for individuals obtained from the pervasive
consumption experiences. The researchers concluded that divergent terminal and instrumental
consumer value dimensions exist and are very well related to a number of important
environmental consumption variables (Burgess, 1992). Eco-centrism and anthropocentrism
clarify behavioral dispositions independent of environmental attitudes measured with
traditional attitude scales; therefore, research should focus on developing such a construct
(Carman, 1978).
Because environmental values are observed as vital precursors of environmental
behavior (Stern, 2000), the research on these constructs is of paramount importance to
rationalize the behavioral pattern. Bogner and Wiseman (2006) proposed the theoretical
framework of the two-dimensional model of environmental values named 2-MEV. Within

this two-dimensional model (2-MEV), the term value arises from the convention established
by Rokeach (1968) that specifies a set of closely related attitudes that are further revised and
improved in the form of human values (Rokeach, 1973, 1979). In the 2-MEV framework, first-
order factors are categorized as attitudes, and second-order factors are labeled as values.
The first-order factors quantified several environmental attitudes such as care with
resources, intent of support, enjoyment of nature, altering the nature and human dominance,
but the emphasis in the research moved to second-order factors for environmental values as
preservation or protection (P) and utilization (U) (Bogner and Wiseman, 2006). The two-
factor model of the 2-MEV was formalized by orthogonal dimensions, namely, bio-centric
and anthropocentric dimensions of environmental values. They described utilitarian value
(p. 5) as “resulting from conscious pursuit of an intended consequence”; thus, it is task-
driven and rational and may be reflected as work-specific value. Utilitarian value evaluation
is traditionally functional, instrumental and cognitive in nature; it primarily involves the
fulfillment of instrumental expectations consumers may have for the product/service and
are a means to an end often equated with rational motives. In similar lines of work, Stern
(2000) proposed classification of impact-oriented and intent-oriented behavior research
framework with theoretical explanation of value–belief–norm theory.
While envisaging about environmental value framework, marketers focus on terminal
aspects as well to appraise consumers’ snowballing desire for environmental protection,
with research concentrating on investigating the protection and preservation side of
environmental marketing (Albayrak et al., 2013; Barbarossa and De Pelsmacker, 2016;
Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem, 2013). Recent marketing research focuses on the
preservation and protection aspects of the green consumption experiences, such as the
affective response of environmental marketing or sustainable development (Freeman, 2003;
Gatersleben et al., 2002; Harland et al., 1999; Steg, 2016). Similar to the assertions of Allen
et al. (2002, p. 117), terminal value can be defined as being “more subjective and personal
than its utilitarian counterpart and resulting more from affective response, symbolic
meanings, and affective judgment.” Terminal value evaluation is more affective in nature
rather than cognitive. Terminal values are non-instrumental, experiential and based on more
of affective attributes. The nature of terminal values reflects a sense of achievement of pre-
specified goal.
Solomon (1983) claims that the subjective experience imparted by any consumption Green
decision for products substantially contributes to the consumers’ formation of social reality, products
self-concept and behavior pattern. Clearly, instrumental and terminal values are considered
fundamental to understand consumers’ evaluations of the consumption experience because
they maintain a basic underlying presence across pro-environmental and green
consumption phenomena (Aoyagi-Usui, 2001; Cheah and Phau, 2011; Kahle, 1996; Kahle and
Xie, 2008; Karp, 1996; Stern et al., 1995; Stern et al., 1997). Taken together, these two value
magnitudes may direct an assessment of the worth of environmentally oriented
consumption activity, signifying an inclusive representation of the consumer values (Dietz
et al., 2005; Harland et al., 1999). Thus, in the current study, we adopted this two-dimensional
conceptualization of consumer value as the foundation of the research: The first dimension
is an instrumental or utilitarian dimension resulting from task aspects, and the second is a
terminal dimension derived from the affective perspective (Bogner and Wiseman, 2006;
Wiseman and Bogner, 2003).
2.2 Value, environmental consciousness and behavioral intentions for green products
Customer value management is a strategic marketing tool for identifying the factors driving
the purchase decision and quantifying the relative importance of these factors to the buying
decision and establishing the relative performance of the competitors in the market (Gale,
1994; Li, 2009; Nguyen et al., 2017b). Several researches have validated the noteworthy
relationship among value, environmental consciousness and behavioral intentions in green
and environmental marketing domain (Ahn et al., 2012; Chan, 2001; Grunert and Juhl, 1995;
Mishal et al., 2017). Environmental consciousness is a complex disposition of values
(Balderjahn, 1988), affective responses (Jansson et al., 2010), personality characteristics and
attitudinal discourse (Cornwell and Schwepker, 1995; Kumar et al., 2017; Lee and Holden,
1999; Rice et al., 1996; Roberts and Bacon, 1997) and is an integral part of social
consciousness (Anderson and Cunningham, 1972; Balderjahn, 1988; Schlegelmilch et al.,
1996; Schwepkar and Cornwell, 1991; Zabkar and Hosta, 2013). Zelezny and Schultz (2000)
defined environmental consciousness as “an element of belief system denotes to specific
psychological influences related to individuals’ tendency to engage in pro-environmental
behaviours”. Lee and Holden (1999) confirmed two independent determinants of
environmental behavior: first, motivation based on internal responses of distress and,
second, motivation based on empathy. Nguyen et al. (2017a) provided the notion that
consumers’ altruistic values tend to positively influence personal norms, environmental
attitudes and subjective norms that alleviate perceived barriers. Environmental
consciousness variables, that is, environmental knowledge, attitudinal components and
behavior, are predictors of green purchasing behavior (Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Schwepkar
and Cornwell, 1991). Zabkar and Hosta (2013) proposed an extended gap model of
environment-conscious consumer behavior between willingness to act and actual
environmental friendly behavior by addressing the moderating role of pro-social status. On
the basis of the inferences of these studies, intentions may be described as a stated likelihood
to purchase environment-friendly products and recommend green products to family,
friends and others in the future.
In recent years, consumer values gained distinct attention as a significant construct in
predicting environment-conscious consumer behavior or green purchase behavior (Boeve-de
Pauw and Van Petegem, 2013; Cheah and Phau, 2011; Ha and Janda, 2012; Khare, 2014). At
the same time, numerous researchers approve that value has a significant influence on
environmental consciousness and behavioral intentions for green products (Aertsens et al.,
2011; Asif et al., 2018; Klaus et al., 2014; Krystallis et al., 2008; Schlegelmilch et al., 1996;
JIBR Urien and Kilbourne, 2011; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2008; Wang, 2014). Urien and Kilbourne
(2011) found that customers’ generativity and self-enhancement values are positive and
direct antecedents of eco-friendly intentions and environmentally responsible consumption
behavior. Consumers’ individualistic and societal value factors influence the likelihood of
organic food purchasing behavior and organic food related beliefs, which exemplify the
behavioral intentions (Hur et al., 2015; Krystallis et al., 2008). Additionally, while
investigating the relationships between consumers’ characteristics, that is, internal locus of
control and social influence factors, for example, collectivism values (Kautish, 2015;
Frondizi, 1971; Wang, 2014), it was found that they affect green purchase behavioral
intentions. Vermeir and Verbeke (2008) analyzed the role of individual characteristics such
as confidence and values related to sustainable products on sustainable consumption
intention. Their findings suggested that attitudes, perceived behavioral control and social
norms significantly influence behavioral intentions and sustainable food consumption. Chen
and Lobo posit that consumers’ beliefs and attitudes toward the organic food purchase have
influenced pre-purchase evaluation, and pre-purchase evaluation has impacted the
behavioral intention of existing and potential consumers.
A variety of illustrious theories have been developed in the form of the theory of reasoned
action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985;
Ajzen, 1991). With the help of these theories, a number of models have been developed in
varied contexts to explain the relationship among user beliefs, attitudes and behavioral
intentions (Kalafatis et al., 1999; Gao et al., 2016; Han, 2015; Harland et al., 1999; Mancha and
Yoder, 2015; Vermeir, and Verbeke, 2008). Ample empirical evidences are available to
establish a positive relationship between environmental consciousness and behavioral
intentions (Wang, 2014; Bhuian and Sharma, 2017; Chen, 2007; Chen and Chang, 2012;
Walker, 2013; Schwepkar and Cornwell, 1991). According to Suki (2016), green brand
knowledge was found to be most significant determinant of green purchase intention, and
the impact consumers’ attitude had toward green brands. Chen (2007) examined the
moderating effects of the involvement on consumers’ intentions to purchase organic food.
The findings indicated that high levels of involvement increase customers’ intentions to
purchase and affects food choice motives along with consumers’ attitude toward organic
food. In contrast, some counter arguments are also existing that green consumers are more
likely not to indulge in green purchasing owing to higher price and unavailability of green
products (Barbarossa and Pastore, 2015; Kautish, 2013). In the context of pro-environmental
initiatives, Walker (2013) found that improving environmental consciousness and green
management practices expand societal welfare intentions such as donations. Pickett-Baker
and Ozaki (2008) found that pro-environmental values influence consumer confidence in the
performance of green products. Likewise, while investigating the importance of green
perceived value and green perceived risk in environmental marketing, Chen and Chang
(2012) also evidenced the significant impact of green perceived value on green perceived
trust and green purchase intentions. Koller et al. (2011) provide another insight on
behavioral intentions and the relationship between perceived value and consumer loyalty.
The impacts of environmental belief were also examined on green purchase intentions and,
inter alia, the influence of price, quality and demographic characteristics (D’Souza et al.,
2007; Yin et al., 2010). These findings support the significant link between environmental
consciousness and green purchase intentions.
Allen (2002) and Allen et al. (2002) conducted research to comprehend the notions of
functional approach to terminal and instrumental values and account for outcomes of value–
attitude–behavior system in consumer behavioral domain. The study supported a functional
approach by suggesting that psychological functions are not limited to attitudes or values but
span an array of the value–attitude–behavior system. The findings propose that consumers Green
may relate to products in two ways: first, the product’s intrinsic qualities, which is a means to products
an end and the ability to control the environment and second, how the product can be used as a
vehicle for self-expression and/or self-consistency needs (Perkins and Reynolds, 1988) These
clearly demarcate the terminal and instrumental characteristics of the consumer values.
In this context, analysis of variance (ANOVA) test showed that terminal and
instrumental values positively affected product meaning, product attitudes, value relevance
and judgment type. Categorically, the study found mixed strengths in the relative
importance of terminal and instrumental values on consumer choice for a given situation.
The ANOVA test resulted in a significant focal effect for value group, and post hoc t-tests
confirmed that consumers that favor instrumental to terminal values have stronger
instrumental attitudes. Thus, marketing managers can build upon the functional approach
to the value–attitude–behavior system by developing terminal or instrumental promotional
materials for green products. The most influentially effective terminal and instrumental
advertisements would match the promotional strategy to each consumer’s approach
towards green products.
On the basis of the literature review, quite apparently, several key issues emerge in the
context of green marketing. There is sufficient evidence available for a noteworthy causal
relationship among consumer value disposition (terminal and instrumental), environmental
consciousness and behavioral intentions for green products. With the perceived relative
importance of terminal and instrumental values about green products proposed in literature,
instrumental value is likely to have a stronger influence on both environmental
consciousness and behavioral intentions than terminal value because consumers in green
product industry still opined green product as premium offering in the market. To fill the
research gap identified, we postulate the following hypotheses on the basis of two-factor
consumer value (terminal and instrumental) disposition, which will suffice for the purpose:
H1. Consumer values have a positive and significant impact on environmental
consciousness for green products.
H1a. Terminal value has a positive and significant impact on environmental
H1b. Instrumental value has a positive and significant impact on environmental
H2. Consumer values have a positive and significant impact on behavioral intentions
for green products.
H2a. Terminal value has a positive and significant impact on behavioral intentions for
green products.
H2b. Instrumental value has a positive and significant impact on behavioral intentions
for green products.
H3. Environmental consciousness has a positive and significant impact on behavioral
intentions for green products.
H4. Instrumental value has a stronger influence on environmental consciousness than
terminal value for green products.
H5. Instrumental value has a stronger influence on behavioral intentions than terminal
value for green products.
JIBR 3. Methodology
3.1 Construct operationalization
We used the survey method to test the theoretical model. A survey instrument was
developed by identifying suitable measurements from a comprehensive literature review
and on the basis of some of the existing scales from previous studies. Multi-item scales were
used to measure the study constructs. The scale items comprised terminal and instrumental
values (Beatty et al., 1985; Kamakura and Mazzon, 1991; Munson and McQuarrie, 1988),
environmental consciousness (Mishal et al., 2017; Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Sharma and
Bansal, 2013) and behavioral intentions (Coleman et al., 2011; Ha and Janda, 2012; Khare,
2015; Kim and Chung, 2011; Mostafa, 2006). Some modifications were made to the existing
scales to increase its relevance for the study. Additionally, the survey was carefully
reviewed by three professors specialized in the area of marketing and familiar with the topic
of this study, green marketing in particular. Table I displays the questions used for the
study. The respondents were asked to rate 18 items using a seven-point Likert-type scale
(1 = extremely disagree; 7 = extremely agree). The measurement of consumer values
regarding green products was assessed using five terminal and four instrumental items. For
example, one measure of terminal value was “consuming green product was pleasant and
satisfactory.” One measure of instrumental value was “consuming green product was logical
and reasonable.” Environmental consciousness was assessed using four items, example is “I
believe consuming green product is really good for environment.” Respondents were asked
to provide answers to three questions to assess green purchasing intentions; example is “I
would definitely like to purchase green products.” Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were higher
than 0.70, indicating an acceptable level of reliability (Hair et al., 2006).
3.2 Sampling design and data collection

To intensify robustness of the study, we followed two-stage sampling method (Mishal et al.,
2017). The procedure began with an explanation of the environment-friendly segment with a
view to fulfill the objectives of the study. The first stage was random selection schedule,
which included the basic socio-demographic information and two questions to check the
level of awareness about environmental degradation and green products. For the second
stage, respondents were selected on the basis of convenience sampling method, which is
widely used in similar kind of studies (Cheah and Phau, 2011; Mostafa, 2006; Punyatoya,
2015; Schlegelmilch et al., 1996). The participants were provided a short summary of the
purpose of the study before filling the questionnaire. Moreover, a small incentive (e.g. a free
calculator) was offered to the survey participants as a token of appreciation. We conducted
the survey between July and August 2017. A total of 414 responses were collected, but 396
responses were finally used in the data analysis after removing the incomplete responses.
Never the less, to minimize the risk of possible social desirability bias, a few provisions were
undertaken (Paulhus, 2002). We formally tested for response bias following the procedure
that includes comparing the responses received in the early and late rounds. In addition,
t-tests revealed no significant difference between them (Oppenheim, 1966).
A two-step procedure was used to analyze the data (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). In the
first step, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to determine whether the
measurement variables reliably reflected the hypothesized latent variables. In the second
step, structural equation modeling (SEM) was confirmed with latent variables to ensure the
adequacy of the constructs of the model and, at the end, to evaluate the hypotheses through
AMOS 8 software. SEM analysis involves a simultaneous evaluation of multiple variables
and relationships. The present research is based on covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), which
encompasses a maximum likelihood procedure to minimize the difference between the
Measurement scale Questions/items Mean SD
Green
products
Terminal value I purchase green products so I could feel good 4.28 1.24
for health and life
Adapted from Beatty et al. (1985), Green products purchase is easy and soothing 5.44 1.05
Kamakura and Mazzon (1991), for me
Munson and McQuarrie (1988) Consuming green product was pleasant and 4.98 1.14
satisfactory
Use of green products make me happy for 4.17 1.22
myself
Although the cost of green product is higher still 5.46 1.29
I like to have it
Instrumental value Green products are convenient to use and 5.23 1.03
consume
Adapted from Beatty et al. (1985), Consuming green product is logical and 4.74 1.12
Kamakura and Mazzon, (1991), reasonable for us
Munson and McQuarrie (1988) It was a waste of money to invest in green 2.88 1.35
products
Green products were convenient to digest and 5.74 1.07

good for health
Green products quality was very good for 4.96 1.13
cooking
Environmental consciousness I am pleased to purchase green products 5.43 1.04
Adapted from Mishal et al. (2017), I believe consuming green product is really good 5.66 1.08
Schlegelmilch et al. (1996), Sharma for environment
and Bansal (2013), Wimmer (1992) Overall feeling I get about green products is 5.30 1.20
always satisfying
Overall feeling I get about green products put 5.26 1.12
me in environmentally safe mode
I really feel good about green products 5.28 1.09
Behavioral intentions I would like to continue purchasing green 5.86 1.16
products in future as well Table I.
Adapted from I would recommend the green products to my 5.89 1.12 Descriptive
Coleman et al. (2011), Ha and Janda friends and/or others
(2012), Khare (2015), Kim and I would like to increase purchase/use of green 5.25 1.17
statistical
Chung (2011), Mostafa (2006) products for me information about
questions/scale items
Note: SD = Standard deviation used in the study
observed and estimated covariance matrices, as opposed to maximize the explained

variance in case of partial least-square-based SEM (PLS-SEM). CB-SEM is considered to be
appropriate for CFA of conceptually developed models, and PLS-SEM is more suitable for
exploratory work in determining and evaluating causal relationships among research
variables (Hair et al., 2012; Hwang et al., 2010; Reinartz et al., 2009). Normally, in the studies
wherein the issues pertaining to psychometric analysis such as attitudes and purchase
intentions are researched, CB-SEM is the widely accepted form of SEM (Chin et al., 2008;
Hoelter, 1983). The terminal value and instrumental value were predictor variables, and
environmental consciousness and behavioral intention were criterion variables in the
analysis. In the present study, we analyzed the indirect effect based on the product of
coefficient involving paths in the path model and that mediated by specific intervening
variables (Bollen, 1987; Fox, 1980, 1985). Thus, the Sobel test (1982; 1988) was used to test
the mediating role of environmental consciousness for the linkage between terminal value
and/or instrumental value and behavioral intentions for SEM model. Stone and Sobel (1990)
JIBR examined the robustness of estimates of total indirect effects in covariance structure models
estimated by maximum likelihood procedure in sample sizes from 50 to 800 to apply the
large sample theory; results suggested a sample size of 200 or more for the recursive model
(Fritz and MacKinnon, 2007).
3.3 Sample and procedure

The respondents in the current study were individual consumers in Jaipur, India. The
descriptive statistics for the sample indicated that 51.6 per cent of the respondents were
male and 48.4 per cent were female. While approximately 7.5 per cent of the respondents
specified that they had purchased green products fewer than five times over the past three
months, 32.5 per cent purchased green products fewer than at least three times over the past
three months. In particular, more than 45 per cent had purchased green products more than
eight times, or at least once a month over the past six months. It was obvious that the
sample was formed by individuals above 18 years of age, conversant with green products
and empowered to take decisions for choosing the green items among many of the available
varieties and hence considerate to the environmental concerns in behavioral and green
purchase intentions.
4. Results
4.1 Data screening and analytical procedures
Prior to analyzing the dataset, data screening was conducted using SPSS 20.0 software.
SPSS software was used for collinearity assessment of the structural model (Hair et al.,
2006), and the details of the same are provided in Table II. There is no problem of
multicollinearity existing, as the values of tolerance are above the threshold of 0.2 and all
the values of VIF are below the threshold of 5. In the analytical procedure, the effective
use of p < 0.001 criterion for Mahalanobis distance detected four multivariate outliers
[Mahalanobis’s D (19) > 43.83, p < 0.001]. Consequently, the extreme outliers were
removed from the concluding analysis because they could have adversely affected the
overall results of the study, owing its threat to the reliability or validity of the final scale.
Furthermore, results of assumption evaluations indicated that few variables were
significantly and negatively skewed. Thus, these variables were transformed using a
square root transformation to reduce skewness and moderate normality (Kenny and
McCoach, 2003). Because the data normality was confirmed, CB-SEM was applied. To be
sure on the nature of data, whether it was a common factor or composite-based, Iacobucci
(2010) emphasizes to consider standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), which is
more sensitive to model misspecification than to sample size or violations of distribution
assumptions. Thus, if SRMR is not as low as within the specified range, the increase is a
clear indicator that something is erroneous with the measurement and/or structural
Environmental consciousness as dependent

Behavioral intentions as dependent variable variable
Constructs Tolerance VIF Constructs Tolerance VIF
Instrumental value 0.585 1.7 Terminal value 0.572 1.7

Terminal value 0.556 2.4 Instrumental 0.547 1.8
Table II. value
Assessment of Environmental 0.568 1.9
multicollinearity consciousness
models (Hu and Bentler, 1999, p. 27). In the subsequent step, reliability test was Green
performed to ascertain the internal consistency and dimensionality of the measurement products
to judge the internal homogeneity existing among the scale items for the study.
Coefficient alpha values for the constructs ranged from 0.75 to 0.92. Each construct
yielded the following reliabilities: terminal value = 0.80, instrumental value = 0.75,
environmental consciousness = 0.89 and behavioral intentions = 0.92. These values were
well above 0.70 levels suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), which indicates
internal consistency of the scale items.
4.2 Measurement model

Prior to test, the model with SEM, a measurement model, was evaluated using SPSS AMOS
8 software. The modification index (MI) was applied to refine the model. We considered
MI > 9 as an evidence of fitting problem, and theoretical acceptability of modifications was
assessed; measurement errors leading to a considerable improvement of the model
adjustment were correlated. All the research items were subject to CFA with a four-factor
measurement model using maximum likelihood estimation. The fit statistics/indices showed
that measurement model fit the data fairly well to go ahead in analyses. However, the chi-
square for the measurement model was significant ( x 2 = 258.27, df = 96, p < 0.001),
revealing a poor model. Nevertheless, as the chi-square test tends to be large in large
samples, so the chi-square is N1 times the minimum value of the fit function (Jöreskog,
1993, p.309). The x 2/df value of 2.69 was within acceptable range from 2 to 5 (MacCallum
et al., 1999; Marsh et al., 1988, 1998). Moreover, other fit indices were acceptable (RMSEA =
0.051; SRMR = 0.05; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; NFI = 0.97). We estimated another fit measure,
SRMR, as “badness-of-fit” measure was found to be 0.05, which was much below the
recommended level of 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1998; Iacobucci, 2010); thus, we can determine
that the data were appropriate for further analyses (Kline, 2011; Sarstedt et al., 2016).
However, standardized factor loading of one item in the instrumental value did not meet the
minimum criterion of 0.40 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), so the aforesaid item (i.e. it was not a
good decision to buy green products) was removed to increase reliability for the scale and
decrease measurement error (Fabrigar et al., 1999; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). After
excluding the item, the remaining 15 items were subject to CFA. Model fit for CFA was
acceptable ( x 2 = 212.86, df = 83, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.058; SRMR = 0.05; CFI = 0.99;
TLI = 0.98; NFI = 0.99). Now the model was significantly improved because chi-square
difference between the first and second CFA models was significant (D x 2 = 44.40, Ddf = 14,
p < 0.001). All standardized factor loadings exceeded the minimum criterion of 0.40 and so
were found acceptable (Bentler, 1990; Fabrigar et al., 1999; Hu and Bentler, 1999).
Composite reliability for each construct was analyzed. Table III presents that the
composite reliability for the construct had acceptable level, ranging from 0.75 to 0.92
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Hu and Bentler, 1995). Further, average variance extracted (AVE)
was also calculated with Fornell and Larcker’s index. Though the AVE value for the
instrumental value was slightly above 0.50, for terminal value, environmental consciousness
and green purchase intentions were well above the recommended level of 0.50, precisely
supporting the convergent validity as well (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). According to Fornell
and Larcker (1981), if AVE values are greater than the shared variance among the square of
their correlations (pairs of constructs), it reveals the confirmation of discriminant validity.
Before testing the structural model, the Harmon single-factor test was implemented to check
for potential common method bias of the estimated relationships among the theoretical
constructs (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).
JIBR 4.3 Structural model
A structural analysis of the model was conducted using the maximum likelihood estimation
method. The data results for the structural model are presented in Table IV. Overall, the fit
indices indicated an overall adequate model fit ( x 2 = 212.86, df = 83, p < 0.001; RMSEA =
0.057; RMSR = 0.05; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.98; NFI = 0.99), which qualifies to all the criteria
suggested and notified (Hu and Bentler, 1998; Singh, 2009). To evaluate the quality of the
overall structural model, we calculated the relative normed fit index (RNFI) too, and we
considered RNFI > 0.8 to be indicative of good adjustment. The degree of variance
explained by terminal and instrumental values for environmental consciousness was 0.69,
and the variance-explained estimate for behavioral intentions by three antecedents was 0.79.
The structural model for the proposed model is presented in Figure 1. As shown in
Figure 1 and Table III, the relationship between terminal value and environmental
consciousness was significant (coefficient = 0.32, t = 3.65, p < 0.01), and the linkage between
instrumental value and environmental consciousness was also significant (coefficient = 0.55,
t = 6.41, p < 0.01), well supporting H1a and H1b. These findings indicate that both terminal
and instrumental values are significant predictors of environmental consciousness. The
effect of instrumental value on environmental consciousness was greater than the impact of
terminal value (instrumental value: coefficient = 0.55, t = 6.41, p < 0.01 vs terminal value:
coefficient = 0.32, t = 3.65, p < 0.01) supporting H4. Terminal and instrumental values were
found to have significant relationships with behavioral intentions, supporting H2a and H2b.
Terminal Instrumental Environmental Behavioral Composite

Measure value value consciousness intentions AVE reliability
1. Terminal value 1.00 0.61 0.80

2. Instrumental value 0.68 (0.47) 1.00 0.54 0.75
Table III. 3. Environmental 0.69 (0.48) 0.79 (0.61) 1.00 0.71 0.89
consciousness
Detail measures of 4. Behavioral intentions 0.58 (0.36) 0.78 (0.64) 0.86 (0.75) 1.00 0.78 0.92
correlations, the
squared correlations Notes: All correlations were significant at 0.05 level; Model measurement fit: x 2 = 212.86 (df = 83, p <
and AVE 0.001); RMSEA = 0.068; RMSR = 0.05; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.98; NFI = 0.99
Hypothesis Hypothesized path Coefficient Standard error t-value Results
H1a Terminal value ! 0.32 0.054 3.67 **

Accepted
Environmental consciousness
H1b Instrumental value ! 0.63 0.076 6.42** Accepted
Environmental consciousness
H2a Terminal value ! Behavioral 0.16 0.113 2.11* Accepted
intentions
H2b Instrumental value ! Behavioral 0.29 0.072 3.24** Accepted
intentions
H3 Environmental consciousness ! 0.74 0.130 9.25** Accepted
Table IV. Behavioral intentions
Details about Notes: R2 (environmental consciousness) = 0.69; R2 (behavioral intentions) = 0.79; goodness-of-fit statistics:
structural parameter x 2 (83) = 212.86, p < 0.001; x 2/df = 2.56; RMSEA = 0.068; RMSR = 0.05; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.98; NFI = 0.99;
estimates *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
The linkages among terminal (coefficient = 0.15, t = 2.14, p < 0.05) and instrumental values Green
(coefficient = 0.26, t = 3.25, p < 0.01) and behavioral intentions were positive as well. products
Instrumental value showed a greater influence on behavioral intention than terminal
value (instrumental value: coefficient = 0.26, t = 3.25, p < 0.01 vs terminal value:
coefficient = 0.15, t = 2.14, p < 0.01), supporting H5. Finally, environmental consciousness
was predicted to be positively associated with behavioral intentions, supporting H3
(coefficient = 0.74, t = 9.20, p < 0.01). These findings indicate that increasing green
customers’ consciousness levels is necessary to enhance their behavioral intentions to
promote green products and regular purchases of the same.
4.4 Indirect effects

The indirect effect hypotheses propose that attitudes affect intentions, which ultimately
affect behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). The indirect effects of terminal and instrumental
values on environmental consciousness were also assessed to reveal a causal hypothesis,
where an independent variables’ effect on the dependent variable is mediated through an
intervening variable. Though there are several approaches available for testing the
hypotheses regarding intervening variable effects, one of them is the causal steps approach
propagated by Baron and Kenny (1986). The causal steps approach has been severely
criticized on various grounds. Most notably, simulation studies have shown that among the
methods for testing intervening variable effects, the causal steps approach is among
the lowest in power (O’Rourke and MacKinnon, 2015). Moreover, it is not based on the
quantification of the thing it attempts to test; rather, the indirect effect is inferred by the
outcome of a set of hypothesis tests, which may carry decision error (Bollen, 1987; Fritz and
MacKinnon, 2007; MacKinnon et al., 2002; MacKinnon, 2008).
Because the data were a priori normalized for the study and the model was not too
complex in nature, initially, we decided to use the Sobel test for testing indirect or mediation
effects in the model (Sobel, 1982, 1988). The Sobel test (1982; 1988) is used to measure
whether a mediator variable (i.e. environmental consciousness) significantly carries the
effect of an independent variable (terminal/instrumental value) to a dependent variable (i.e.
behavioral intentions). Sobel (1982, 1988) provided an approximate significance test for
the indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable via the mediator in
case of a single mediator model (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; MacKinnon, 2008). The outcomes
of the Sobel test revealed that both terminal and instrumental values had a
significant indirect effect on green purchase intentions via environmental consciousness
(coefficientTV-EC-BI = 0.20; coefficient IV-EC-BI = 0.42) at an alpha level of 0.01. The indirect
path indicates that t-values = indirect effect/standard deviation. Because the direct
Terminal
Values 0.15* (2.14)
0.32** (3.65)
0.74** (9.20) Behavioral
Environmental
0.55** (6.41) Consciousness Intentions
Instrumental
Values 0.26** (3.25) Figure 1.
Hypothesized
research model
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.001
JIBR relationships between terminal value and behavioral intentions (coefficient = 0.15, t = 2.14,
p < 0.05) and those between instrumental value and behavioral intentions (coefficient = 0.26,
t = 3.25, p < 0.01) were significant, environmental consciousness could be regarded as a
partial mediator in the terminal/instrumental value and behavioral intention link (Biesanz
et al., 2010). Finally, it is crucial to evaluate the strength of the mediation, which is computed
via variance accounted for (VAF) (MacKinnon et al., 2002). The value of VAF was larger
than the 60 per cent effect for instrumental value and more than the 40 per cent effect for
terminal value on behavioral intentions explained by environmental consciousness. Because
the values of VAF are in the range of 20-80 per cent, environmental consciousness partially
mediates the relationship between consumer values and behavioral intentions (Preacher and
Hayes, 2004). The total effect of instrumental value on behavioral intentions (0.72) was
greater than that of terminal value (0.37), indicating the importance of instrumental value in
increasing behavioral intentions. These findings are in tandem with recent studies on
environmental values and consumer behavioral disposition (Jaiswal and Kant, 2018; Nguyen
et al., 2016; 2017a; Paswan et al., 2017; Thøgersen et al., 2016; Ünal et al., 2017).
5. Discussion
5.1 Summary of the study
The main purpose of this study was to assess the link between variables specific to human
value and environmental consciousness for green behavioral intentions in the Indian
market. The findings of the research indicate that the human value construct plays an
essential role in the formation of environmental consciousness and behavioral intentions
toward sustainability. This result is well in line with previous research findings that stress
on the significance of values (Aoyagi-Usui, 2001; Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem, 2013;
Cheah and Phau, 2011; Chen and Chang, 2012) and green concerns (Kautish, 2013; Walker,
2013). In summation, SEM analysis revealed that the proposed model could well predict
consumers’ behavioral intentions in light of value dynamism and environmental
consciousness milieu.
5.2 Theoretical implications

Theoretically, this research validates the utility of two distinct structures of consumer
values, terminal and instrumental, and its reinforcements with other green marketing
constructs. This study is perhaps one of the early attempts to research on two distinct
measures of customer values, that is, terminal/instrumental value, to determine its
relationships with environmental consciousness and determine behavioral intentions for
green products. In tandem with past studies (Allen, 2002; Allen et al., 2002; Vinson et al.,
1977a, 1977b), the findings specified that both terminal and instrumental values
significantly influence consumer choices for green products and environment-friendly
decision-making. The present study’s aim was to explore two marketing facets alongside:
environmental consciousness and behavioral intentions of the green consumers. In line with
it, Jaiswal and Kant (2018) suggest that cognitive factors influence green purchase intentions
directly and indirectly via the mediating role of attitude towards green products.
Consumers’ values, both terminal and instrumental, directly and indirectly influence
behavioral intentions, which are a positive cue for researchers.
The affirmative results of the Sobel test (1982; 1988) ascertain that environmental
consciousness significantly affects terminal and instrumental values and thereby behavioral
intentions, through interim as a partial mediator. These findings advocate suggestions to
the researchers to evolve different ways and means to understand environmental
consciousness levels, which may eventually influence customers’ terminal and instrumental Green
values as they form behavioral intentions. products
5.3 Marketing implications
The findings of the study should assist marketers in identifying target consumers and
developing effective strategies to promote green products. Green product companies would
recognize the relevance and seek to improve customers’ compassions for both terminal and
instrumental values in warranting environmental consciousness, thereby inducing desirable
positive behavior, that is, repeat purchases of green products and recommending them to
their acquaintances. A recent environmental deteriorating incident that came into the
limelight was the Volkswagen emission scandal in the automobile industry. The way
consumers responded to the incident proves that the consumer does value environmental
consciousness so as to protect societal well-being (Fleming, 2015; Kautish, 2016). Practically,
the study results can help green marketers better understand consumers’ rationale for green
products and respond accordingly, thereby improving customers’ perceived value
proposition, which eventually indoctrinates environmental consciousness and behavioral
intentions (Yu et al., 2017).

The current research indicates that while the terminal aspects of consumer value are
important predictors of environmental consciousness, the more functional, instrumental
aspects of consumer value play a greater role in environmental consciousness and positive
behavioral intentions for green product market. That is, the sustainable environmental
experience, for example, organic food consumption in this context, might be more aptly
described as a strongly goal-oriented, instrumental behavior than any other activity and/or
form. Therefore, marketing activities in the green management context should focus on
facilitating sustainable development experiences (e.g. consumer facilitation for used
consumables, recycling behavior and green products awareness).
The study findings endorse that any green marketing company should focus on the
means of enhancing the instrumental value of green products without putting off customers
who religiously enquire for such products for functional reasons and intentions. For
instance, given the capability, green companies need to cultivate, source and ratify better
sustainable and environment-friendly practices that communicate better positioning among
target customers of the green products. Facilitating functional goals pays in longer term –
satisfied and well-informed customers are likely to respond positively for the green product
offerings in future too.
The present study also found that even though its impact is not greater than the
instrumental value, the terminal value of the green consumption experience still
significantly influences both customers’ consciousness level and intentions to consumer
green products. The study result implies that terminal aspects of value in terms of benefits
other than instrumental should not be ignored for green and sustainable marketing
business. Thus, green organizations aiming to increase market penetration for existing
products would be recommended to develop campaigns directed toward increasing green
concerns among consumers (Grimmer and Woolley, 2014). Hansen et al. (2018) provide
guidance to companies seeking to segment organic food markets based on consumers’
motivations and values. Further, green organizations in the process of developing new
products and offering them in the market should ensure that the product performs prudently
in both the value dimensions. This may involve or require the use of green movement as a
lifestyle opportunity, such as in the form of organic products, medicinal products, healthy
products and other aspects of environmental experiences that make consumers’ life inside-
out secure or enjoyable.
JIBR 5.4 Conclusion
The model presented and tested in this study is unique in that it links consumers’ human
values (terminal and instrumental) at a peculiar level to all the rudiments of TPB and value–
attitude–behavior system – this has not been attempted in consumer markets (Mustonen
et al., 2016). It also effectively illustrates the moderating effects of environmental
consciousness on the relationship between consumer values and behavioral intentions.
Moreover, given the paucity of knowledge relating to pro-environmental consumer behavior
and green products in emerging countries (Rana and Paul, 2017), this study discourses the
recognized literature gap by concentrating on the Indian market. The potential beneficiaries
of the research include domestic and international green product companies, research
organizations and government agencies that promote green consumerism.
5.5 Limitations of the study and future research imperatives

Alike most social science research, the present study has its limitations. First, the scope of
the study was restricted to Indian consumers, and the consumers surveyed also represented
a small area of one state in the country; therefore, the results have limited generalizability.
Consequently, extension of the research to other countries and other sectors is needed for
cross-validation. The current study may serve as a foundational work for more cross-
sectional studies in future. Second, we relied heavily on extant literature to develop scale
items for measuring different constructs. There is potential to refine some of these scales to
more accurately capture the constructs of interest such as environmental consciousness and
behavioral intentions. Although environmental consciousness and behavioral intentions
cover various product categories, verifying the general principles of this research model for
a specific product or service is desirable. Finally, the existence of additional moderating
variables, for example, age and gender, could provide crucial empirical results for
managerial decision-making to generate more acceptance toward green products for
environmental consciousness. This study examined two types of consumer values
representing consumer characteristics affecting environmental consciousness and
behavioral intentions for green products; thus, future research should consider additional
variables that focus on actual behavior rather than behavioral intentions to complete the
model and avoid common attitude–behavioral pitfalls (McEachern and Carrigan, 2012).
References
Adnan, A., Ahmad, A. and Khan, M.N. (2017), “Examining the role of consumer lifestyles on ecological
behavior among young Indian consumers”, Young Consumers, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 348-377.
Aertsens, J., Mondelaers, K., Verbeke, W., Buysse, J. and Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2011), “The influence of
subjective and objective knowledge on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 113 No. 11, pp. 1353-1378.
Ajzen, I. (1985), “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior”, in Kuhl, J. and Beckman, J.
(Eds), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 11-39.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Ahn, J.M., Koo, D.M. and Chang, H.S. (2012), “Different impacts of normative influences on pro-
environmental purchasing behaviour explained by differences in individual characteristics”,
Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 163-182.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Albayrak, T., Aksoy, S . and Caber, M. (2013), “The effect of environmental concern and skepticism on Green
green purchase behaviour”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 27-39.
products
Allen, M.W. (2000), “The attribute-mediation and product meaning approaches to the influences of
human values on consumer choices”, Advances in Psychology Research, Vol. 1, pp. 31-76.
Allen, M.W. (2001), “A practical method for uncovering the direct and indirect relationships
between human values and consumer purchases”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 102-120.
Allen, M.W. (2002), “Human values and product symbolism: do consumers form product preference by
comparing the human values symbolized by a product to the human values that they endorse?”,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 2475-2502.
Allen, M.W. and Ng, S.H. (1999), “The direct and indirect influences of human values on product
ownership”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 5-39.
Allen, M.W., Ng, S.H. and Wilson, M. (2002), “A functional approach to instrumental and terminal
values and the value-attitude-behaviour system of consumer choice”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 1/2, pp. 111-135.
Anderson, W.T. Jr. and Cunningham, W.H.C. (1972), “The socially conscious consumer”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 23-31.

Anderson, H.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, sychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Aoyagi-Usui, M. (2001), “How individuals values affect green consumer behaviour? Results from a
Japanese survey”, Global Environment Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 97-105.
Asif, M., Xuhui, W., Nasiri, A. and Ayyub, S. (2018), “Determinant factors influencing organic food
purchase intention and the moderating role of awareness: a comparative analysis”, Food Quality
and Preference, Vol. 63, pp. 144-150.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Balderjahn, I. (1988), “Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of
ecologically responsible consumption patterns”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 51-56.
Bamberg, S. and Möser, G. (2007), “Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new Meta-
analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour”, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 14-25.
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.
Barbarossa, C. and Pastore, A. (2015), “Why environmentally conscious consumers do not purchase
green products: a cognitive mapping approach”, Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 188-209.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L.R., Homer, P. and Misra, S. (1985), “Alternative measurement approaches to
consumer values: the list of values and the Rokeach value survey”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 181-200.
Becker, B.W. and Connor, P.E. (1981), “Personal values of the heavy users of mass media”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 37-43.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107
No. 2, pp. 238-246.
JIBR Bhuian, S. and Sharma, S.K. (2017), “Predicting consumer pro-environmental behavioural intention:
the moderating role of religiosity”, Review of International Business and Strategy, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 352-368.
Biesanz, J.C., Falk, C.F. and Savalei, V. (2010), “Assessing mediational models: testing and interval
estimation for indirect effects”, Multivariate Behavioural Research, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 661-701.
Boeve-de Pauw, J. and Van Petegem, P. (2013), “A cross-cultural study of environmental values and
their effect on the environmental behaviour of children”, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 45
No. 5, pp. 551-583.
Bogner, F.X. and Wiseman, M. (2006), “Adolescents’ attitudes towards nature and environment:
quantifying the 2-MEV model”, The Environmentalist, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 247-254.
Bollen, K.A. (1987), Total direct and indirect effects in structural equation models, in Clogg, C.C. (Ed.),
Sociological Methodology, American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 37-69.
Brown, J.D. and Wahlers, R.G. (1998), “The environmentally concerned consumer: an exploratory
study”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 39-47.
Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J. and Grunert, K.G. (2004), “Testing relationships between values and
food related lifestyle: results from two European countries”, Appetite, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 195-205.
Burgess, S.M. (1992), “Personal values and consumer research: an historical perspective”, Research in
Carfora, V., Caso, D., Sparks, P. and Conner, M. (2017), “Moderating effects of pro-environmental self-
identity on pro-environmental intentions and behaviour: a multi-behaviour study”, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 92-99.
Carman, J.M. (1978), “Values consumption patterns: a closed-loop”, in Hunt, H.K. (Ed.), Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 5, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor.
Chan, R.Y. (2001), “Determinants of Chinese consumers – green purchase behaviour”, Psychology and
Cheah, I. and Phau, I. (2011), “Attitudes towards environmentally friendly products: the influence of
eco-literacy, interpersonal influence and value orientation”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 452-472.
Chen, M.F. (2007), “Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan:
moderating effects of food-related personality traits”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 18 No. 7,
pp. 1008-1021.
Chen, Y.S. and Chang, C.H. (2012), “Enhance green purchase intentions: the roles of green
perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust”, Management Decision, Vol. 50
No. 3, pp. 502-520.
Chin, W.W., Peterson, R.A. and Brown, S.P. (2008), “Structural equation modeling in marketing: some
practical reminders”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 287-298.
Cho, Y.N., Thyroff, A., Rapert, M.I., Park, S.Y. and Lee, H.J. (2013), “To be or not to be green: exploring
individualism and collectivism as antecedents of environmental behaviour”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1052-1059.
Chryssohoidis, G.M. and Krystallis, A. (2005), “Organic consumers’ personal values research: testing
and validating the list of values (LOV) scale and implementing a value-based segmentation
task”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 585-599.
Clawson, C.J. and Vinson, D.E. (1978), “Human values: a historical and interdisciplinary analysis”, in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT,
pp. 472-477.
Cohen, J.B., Fishbein, M. and Ahtola, O.T. (1972), “The nature and uses of expectancy-value models in
consumer attitude research”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 456-460.
Coleman, L.J., Bahman, N., Kelkar, M. and Curry, N. (2011), “Walking the talk: how the theory of Green
reasoned actions explains adult and student intentions to go green”, Journal of Applied Business
Research (Jabr), Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 107-116.
products
Cornwell, B.T. and Schwepker, C.H. (1995), Ecologically Concerned Consumers and Their Purchase
Behaviour, Environmental Marketing, Haworth Press, New York, NY.
Corraliza, J.A. and Berenguer, J. (2000), “Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: a situational
approach”, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 832-848.
de Groot, J.I.M. and Steg, L. (2007), “Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries:
validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations”,
Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 318-332.
de Groot, J.I.M. and Steg, L. (2010), “Relationships between value orientations, self-determined
motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions”, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 368-378.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R. and Bohlen, G.M. (2003), “Can socio-
demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an
empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 465-480.
Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A. and Shwom, R. (2005), “Environmental values”, Annual Review of Environment
and Resources, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 335-372.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M. and Khosla, R. (2007), “Examination of environmental beliefs and its impact on the
influence of price, quality and demographic characteristics with respect to green purchase intension”,
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 69-78.
Dunlap, R.E., Grieneeks, J.K. and Rokeach, M. (1983), “Human values and pro-environmental
behaviour”, in Conn, W.D. (Ed.), Energy and Material Resources: Attitudes, Values, and Public
Policy, West View, Boulder, CO, pp. 145-169.
Dunlap, R.E. and Jones, R.E. (2002), “Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues”, in
Dunlap, R.E. and Michelson, W. (Eds), Handbook of Environmental Sociology, Greenwood Press,
Westport.
Ellen, P.S. (1994), “Do we know what we need to know? Objective and subjective knowledge effects on
pro- ecological behaviours”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 43-52.
Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C. and Strahan, E.J. (1999), “Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 272-299.
Feather, N.T. (1990), “Bridging the gap between values and actions: recent applications of the
expectancy-value model”, in Higgins, E.T. and Sorrentino, R.M. (Eds), Handbook of Motivation
and Cognition: Foundation of Social Behaviour, Guilford, New York, NY, Vol. 2, pp. 151-192.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory
and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fleming, C. (2015), “Volkswagen diesel scandal threatens to ruin its credibility and value”, Los Angeles
Times, September 22, available at: www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-vw-diesel-20150923-
story.html (accessed 10 January 2018).
Freeman, A.M. III. (2003), The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and
Methods, 2nd ed., Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Follows, S.B. and Jobber, D. (2000), “Environmentally responsible purchase behaviour: a test of a
consumer model”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 5/6, pp. 723-746.
Fox, J. (1980), “Effect analysis in structural equation models: Extensions and simplified methods of
computation”, Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3-28.
JIBR Fox, J. (1985), “Effect analysis in structural equation models II: calculation of specific indirect effects”,
Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 81-95.
Fraj, E. and Martinez, E. (2006), “Environmental values and lifestyles as determining factors of
ecological consumer behaviour: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 133-144.
Fritz, M.S. and MacKinnon, D.P. (2007), “Required sample size to detect the mediated effect”,
Psychological Science, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 233-239.
Frondizi, R. (1971), What Is Value: An Introduction to Axiology, 2nd ed., Open Court, Lasalle, IL.
Gale, B.T. (1994), Managing Customer Value: Creating Quality and Service That Customers Can See,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Gao, Y.L., Mattilab, A.S. and Lee, S. (2016), “A Meta-analysis of behavioural intentions for environment-
friendly initiatives in hospitality research”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 54, pp. 107-115.
Garvey, A.M. and Bolton, L.E. (2017), “Eco-Product choice cuts both ways: how proenvironmental
licensing versus reinforcement is contingent on environmental consciousness”, Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 284-298.
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2002), “The measurement and determinants of environmentally
significant consumer behaviour”, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 335-362.
Grankvist, G. and Biel, A. (2001), “The importance of beliefs and purchase criteria in the choice of eco-
labeled food products”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 405-410.
Gray, D. (1985), Ecological Beliefs and Behaviours: Assessment and Change, Greenwood Press, Westport.
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.
Grunert, S.C. and Juhl, H.J. (1995), “Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods”,
Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-62.
Gupta, S. and Ogden, D.T. (2009), “To buy or not to buy: a social dilemma perspective on green buying”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 376-391.
Ha, H.Y. and Janda, S. (2012), “Predicting consumer intentions to purchase energy-efficient products”,
Hair, J.F., Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th ed., Pearson Education, New Delhi.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Han, H. (2015), “Travelers’ pro-environmental behaviour in a green lodging context: converging value-belief-
norm theory and the theory of planned behaviour”, Tourism Management, Vol. 47, pp. 164-177.
Hansen, T., Sørensen, M.I. and Eriksen, M.L.R. (2018), “How the interplay between consumer motivations
and values influences organic food identity and behaviour”, Food Policy, Vol. 74, pp. 39-52.
Harland, P., Staats, H. and Wilke, H.A.M. (1999), “Explaining pro-environmental intention and
behaviour by personal norms and the theory of planned behaviour”, Journal of Applied Social
Hoelter, J.W. (1983), “The analysis of covariance structures: goodness-of-fit indices”, Sociological
Methods and Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 325-344.
Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1995), “Evaluating model fit”, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Structural Equation
Modeling. Concepts, Issues, and Applications, Sage, London, pp. 76-99.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 424-453.
Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Green
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
products
Hur, W.M., Yoo, J.J. and Hur, J. (2015), “Exploring the relationship between green consumption value,
satisfaction, and loyalty to hybrid car in elderly consumers”, Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing and Service Industries, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 398-408.
Huang, Y.C., Yang, M. and Wang, Y.C. (2014), “Effects of green Brand on green purchase intention”,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 250-268.
Hwang, H., Malhotra, N.K., Kim, Y., Tomiuk, M.A. and Hong, S. (2010), “A comparative study on
parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling”, Journal of Marketing
Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Structural equations modeling: fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 90-98.
Jackson, G. (1973), “A preliminary bicultural study on value orientations and leisure activities”, Journal
of Leisure Research, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 10-22.
Jägel, T., Keeling, K., Reppel, A. and Gruber, T. (2012), “Individual values and motivational
complexities in ethical clothing consumption: a mean-end approach”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 373-396.

Jaiswal, D. and Kant, R. (2018), “Green purchasing behaviour: a conceptual framework and
empirical investigation of Indian consumers”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 41, pp. 60-69.
Jansson, J., Marell, A. and Nordlund, A. (2010), “Green consumer behaviour: determinants of curtailment and
eco-innovation adoption”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 358-370.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1993), “Testing structural equation models”, in Bollen, K.A. (Ed), Testing Structural
Equation Models, Sage, Newbury, CA, pp. 294-316.
Kahle, L.R. (1980), “Stimulus condition self-selection by males in the interaction of locus of control and
skill-chance situations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 50-56.
Kahle, L.R. (1996), “Social values and consumer behaviour: research from the list of value”, in
Seligman, C., Olson, J.M. and Zanna, M.P. (Eds), The Psychology of Values, Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 135-151.
Kahle, L.R. and Xie, G. (2008), “Social values in consumer psychology”, in Haugtvedt, C.P., Herr, P.M.
and Kardes, F.R. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New
York, NY, pp. 575-585.
Kaiser, F.G. and Wilson, M. (2004), “Goal-directed conservation behaviour: the specific composition of a
general performance”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1531-1544.
Kalafatis, S.P., Pollard, M., East, R. and Tsogas, M.H. (1999), “Green marketing and Ajzen’s theory of
planned behaviour: a cross-market examination”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 5,
pp. 441-460.
Kamakura, W.A. and Mazzon, J.A. (1991), “Value segmentation: a model for the measurement of values
and value systems”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 208-218.
Kamakura, W.A. and Novak, T.P. (1992), “Value-system segmentation: exploring the meaning of LOV”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 119-132.
Karp, D.G. (1996), “Values and their effects on pro-environmental behaviour”, Environment and
Behaviour, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 111-133.
Kautish, P. (2013), “Environmentally concerned consumer behavior: insights from Indian consumers”,
in Thakur, R.R., Jain, P. and Vijayvergy, L. (Eds), Creating a Sustainable Business: Managerial
Implications and Challenges, Bloomsbury Publishing, New Delhi, pp. 209-218.
Kautish, P. (2015), “Empirical study on understanding of consumer behavioral factors for marketing of
environmental friendly products”, IMR Management Speak, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1-12.
JIBR Kautish, P. (2016), “Volkswagen AG: Defeat device or device defeat?”, IMT Case Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 19-30.
Kautish, P. (2018), “Environmentally conscious consumer behavior and green marketing: an analytical
study of the Indian market”, in Malyan, R.S. and Duhan P. (Eds), Green Consumerism:
Perspectives, Sustainability, and Behavior, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis, NJ, pp. 119-142.
Kautish, P. and Dash, G. (2017), “Environmentally concerned consumer behaviour: evidence from
consumers in Rajasthan”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 712-738.
Kautish, P. and Punyani, G. (2017), “Sustainable development issue and consumption pattern:
theoretical approach”, in Sharma, S.K. ((Ed.), Evidence Based Management, Excellent Publishing
House, New Delhi, pp. 137-145.
Kautish, P. and Soni, S. (2012), “The determinants of consumer willingness to search for environmental
friendly products: a survey”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 696-711.
Kenny, D.A. and McCoach, D.B. (2003), “Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in
structural equation modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 333-351.
Khare, A. (2014), “Consumers’ susceptibility to interpersonal influence as a determining factor
of ecologically conscious behaviour”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 2-20.
Khare, A. (2015), “Antecedents to green buying behaviour: a study on consumers in an emerging
economy”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 309-329.
Kim, H.Y. and Chung, J.E. (2011), “Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products”,
Klaus, T.P., Athanasios, G.G., Yanfeng, K., Guang, Z. and Hue, H.Y. (2014), “Testing and validation of a
hierarchical values-attitudes model in the context of green food in China”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 296 -314.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Kluckhohn, C.K. (1951), “Values and value orientations in the theory of action”, in Parsons, T. and Shils,
E.A. (Eds), Toward a General Theory of Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kluckhohn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Row, Peterson,
Evanston, IL.
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.
Krystallis, A., Vassallo, M., Chryssohoidis, G. and Perrea, T. (2008), “Societal and individualistic drivers
as predictors of organic purchasing revealed through a portrait value questionnaire (PVQ) based
inventory”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 164-187.
Kumar, P. and Ghodeshwar, B.M. (2015), “Factors affecting consumers’ green product purchase
decisions”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 330-347.
Kumar, B., Manrai, A.K. and Manrai, L.A. (2017), “Purchasing behaviour for environmentally
sustainable products: a conceptual framework and empirical study”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Studies, Vol. 34, pp. 1-9.
Lancaster, K. (1971), Consumer Demand: A New Approach, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Lee, J.A. and Holden, S.J.S. (1999), “Understanding the determinants of environmentally conscious
behaviour”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 373-392.
Lee, Y.K., Kim, S., Kim, M.S. and Choi, J.G. (2014), “Antecedents and interrelationships of three types of
pro-environmental behaviour”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 10, pp. 2097-2105.
Leonidou, L.C., Leonidou, C.N. and Kvasova, O. (2010), “Antecedents and outcomes of consumer
environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviour”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 26
Nos 13/14, pp. 1319-1344.
Li, M. (2009), “The customer value strategy in the competitiveness of companies”, International Journal Green
of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 136-141.
products
McCarty, J.A. and Shrum, L.J. (1994), “The recycling of solid wastes: personal values, value orientations,
and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behaviour”, Journal of Business
McDonald, S. and Oates, C.J. (2006), “Sustainability: consumer perceptions and marketing strategies”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 157-170.
McEachern, M. and Carrigan, M. (2012), “Revisiting contemporary issues in green/ethical marketing: an
introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 189-194.
MacCallum, R.C., Widaman, K.F., Zhang, S.B. and Hong, S.H. (1999), “Sample size in factor analysis”,
Psychological Methods, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 84-99.
MacKinnon, D.P. (2008), Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V.A. (2002), “A comparison of
methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 83-104.
Mainardes, E.W., de Araujo, D.V.B., Lasso, S. and Andrade, D.M. (2017), “Influences on the intention to
buy organic food in an emerging market”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 35 No. 7,
pp. 858-876.
Maio, G.R. and Olson, J.M. (1995), “Relations between values, attitudes and behavioural intentions: the
moderating role of attitude function”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 266-285.
Mancha, R.M. and Yoder, C.Y. (2015), “Cultural antecedents of green behavioural intent: an
environmental theory of planned behaviour”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 43,
pp. 145-154.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R. and McDonald, R.P. (1988), “Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor
analysis: the effect of sample size”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 391-410.
Marsh, H.W., Kit-Tai, H., Balla, J.R. and Grayson, D. (1998), “Is more ever too much? The number of
indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis”, Multivariate Behavioural Research, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 181-220.
Mishal, A., Dubey, R., Gupta, O.K. and Luo, Z. (2017), “Dynamics of environmental consciousness and
green purchase behaviour: an empirical study”, International Journal of Climate Change
Strategies and Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 682-706.
Mostafa, M.M. (2006), “Antecedents of Egyptian consumers’ green purchase intentions: a hierarchical
multivariate regression model”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 97-126.
Munson, J.M. and McQuarrie, E. (1988), “Shortening the Rokeach value survey for use in consumer
research”, in Houston, M.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer
Research, Provo UT, Vol. 15, pp. 381-386.
Mustonen, N., Karjaluoto, H. and Jayawardhena, C. (2016), “Customer environmental values and their
contribution to loyalty in industrial markets”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 25
No. 7, pp. 512-528.
Nguyen, T.N., Lobo, A. and Greenland, S. (2016), “Pro-environmental purchase behaviour: the role of
consumers’ biospheric values”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 33, pp. 98-108.
Nguyen, T.N., Lobo, A. and Greenland, S. (2017a), “The influence of cultural values on green purchase
behavior”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 377-396.
Nguyen, T.N., Lobo, A. and Greenland, S. (2017b), “The influence of vietnamese consumers’ altruistic
values on their purchase of energy efficient appliances”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 759-777.
JIBR Nilson, T.H. (1992), Value-Added Marketing: Marketing Management for Superior Results, McGraw-
Hill, Berkshire.
Noppers, E., Keizer, K., Milovanovic, M. and Steg, L. (2016), “The importance of instrumental, symbolic,
and environmental attributes for the adoption of smart energy systems”, Energy Policy, Vol. 98,
pp. 12-18.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E. and Suh, E. (1998), “The measurement of values and individualism-
collectivism”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 1177-1189.
Oppenheim, A.N. (1966), Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement, Basic Books, New York,
NY.
O’Rourke, H.P. and MacKinnon, D.P. (2015), “When the test of mediation is more powerful than the test
of the total effect”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 424-442.
Paswan, A., Guzmán, F. and Lewin, J. (2017), “Attitudinal determinants of environmentally sustainable
behavior”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 414-426.
Paulhus, D.L. (2002), “Socially desirable responding: the evolution of a construct”, in Braun, H.I.,
Jackson, D.N. and Wiley, D.E. (Eds) The Role of Constructs in Psychological and Educational
Measurement, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 49-69.
Pepper, M., Jackson, T. and Uzzell, D. (2009), “An examination of the values that motivate socially
conscious and frugal consumer behaviours”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 126-136.
Perkins, W.S. and Reynolds, T.J. (1988), “The explanatory power of values in preference judgments:
validation of the means-end perspective”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 122-126.
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.
Pitts, R.E. and Woodside, A.G. (1983), “Personal value influences on consumer product class and Brand
preferences”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 37-53.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Prakash, V. (1984), “Personal values and product expectations”, in Pitts, R.E. and Woodside, A.D. (Eds),
Personal Values and Consumer Psychology, Lexington Books, Toronto.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W.E., Luchs, M.G., Ozanne, L.K. and Thøgersen, J.
(2011), “Sustainable consumption: opportunities for consumer research and public policy”,
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 31-38.
Punyatoya, P. (2015), “Effect of perceived brand environment-friendliness on Indian consumer attitude
and purchase intention”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 258-275.
Rana, J. and Paul, J. (2017), “Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: a review and
research agenda”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 38, pp. 157-165.
Reinartz, W.J., Haenlein, M. and Henseler, J. (2009), “An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 332-344.
Rice, G., Wongtada, N. and Leelakulthanit, O. (1996), “An investigation of self-efficacy and
environmentally concerned behaviour of Thai consumers”, Journal of International Consumer
Richins, M.L. (1994), “Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 504-521.
Roberts, J.A. and Bacon, D.R. (1997), “Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental Green
concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 79-101.
products
Rokeach, M. (1968), Beliefs, Attitudes and Values, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, New York, NY.
Rokeach, M. (1979), Understanding Human Values, Free Press, New York, NY.
Rugman, A. and Verbeke, A. (2000), Environmental Regulations and the Global Strategies of
Multinational Enterprises, Routledge, London.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Thiele, K.O. and Gudergan, S.P. (2016), “Estimation issues
with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies!”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 10,
pp. 3998-4010.
Satterfield, T. and Kalof, L. (2005), “Environmental values: an introduction - relativistic and axiomatic
traditions in the study of environmental values”, in Kalof, L. and Satterfield, T. (Eds), The
Earthscan Reader in Environmental Values, Earthscan, London.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Diamantopoulos, A. and Bohlen, G.M. (1996), “The link between green purchasing
decisions and measures of environmental consciousness”, European Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 35-55.
Scott, J.E. and Lamont, L.H. (1973), “Relating consumer values to consumer behavior: a model and
method for investigation”, in Green, T.W. (Ed.), Increasing Marketing Productivity and
Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of Marketing, Series 35, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL.
Schultz, P.W. and Zelezny, L. (1999), “Values as predictors of environmental attitudes”, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 255-276.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?”,
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 19-45.
Schwartz, S.H. (1996), “Value priorities and behavior: applying a theory of integrated value systems”, in
Erlbaum, L. (Ed.), The Psychology of Values 8, The Ontario Symposium.
Schwepkar, C.H. Jr. and Cornwell, T.B. (1991), “An examination of ecologically concerned consumers
and their intentions to purchase ecologically packaged products”, Journal of Public Policy and
Sharma, K. and Bansal, M. (2013), “Environmental consciousness, its antecedents and behavioural
outcomes”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 198-214.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), “Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption
values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Singh, R. (2009), “Does my structural model represent the real phenomenon? A review of the
appropriate use of structural equation modeling (SEM) model fit indices”, The Marketing
Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 199-212.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models, in
Leinhardt, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, American Sociological Association, Washington,
DC, pp. 290-312.
Sobel, M.E. (1988), “Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models”, In Long, J.S. (Ed.),
Common Problems/Proper Solutions, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 46-64.
Solomon, M.R. (1983), “The role of product as social stimuli: a symbolic interactionism perspective”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 319-329.
Soyez, K. (2012), “How national cultural values affect pro-environmental consumer behaviour”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 623-646.
Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2009), “Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and
research agenda”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 309-317.
JIBR Stern, P.C. (2000), “Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour”, Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 407-424.
Stern, P.C. and Dietz, T. (1994), “The value basis of environmental concern”, Journal of Social Issues,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 65-84.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Ruttan, V.W., Socolow, R.H. and Sweeney, J.L. (1997), Environmentally Significant
Consumption, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Stern, P.C., Kalof, L., Dietz, T. and Guagnano, G.A. (1995), “Values, beliefs, and pro-environmental
action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects”, Journal of Applied Social
Steg, L. (2016), “Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act pro-environmentally”, Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 277-292.
Stone, C.A. and Sobel, M.E. (1990), “The robustness of estimates of total indirect effects in
covariance structure models estimated by maximum likelihood”, Psychometrika, Vol. 55
No. 2, pp. 337-352.
Suki, N.M. (2016), “Green product purchase intention: impact of green brands, attitude, and
knowledge”, British Food Journal, Vol. 118 No. 12, pp. 2893-2910.
Thøgersen, J. (2011), “Green shopping for selfish reasons or the common good?”, American Behavioural
Scientist, Vol. 55 No. 8, pp. 1052-1076.
Thøgersen, J., Zhou, Y. and Huang, G. (2016), “How stable is the value basis for organic food
consumption in China?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 134 No. 1, pp. 214-224.
Thompson, S.C.G. and Barton, M.A. (1994), “Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the
environment”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 149-157.
Twomey, D.F., Twomey, R.F., Farias, G. and Ozgur, M. (2010), “Human values and sustainability: can
green swim upstream?”, People and Strategy, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 52-59.
Ünal, A.B., Steg, L. and Gorsira, M. (2017), “Values versus environmental knowledge as triggers of a
process of activation of personal norms for eco-driving”, Environment and Behaviour, (in press).
Urien, B. and Kilbourne, W. (2011), “Generativity and self-enhancement values in eco-friendly
behavioural intentions and environmentally responsible consumption behaviour”, Psychology
and Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 69-90.
Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. (2008), “Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium:
theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values”, Ecological Economics,
Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 542-553.
Vinson, D.E., Munson, J.M. and Nakanishi, M. (1977a), “An investigation of the Rokeach value survey
for consumer research applications”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 247-252.
Vinson, D.E., Scott, J.E. and Lamont, L.M. (1977b), “The role of personal values in marketing and
consumer behaviour”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 44-50.
Walker, B.A. and Olsen, J.C. (1991), “Means-end chains: Connecting products with self”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 111-118.
Walker, M. (2013), “Does green management matter for donation intentions? The influence of
environmental consciousness and environmental importance”, Management Decision, Vol. 51
No. 8, pp. 1716-1732.
Wang, E.S.T. (2010), “Impact of multiple perceived value on consumers’ Brand preference and purchase
intention: a case of snack foods”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 386-397.
Wang, S.T. (2014), “Consumer characteristics and social influence factors on green purchasing
intentions”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 738-753.
Wimmer, F. (1992), “Umweltbewusstes verbraucherverhalten (Environmentally aware consumer
behaviour)”, in Diller, H.M. (Ed.), Vahlens grosses Marketinglexikon (Vahlens Big Marketing
Lexicon), Vahlen (Verlag), pp. 1167-1169.
Wiseman, M. and Bogner, F.X. (2003), “A higher-order model of ecological values and its relationship to Green
personality”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 783-794.
products
Xie, C., Bagozzi, R.P. and Østli, J. (2013), “Cognitive, emotional and sociocultural processes in
consumption”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 12-25.
Yin, S., Wu, L., Du, L. and Chen, M. (2010), “Consumers’ purchase intention of organic food in China”,
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, Vol. 90 No. 8, pp. 1361-1367.
Yu, T.Y., Yu, T.K. and Chao, C.M. (2017), “Understanding Taiwanese undergraduate students’ pro-
environmental behavioural intention towards green products in the fight against climate
change”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 161, pp. 390-402.
Zabkar, V. and Hosta, M. (2013), “Willingness to act and environmentally conscious consumer
behaviour: can prosocial status perceptions help overcome the gap?”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 257-264.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Customer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means end model and
synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Zelezny, L.C. and Schultz, P.W. (2000), “Promoting environmentalism”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56
No. 3, pp. 365-371.
Further reading
Andrson, H.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Chen, J. and Lobo, A. (2012), “Organic food products in China: determinants of consumers’ purchase
intentions”, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 293-314.
About the authors

Pradeep Kautish is an Associate Professor at the College of Business Management, Economics and
Commerce, Mody University, Lakshmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan. He received MBA and PhD from the
Department of Management Studies, Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Rajasthan, India.
His academic satchel is brimming with laurels such as National Eligibility Test qualification for
Lectureship in Management conducted by University Grants Commission, New Delhi, and
prestigious Accredited Management Teacher (AMT) certification in Marketing by All India
Management Association, New Delhi. He is a manuscript reviewer for many publication houses, such
as McGraw Hill, Prentice Hall of India and Macmillan. Dr Kautish has a number of publications to his
credit in ABDC ranking research journals, articles, technical papers, conference papers and edited
book chapters. Pradeep Kautish is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: pradeep.
kautish@gmail.com
Rajesh Sharma is an Assistant Professor at the College of Business Management, Economics and
Commerce, Mody University, Lakshmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan. He received MA and MPhil from
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, and PhD from Department of Economics, Mody University of
Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan, India. His academic satchel is brimming
with laurels such as National Eligibility Test qualification for Lectureship in Economics conducted
by University Grants Commission, New Delhi.
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

Kautish 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kautish 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Indian Business Research

Study on relationships among terminal and instrumental values, environmental

References: this document contains references to 217 other documents.

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

framework of the two-dimensional model of environmental values named 2-MEV. Within

3.2 Sampling design and data collection

Green products were convenient to digest and 5.74 1.07

observed and estimated covariance matrices, as opposed to maximize the explained

3.3 Sample and procedure

Environmental consciousness as dependent

Instrumental value 0.585 1.7 Terminal value 0.572 1.7

4.2 Measurement model

Terminal Instrumental Environmental Behavioral Composite

1. Terminal value 1.00 0.61 0.80

Hypothesis Hypothesized path Coefficient Standard error t-value Results

H1a Terminal value ! 0.32 0.054 3.67 **

4.4 Indirect eﬀects

5.2 Theoretical implications

intentions (Yu et al., 2017).

5.5 Limitations of the study and future research imperatives

Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 23-31.

Management, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 373-396.

decisions and measures of environmental consciousness”, European Journal of Marketing,

About the authors

You might also like