International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 85–95

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Effects of restaurant green practices on brand equity formation:

Do green practices really matter?
Young Namkung a,∗ , SooCheong(Shawn) Jang b
a
College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoeki-dong, Dongdaemon-ku, Seoul 130-701, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, 700 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2059, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This study examines the effects of green practices at restaurants on customer-based brand equity for-
Restaurant green practice mation. A survey of 512 American diners showed that implementing two aspects of green practices,
Perceived quality food focused and environmentally focused, influenced customer perceptions of green brand image and
Green brand image
behavioral intentions, whereas the effects of green practices on perceived quality were not significant.
Behavioral intentions
The relative impact of the two aspects of green practices differs by restaurant type. In upscale casual
Brand equity
dining restaurants, green practices focused on foods were more effective in enhancing a green brand
image and behavioral intentions as compared to those with an environmental focus. On the other hand,
for casual dining customers the effects of green practices with an environmental focus were more con-
vincing in terms of improving a restaurant’s green brand image and behavioral intentions as compared to
food focused initiatives. In relation to self-perception, the results indicated that diners with high health
and environmental-consciousness responded more positively to restaurant green practices than those
with a low self-perception of health and environmental-consciousness.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of 500 restaurant owners and operators, approximately two-thirds

Spurred by unprecedented consumer demand for healthy,
environmentally friendly products, sustainability has become an
integral part of doing business in all domains of industry. “Green-
ing” has become a key to survival and prosperity for some
businesses (Hu et al., 2010). The term green refers to “actions that
reduce the impact on the environment, such as eco-purchasing or
recycling” (Wolfe and Shanklin, 2001, p. 209). Companies are rec-
ognizing the marketing potential of green initiatives and working
to gain an edge over competitors by becoming greener companies
(Schubert et al., 2010). Green practices are particularly crucial in the
restaurant industry, where building and managing strong brands
has become one of the crucial tasks of restaurant owners and brand
managers (Jeong and Jang, 2010; Schubert et al., 2010). According
to National Restaurant Associations, 62% of consumers said they
are more likely to spend their money at a restaurant if they know
it is green (NRA, 2011).
Engaging in green restaurant practices has been shown to posi-
tively affect corporate brand image and promote financial benefits,
as well as positive contribution to the economic sustainability of
the local community (Schubert et al., 2010). In a recent NRA survey
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 961 2185; fax: +82 2 964 2537.
E-mail addresses: ynamkung@khu.ac.kr (Y. Namkung), jang12@purdue.edu
(S. Jang).
(65%) have a recycling program (NRA, 2011). Further, of the opera-
tors without a recycling program, 17% plan to start one in the next
year (NRA, 2011). Some chain restaurants, such as Arby’s and Chipo-
tle, have been active participants in environmentally responsible
implementation. For example, they have at least one Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified restaurant,
which is one of the most widely recognized certification programs
(Elan, 2009).
However, most restaurant product and process activities are
hidden from customers, as they take place back-of-the-house
(Kassinis and Soteriou, 2003). In a NRA Restaurant Operator Survey
(2011), among 325 respondents who have recycling programs
back-of-the house recycling (74%) is more common than front-of-
the-house (43%). Another hurdle for restaurateurs incorporating
green practices in their daily operations is that consumer percep-
tions and preferences for green attributes in restaurants remain
unclear. The most important green practice a restaurant can imple-
ment tends to vary across restaurant segments. For instance,
upscale casual dining customers value serving organic food and
drinks over not using Styrofoam to-go containers, while using recy-
cled paper products ranks as the most important practice in fast
food restaurants. Although previous research has paid attention to
consumer attitudes and behavioral intentions toward restaurants
that offer environmentally friendly foods or practices, the effects
of green practices in association with brand equity formation are
still under explored. To fill the void, this study attempts to answer

0278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.06.006
86 Y. Namkung, S. Jang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 85–95
the following research questions from a consumer perspective:
(1) Does implementing green practices in restaurants influence
customer-based brand equity formation, such as perceived quality,
green image of a restaurant, and behavioral intentions? and (2) Are
the effects of green practices different across different restaurant
segments?
There are various green practices that can be implemented in
restaurants, including energy efficiency, water efficiency, recycling,
sustainable food, and pollution prevention. In order to test the rel-
ative effects of green practices as compared to no green practices,
this study used hypothetical scenarios. Restaurant green practices
were developed based on frequency and significance of practices,
salience to customers, and ease of manipulation in a scenario-based
experiment context (Choi and Parsa, 2006; Jeong and Jang, 2010;
Schubert et al., 2010). The scenarios represent the two categories
of green practices: (1) green practices focused on food; (2) green
practices with an environmental focus, and control: (3) no green
practices. Furthermore, it is expected that the effect of green prac-
tices in restaurants is more salient for individuals with a higher
self-perception of health and environmental-consciousness. The
impact of green practices focused on food is more salient for indi-
viduals with a high self-perception of health. On the other hand,
the impact of green practices with an environmental focus is more
salient for individuals with a high self-perception of environment.
To fill the research gap, the specific objective of this study is
to examine how green practices in restaurant affects customer-
based brand equity formation elements, such as perceived quality,
green brand image, and green behavioral intentions and whether
the effects of green practices differ across different restaurant seg-
ments. This study begins with a review of the literature as it relates
to green practices in restaurants, customer-based brand equity for-
mation, and self-perceptions of health and environment.
2. Literature review
2.1. Green studies in the restaurant industry
Going green in restaurants have become a crucial component
of sustainability and profitability considerations, because restau-
rants and other commercial food service establishments are among
the commercial sector’s highest energy users (MDEQ, 2009). Green
restaurants have been defined as “new or renovated structures
designed, constructed, operated, and demolished in an environ-
mentally friendly and energy-efficient manner” (Lorenzini, 1994,
p. 119). Compared to a traditional restaurant, a green restau-
rant devotes effort to the three Rs (reduce, reuse, and recycle)
and the two Es (energy and efficiency) (Gilg et al., 2005). The
Green Restaurant Association (2011) (GRA) provides a nation-
ally recognized green restaurant certification. Certified restaurants
must meet seven environmental categories: water efficiency, waste
reduction and recycling, sustainable furnishings and building mate-
rials, sustainable food, energy, disposables, and chemical and
pollution reduction.
The increased attention being focused on green management
has stimulated interest in research regarding the relationship
between green practices and financial performance (Choi and
Parsa, 2006; Ham and Lee, 2011). Based on the stakeholder the-
ory (Freeman, 1984), green initiatives should positively impact a
restaurant firm’s performance and value because a firm needs to
satisfy all stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, cus-
tomers, the community, suppliers, and the environment. Choi and
Parsa (2006) conceptualized green restaurant practices as involving
three perspectives: health concerns, environmental concerns, and
social concerns. Applying Stakeholder Theory to managers’ green
practice orientations, their results suggested that willingness to
charge higher prices for green practices was significantly affected
by restaurant managers’ personal preferences and involvement in
green practices. However, managers’ attitudes toward green prac-
tices had little or no effect on their willingness to charge higher
prices for socially responsible practices. Considering the signifi-
cance of restaurant companies’ participation in green practices,
Ham and Lee (2011) investigated green marketing issues in the US
restaurant industry. The insignificant effects of US restaurant com-
panies’ green marketing via company websites on firm financial
performance do not substantiate the stakeholder theory. However,
the results indicated that the US restaurant industry may not be
mature enough in terms of its green marketing practices.
As green initiatives continue to advance at a fast pace, investi-
gating consumer attitudes and behaviors towards green practices
in the restaurant industry has received more attention from
researchers. For instance, Hu et al. (2010) examined the dynam-
ics of green restaurant patronage. This study found that consumer
knowledge of sustainable restaurant practices and environmental
concerns were significant determinants of the intention to patron-
ize green restaurants. The study also found that individuals in older
age groups, in higher income levels and with more education tend
to patronize green restaurants. Jeong and Jang (2010) demonstrated
that customer perceptions of green practices significantly influence
customers’ ecological image and ecological behavioral intentions
toward the restaurant. However, the study was done in a sin-
gle Starbucks location. Also, they did not compare the effects of
green practices to restaurants with no green practices conditions.
Therefore, additional research on the impact of green restaurant
practices in association with customer perceptions of green image
and behavioral intentions is needed.
2.2. Customer-based brand equity and green practices
Over the last few decades, measuring the value of a brand has
become important in order to compete with rivals (Aaker, 1991;
Keller, 2003a,b). Aaker (1991, p. 15) defined brand equity as “a
set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and
symbol, that adds to or subtracts from the value provided by
a product or service to a firm and/or to the firm’s customers.”
Similarly, Keller (1993, p. 2) stated that brand equity is “the dif-
ferential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the
marketing of the brand.” Researchers primarily take one of three
perspectives on how to measure brand equity: customer-based
perspective (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Yoo and Donthu, 2001),
financial perspective (Simon and Sullivan, 1993), and a compre-
hensive perspective combining both customer-based brand equity
and financial brand equity (Dyson et al., 1996; Motameni and
Shahrokhi, 1998). In conceptualizing customer-based brand equity,
of the four components of perceived quality, brand awareness,
brand image (association), and brand loyalty are the most widely
accepted and employed by scholars (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller,
1993; Motameni and Shahrokhi, 1998; Yoo and Donthu, 2001).
Research on brand equity in restaurants suggests that brand
equity is a multi-dimensional concept comprised of four compo-
nents: perceived quality, brand awareness, brand image, and brand
loyalty (Kim and Kim, 2004, 2005; Atilgan et al., 2005; Hyun and
Kim, 2011), although the relative impact of each element is some-
what different. Kim and Kim (2004) found that brand awareness,
perceived quality, and brand image are determinants of financial
performance for quick service restaurants. However, brand loyalty
did not significantly affect a firm’s financial performance. Further,
Kim and Kim’s (2005) findings demonstrated that among the four
dimensions, only brand awareness and perceived quality have a
positive relationship with fast food and chain restaurants’ firm per-
formance. In the context of the beverage industry, Atilgan et al.
(2005) provided evidence that brand loyalty only has a significant
 Y. Namkung, S. Jang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 85–95
effect on brand equity. In the chain restaurant industry, Hyun and
Kim (2011) found that restaurant brand awareness is an antecedent
of favorable brand image and perceived quality, which in turn sig-
nificantly influences brand loyalty. Despite this research, the effects
of a restaurant’s green practices in conjunction with individual
components of brand equity remain unexamined. This study dif-
fers from previous studies in several ways. (1) It examines “green”
focused brand equity formation from the customer’s perspective.
(2) This study employs perceived quality, brand image, and behav-
ioral intentions as components of customer-based brand equity
because this study employed hypothetical scenarios picturing two
types of restaurant green practices (without brand names). Thus,
evaluating brand awareness and brand loyalty are not relevant.
(3) This study incorporates self-perceptions of health and environ-
ment, which could potentially moderate the relationships among
constructs.
2.2.1. Perceived quality
Perceived quality is “the customer’s judgment about a product
or service’s overall excellence or superiority” (Zeithaml, 1988, p.
3). It is based on the customer’s subjective evaluation of a product
or service quality, rather than the objective or actual quality. In
terms of branding, perceived quality is a component of brand value
(Zeithaml, 1988) and overall feeling about the brand (Aaker, 1991;
Keller, 2003a). The level of perceived quality determines the level of
brand equity value (Yoo et al., 2000). Moreover, perceived quality is
often a key reason customers buy a brand and differentiate it from
the competition. It also allows marketers to charge premium prices
(Aaker, 1991).
To examine the practicality of a customer-based brand equity
model based on Aaker’s framework (1991), previous research
developed and validated a multidimensional consumer-based
brand equity scale. In defining perceived quality as a dimension of
brand equity, Lassar et al. (1995) developed perceived quality items
focusing on ‘performance’ that refer to the totality of the physical
job. More recent customer-based brand equity scale studies (Yoo
and Donthu, 2001; Atilgan et al., 2005) have designed perceived
quality items to assess consumers’ subjective judgments regard-
ing a brand’s overall excellence (Zeithaml, 1988). When consumers
select a product or service, they rely on the physical cues that guide
them in their purchase decisions (Crane and Clarke, 1988). Green
practices in restaurants, such as sustainable food, recycling bins,
and energy-efficient lighting, could be one such cue that consumers
use to infer perceived quality. More consumers are paying attention
to health and environmental concerns, hence, cues such as green
practices in restaurants are expected to result in higher perceived
quality.
2.2.2. Brand image
Brand image, often used interchangeably with brand associa-
tion, is “anything that is linked in memory to a brand” (Aaker, 1991,
p. 147). Brand image or associations are valuable to marketers in
that they differentiate one’s business from competitors based on
brand uniqueness, strengthen brand position, as well as creating
positive attitudes and feelings that lead to choosing a specific brand
(Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Janiszewski and Osselaer, 2000). It has
been postulated that brand image drives brand equity (Biel, 1992).
Faircloth et al. (2001) suggested that reinforcement of brand image
is useful for enhancing brand equity. In a restaurant study, brand
image was also found to be a crucial determinant of a restaurant
firm’s financial success (Kim and Kim, 2004).
Incorporating green initiatives into building a corporate brand,
Chen (2009) defined green brand image as “a set of perceptions
of a brand in a consumer’s mind that is linked to environmental
commitments and environmental concerns.” Previous studies
showed that consumer perceptions of a green brand image can
87
significantly affect a firm’s green brand equity (Hu and Wall, 2005;
Chen, 2009). Hu and Wall (2005) argued that enhancing a destina-
tion’s environmental image can lead to highly competitive tourist
attractions.
Corporate image studies in marketing indicated that green prac-
tices can be a component of developing the image of a company
(Miles and Covin, 2000; Schwaiger, 2004). Image is expressed as a
function of the salient attributes of a particular store that are eval-
uated and compared to one another (Bloemer and Ruyter, 1998).
Therefore, tangible green attributes in the restaurant (e.g., green
menu options, in-store recycling bins, and recyclable take-out con-
tainers) can influence a customer’s green image of a particular
restaurant (Jeong & Jang, 2010). Likewise, restaurant operators
have expressed a growing interest in implementing green prac-
tices, which could elevate a brand’s green image (NRN, 2010). Thus,
it is reasonable to expect that brand image positively affects brand
equity.
2.2.3. Behavioral intentions
Brand loyalty is “the attachment that a customer has to a
brand” (Aaker, 1991, p. 65). According to Oliver (1999), loy-
alty is “a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize
a preferred product/service consistently in the future” (Aaker,
1991, p. 39). Recognizing the importance of customer satisfac-
tion in developing a brand, previous researchers have included
brand loyalty as a component of consumer-based brand equity
(Aaker, 1991; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Kim and Kim, 2004, 2005).
Behavioral intentions, such as willingness to revisit, recommend,
and say positive words to others, are understood as the prox-
imal cause of behavior (Shim et al., 2001). Considering that
it is not feasible to measure brand loyalty using a hypothet-
ical scenario approach, this study used behavioral intentions
as an alternate component of brand loyalty. This framework
is in line with Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) conceptualization
that specified behavioral intentions as a surrogate indicator of
actual behavior. Therefore, this study used behavioral intentions
instead of brand loyalty as a component of customer-based brand
equity.
Linking customers’ behavioral intentions to green practices,
Jeong and Jang (2010) demonstrated that customers’ perceptions of
green practices significantly influence their ecological behavioral
intentions toward the restaurant. Furthermore, Jang et al. (2010)
argued that individuals with high health consciousness might pay
greater attention to their food when they eat out because they are
more likely to be ready to undertake preventive health behaviors
(Jang et al., 2010). The findings support that the more previous
green restaurant experiences, green restaurant involvement, and
self-perceptions of health consciousness and green consumerism a
consumer has, the more likely he or she is to make a green restau-
rant choice (Jang et al., 2010).
Based on the above discussions, this study proposes a research
framework for customer-based brand equity formation (see Fig. 1).
We postulated that perceived quality, green brand image, and green
behavioral intentions are positively related to brand equity when
a restaurant engages in green practices.
2.3. The effects of self-perception: health-consciousness and
environmental-consciousness
A person’s sense of self-identification has been used to predict
his or her attitudes, which in turn affect buying behavior (Sparks
and Shepherd, 1992; Cook et al., 1992). Particularly in the con-
text of consumption situations and adoption of new products,
self-identity has been proven to be a significant precedent of
attitude and behavior (Sparks and Shepherd, 1992; Fekadu and
Kraft, 2001; Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2010). In terms of food
88 Y. Namkung, S. Jang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 85–95
Brand
Equity
Perceived
Quality
Green Brand
Image
Green Behavioral
Intention
Fig. 1. Research framework of customer-based brand equity.
choice, health is generally accepted as one of the most impor-
tant factors in the consumer decision making process (Wilkins
and Hillers, 1994; Chen, 2007). Health-consciousness is defined
as one’s perception of how health conscious he or she is. The
degree of health-consciousness likely varies among individuals.
In addition, more highly health conscious individuals might pay
greater attention to their food when they eat out. For example,
people who see themselves as health conscious are more likely
to buy organic brands than those who do not perceive them-
selves as health conscious (Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2009). In
addition, among four Generation Y identified consumer life-style
categories, health-conscious consumers showed a higher ten-
dency to check product information and had higher intentions
of paying more for green restaurants, as compared to the three
other segments: adventurous consumers, convenience-oriented
consumers, and unconcerned consumers (Jang et al., 2010). Thus,
when a consumer perceives himself or herself as health conscious,
the consumer’s attitude towards green restaurants with a healthy
food focus, such as serving locally grown, organic, and sustain-
ably produced foods, is more likely to be positive. In turn, the
consumer is more likely to have the intention of visiting green
restaurants.
Moreover, consumer perceptions or attitudes, which in turn
affect buying behavior, are associated with consumers’ deeper
value systems. Linking values to behaviors, Collins et al. (2007)
asserted that individuals who hold collective, society-directed val-
ues are more likely to engage in environmentally and socially
responsible behaviors that those who hold individualist, self-
directed values. As well as concern for the environment, the values
associated with dining at a green restaurant are also health-related.
Health-related values mirror the individualistic side of values
(Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987, 1990), whereas environmental or green
values reflect the collectivist domain (Tarkiainen and Sundqvist,
2009). Based on the aforementioned discussions, more highly envi-
ronmentally conscious individuals are more likely to consider green
or environmental issues when they dine at green restaurants than
those who do not perceive themselves as environmentally con-
scious. As dining at a green restaurant could be considered to
reflect deeper environment-related self-perceptions, the more a
consumer perceives him/herself as environmentally conscious, the
more positive his/her attitudes and behaviors will be toward green
restaurant with an environmental focus, such as energy saving and
recycling.
Table 1
Research design.
Restaurant type Scenario type
Food focus Environment No green
focus practice
Upscale casual (n = 152) n = 50 n = 52 n = 50
Casual (n = 150) n = 50 n = 50 n = 50
Fast food (n = 210) n = 70 n = 70 n = 70
3. Methodology
3.1. Study design
A scenario-based experiment was used to depict a restaurant
experience involving hypothetical green practices (see Table 1).
This study defined green restaurants as food establishments that
engage in green environmental practices, such as energy efficiency,
recycling, and sustainable food and organic products. The two types
of green practices (food-related and environmental-related) were
derived based on Choi and Parsa’s (2006) categorization and the
corresponding activities in each category were chosen in terms
of frequency and significance of practices, salience to customers,
and ease of manipulation (Choi and Parsa, 2006; Jeong and Jang,
2010; Schubert et al., 2010). The scenario manipulated the type
of green practices in restaurants: (1) green practices focused on
food, (2) green practices with an environmental focus, and (3)
no green practices (control). The diners then rated their percep-
tions and behaviors for each restaurant experience. The effects of
green practices were tested in three types of restaurant settings:
upscale casual, casual, and fast food (Noone et al., 2007). This study
used a between-subjects experiment design where participants’
responses to the restaurant experience regarding perceived qual-
ity, green brand image, and behavioral intentions were compared
across the three green practice treatment manipulations.
3.2. Procedures and instrument
A web-based survey was used to examine the effects of two
types of green practices in restaurants. This study utilized a profes-
sional online market research firm in the United States that keeps
a large list of online customer panels. Questionnaires were sent
to general U.S. restaurant customers who had visited a restaurant
within a month of the survey. As noted by Noone et al. (2007),
respondents were asked to check which type of restaurant they
had visited most recently, upscale casual (average guest check:
$20–$30, e.g., PF Chang’s, Houstons, J. Alexander), casual (aver-
age guest check: $12–$20, e.g., Applebee’s, Chili’s), or fast food
restaurant (e.g., McDonald’s, Taco Bell, KFC). Based on their answer,
participants were randomly assigned to one of the three scenario
conditions (green practices focused on food, green practices with
an environmental focus, or no green practices) in accordance with
the type of restaurant (see Table 2). Then, respondents were asked
to read a restaurant scenario while picturing the restaurant they
recently visited. The combination of the scenario and real experi-
ence projection enables participants to articulate their perceptions
of green practices in restaurants.
In the food scenario, the participant was asked to imagine that
he or she was visiting a green restaurant which serves healthy
and fresh menu choices, such as locally grown, organic, and sus-
tainably produced foods. The environmental scenario involved a
green restaurant that engages in green environmentally friendly
practices, such as installing motion sensors in the bathroom to
minimize energy consumption and providing take-out containers
that are recyclable. In the control scenario, participants were told
that they were visiting a typical restaurant that does not seem to
 Y. Namkung, S. Jang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 85–95 89

Table 2
Scenarios.

Upscale casual/green practice with food focus
Upscale casual/green practice with environment focus
Upscale casual/no green practice
Casual/green practice with food focus
Casual/green practice with environment focus
Casual/no green practice
Fast food/green practice with food focus
Fast food/green practice with environment focus
Fast food/no green practice
You and a friend go out for dinner at an upscale casual restaurant where the average check is $20–$30.
You enter the restaurant and are seated at a table. You notice that the restaurant serves healthy and fresh
menu choices, such as locally grown, organic, and sustainably produced foods. You order locally
raised beef from farms within a 100-mile radius of the restaurant. The food tastes good and is
reasonably priced. The atmosphere is pleasant and the server is friendly.
You and a friend go out for dinner at an upscale casual restaurant where the average check is $20–$30.
You enter the restaurant and are seated at a table. You order roast beef. The restaurant has installed
motion sensors in the bathrooms to minimize energy consumption. When you ask to take home your
leftovers, the server provides take-out containers that are recyclable instead of Styrofoam. The food
tastes good and is reasonably priced. The atmosphere is pleasant and the server is friendly.
You and a friend go out for dinner at an upscale restaurant where the average check is $20–$30. You
enter the restaurant and are seated at a table. The restaurant offers a typical casual dining menu (e.g., no
organic or locally raised menu). You order roast beef. The restaurant does not seem to engage in any
green practices, such as energy saving and recycling. The food tastes good and is reasonably priced. The
atmosphere is pleasant and the server is friendly.
You and a friend go out for dinner at a casual restaurant where the average check is $12–$20. You enter
the restaurant and are seated at a table. You notice that the restaurant serves healthy and fresh menu
choices, such as locally grown, organic, and sustainably produced foods. You order locally raised beef
from farms within a 100-mile radius of the restaurant. The food tastes good and is reasonably priced.
The atmosphere is pleasant and the server is friendly.
You and a friend go out for dinner at a casual restaurant where the average check is $12–$20. You enter
the restaurant and are seated at a table. You order roast beef. The restaurant has installed motion sensors
in the bathrooms to minimize energy consumption. When you ask to take home your leftovers, the
server provides take-out containers that are recyclable instead of Styrofoam. The food tastes good and is
reasonably priced. The atmosphere is pleasant and the server is friendly.
You and a friend go out for dinner at a casual restaurant where the average check is $12–$20. You enter
the restaurant and are seated at a table. The restaurant offers a typical casual dining menu (e.g., no
organic or locally raised menu). You order roast beef. The restaurant does not seem to engage in any
green practices, such as energy saving and recycling. The food tastes good and is reasonably priced. The
atmosphere is pleasant and the server is friendly.
You and a friend go out for dinner at a fast food restaurant. You enter the restaurant and are seated at a
table. You notice that the restaurant serves healthy and fresh menu choices, such as locally grown,
organic, and sustainably produced foods. You order organic hamburger from farms within a 100-mile
radius of the restaurant. The food tastes good and is reasonably priced. The atmosphere is pleasant and
the server is friendly.
You and a friend go out for dinner at a fast food restaurant. You enter the restaurant and are seated at a
table. You order hamburger. The restaurant has installed motion sensors in the bathrooms to minimize
energy consumption. When you ask to take home your leftovers, the server provides take-out
containers that are recyclable instead of Styrofoam. The food tastes good and is reasonably priced. The
atmosphere is pleasant and the server is friendly.
You and a friend go out for dinner at a fast food restaurant. You enter the restaurant and are seated at a
table. The restaurant offers a typical fast food dining menu (e.g., no organic or locally raised menu). You
order a hamburger. The restaurant does not seem to engage in any green practices, such as energy
saving and recycling. The food tastes good and is reasonably priced. The atmosphere is pleasant and the
server is friendly.

engage in any green practices. Customer experiences described in
the three scenarios were exactly alike, such as providing good tast-
ing food, reasonable prices, a pleasant atmosphere, and friendly
service. After reading the scenario, participants rated their hypo-
thetical restaurant experience in terms of perceived quality, green
brand image, and behavioral intentions.
This study adopted previously validated items and the word-
ing of the measures was slightly modified to better fit this study.
Consistent with prior studies (Lassar et al., 1995; Yoo and Donthu,
2001; Atilgan et al., 2005), the perceived quality of the restau-
rant experience was measured using a 7-point scale (1: strongly
disagree to 7: strongly agree). Examples of items are “it seems
likely that this is a high quality restaurant,” “from my experience
of this restaurant, I expect superior performance,” and “this is a
high quality restaurant.” Respondents’ perception of green brand
image with restaurant service was measured using a 7-point scale
(Chen, 2009). Green brand image items include “I regard this restau-
rant as a benchmark or standard of environmental commitment,”
“this restaurant is successful in terms of its environmental per-
formance,” and “this restaurant’s environmental concerns are well
established.” Behavioral intentions regarding the restaurant expe-
rience, such as willingness to continue to visit, recommend the
restaurant to others, and say positive things about the restaurant
because of its eco-friendly practices were measured on a 7-point
scale (Zeithaml et al., 1996; Jeong and Jang, 2010). In addition,
consumer perceptions of how health conscious they are (Squires
et al., 2001; Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2009) and whether they
see themselves as a green consumer (Sparks and Shepherd, 1992;
Cook et al., 1992; Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2009; Whitmarsh and
O’Neill, 2010) were also measured on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Items for self perception of health-
consciousness included “I choose food carefully to ensure good
health” and “I think of myself as a health conscious consumer.”
Items for self perception of environmental-consciousness included
“I always buy products that are friendly to the environment” and
“I think of myself as an environmentally friendly consumer.” The
level for internal consistency in each construct (perceived qual-
ity, green brand image, green behavioral intentions, self-perception
of health-consciousness and environmental-consciousness) was
acceptable with Cronbach’s alpha estimates ranging from 0.91 to
0.97 (Nunnally, 1978).
4. Results
4.1. Sample
A total of 512 usable responses were obtained. Of the valid
sample of 512 respondents, 52% were male and 48% were female.
Respondents ranged in age from 19 to 88, with an average age of
39.3 years old. Approximately half of the respondents had an annual
90 Y. Namkung, S. Jang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 85–95
Perceived quality
6
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
Upscale casual
5
4.8 Casual
4.6 Fastfood
4.4
4.2
4
typeA typeB typeC
Fig. 2. Perceived quality by experimental condition. Note: 1 = strongly disagree,
4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree.
income of less than $79,999. A majority of the respondents were
Caucasian (80.3%) and had a bachelor’s degree or higher (63.3%).
In addition, about two-thirds of the participants (63.3%) indicated
they dine out one or two times a week.
4.2. Perceived quality by experimental condition
As a manipulation check, this study calculated an average guest
check for each segment excluding outliers that are outside the range
of ±2 standard deviations. A one-way ANOVA showed that the aver-
age guest checks were significantly different among the three types
of restaurants (p < 0.001): upscale casual (28.25 ± 11.88), casual
(14.02 ± 5.39), and fast food (6.82 ± 3.08). The average guest checks
of the three types of restaurants fall within the expected range sug-
gested by Noone et al. (2007). The results verified that variations in
restaurant segment had the intended effect on the participants.
To verify the effect of type of restaurant in perceived quality
ratings, this study averaged the two treatment conditions and the
control condition in three types of restaurants. A one-way ANOVA
and post hoc Duncan’s tests showed that the mean levels of per-
ceived quality for upscale casual restaurants were highest (5.42).
As expected, casual dining restaurants received higher ratings on
perceived quality measures (5.01) than fast food restaurants (4.54).
Overall, the participants in this study indicated that they perceived
the experience described in the scenarios as being higher quality as
the restaurant segment improved from fast food to upscale casual
restaurant (see Table 3 and Fig. 2).
Regardless of restaurant type, the results of the one-way ANOVA
show that the perceived quality of green practices focused on food
(scenario A) and the environment (scenario B) were not signifi-
cantly different from the control scenario (scenario C). Contrary to
our expectations, the respondents’ perceptions of green practice
scenarios were not significantly higher than the scenario encom-
passing no green practices. Overall, the effect of green practices
on perceived quality was not observed in all types of restaurants.
Restaurant green practices do not seem to influence customer per-
ceptions of perceived quality.
4.3. Green brand image by experimental condition
To examine the effects of two types of green practices on green
brand image as compared to no green practices, a one-way ANOVA
and post hoc Duncan’s tests were conducted. The green brand
image ratings in the no green practice condition were kept constant
as a neutral rating of 4 on a 7-point scale (see Table 4 and Fig. 3).
In upscale casual restaurants, food focused (5.13) and environmen-
tally focused (4.56) scenarios received significantly higher ratings
in terms of perceived green brand image than the no green practices
condition (F = 15.564, p < 0.001). Similarly, in casual restau-
rants respondents’ feelings regarding green brand image were
Green brand image
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
typeA typeB typeC
Upscale casual Casual Fastfood
Fig. 3. Green brand image by experimental condition. Note: 1 = strongly disagree,
4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree.
significantly higher for both types of green practice scenarios (4.47
for the food focused scenario and 4.92 for the environmentally
focused scenario) than the no green practice condition (F = 10.435,
p < 0.001).
In terms of the impact of the two types of green practices, green
brand image for the food focused scenario (5.13) was significantly
higher than the environmentally focused scenario (4.56) in upscale
casual restaurants. However, green brand image in casual restau-
rants was significantly higher for the environmentally focused
scenario (4.92) than the food focused scenario (4.47). The results
suggest that green restaurant practices with food are more effec-
tive than green practices with an environmental focus in upscale
casual restaurants, while green practices with an environmental
focus seem more effective in the formation of green brand image
in casual dining restaurants.
However, in fast food restaurants the contrast between the two
types of green practices and no green practices failed to reach statis-
tical levels of significance. Consequently, in both upscale casual and
casual restaurants, whether customers experienced food or envi-
ronmentally focused green practices they rated the green brand
image higher than customers who experienced no green practices.
Green practices had no apparent effect on green brand image in fast
food restaurants.
4.4. Green behavioral intentions by experimental condition
To examine the effects of two types of green practices on green
behavioral intentions as compared to no green practices, a one-way
ANOVA and post hoc Duncan’s tests were conducted. The results
largely replicate the results regarding the impact of green prac-
tices on green brand image (see Table 5 and Fig. 4). Similarly, green
behavioral intentions in the no green practices condition were set
as a neutral rating of 4 on the 7-point scale.
In upscale casual restaurants, the food focused (5.13) and envi-
ronmentally focused (4.50) scenarios received significantly higher
ratings in terms of consumers’ green behavioral intentions than
the no green practice condition (F = 10.710, p < 0.001). Similarly, in
casual restaurants respondents’ green behavioral intentions were
significantly higher for the two types of green practice scenarios
(4.51 for the food focused scenario and 4.85 for the environmentally
focused scenario) than with no green practices (F = 7.925, p < 0.01).
In terms of the impact of the two types of green practices,
green behavioral intentions for the food focused scenario (5.13)
were significantly higher than the environmentally focused sce-
nario (4.50) in upscale casual restaurants, whereas no significant
differences were found between green behavioral intentions for
 Y. Namkung, S. Jang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 85–95 91

Table 3
Perceived quality by experimental condition.

Restaurant type Perceived quality

Scenario type F (p-value) Overall F(2,509)

Type A Type B Type C

Upscale casual 5.46 ± 1.09 5.47 ± 1.18 5.42 ± 1.21 0.187 (0.830) 5.42 ± 1.16a 23.392***
Casual 5.05 ± 1.22 5.09 ± 1.28 4.92 ± 1.16 0.272 (0.762) 5.01 ± 1.21b
Fast food 4.53 ± 1.32 4.69 ± 1.40 4.40 ± 1.09 0.896 (0.410) 4.54 ± 1.28c

Type A: Food focus/type B: environment focus/type C: control.

Overall: The mean value of perceived quality in three types of scenarios.
Duncan grouping: Means with different letters are significantly different.
***
p < 0.001.

Table 4
Green brand image by experimental condition.

Restaurant type Green brand image

Scenario type F (p-value) Overall F(2,509)

Type A Type B Type C

Upscale casual 5.13 ± 1.06a 4.56 ± 1.39b 4c 15.564*** 4.56 ± 1.11a 7.025**
Casual 4.47 ± 1.26a 4.92 ± 1.21b 4c 10.435*** 4.47 ± 1.07a
Fast food 4.19 ± 1.58c 4.18 ± 1.59c 4c 0.498 (0.609) 4.13 ± 1.29b

Type c = keep constant as neutral (rating of 4 on a 7-point scale).

Duncan grouping: Means with different letters are significantly different.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

Table 5
Green behavioral intentions by experimental condition.

Restaurant type Green behavioral intentions

Scenario type F (p-value) Overall F(2,509)

Type A Type B Type C

Upscale casual 5.13 ± 1.48a 4.50 ± 1.49b 4c 10.710*** 4.54 ± 1.29a 5.624**
Casual 4.51 ± 1.22a 4.85 ± 1.41a 4c 7.925** 4.45 ± 1.12a
Fast food 4.14 ± 1.72c 4.23 ± 1.60c 4c 0.488 (0.615) 4.12 ± 1.28b

Type c = keep constant as neutral (rating of 4 on a 7-point scale).

Duncan grouping: Means with different letters are significantly different.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

the environmentally focused scenario (4.85) and the food focused
scenario (4.51) in casual dining restaurants. The results provide
strong grounds to support the importance of green food, especially
in upscale casual restaurants.
Green behavioral intentions
5.5
Conversely, in fast food restaurants the contrast between the
two types of green practices and no green practices was not sig-
nificantly different. When customers experienced green practices,
either food or environmentally focus, in upscale casual and casual
dining restaurants they are more likely to revisit the restaurant
than those who did not, but the effects of green practices on green
behavioral intentions were not significant in fast food restaurants.
4.5. Effects of self-perception: health-consciousness

This study further investigated whether consumer self-

5 perceptions affect how they perceived green restaurant practices in
relation to health and environmental-consciousness. An indepen-
dent samples t-test was performed to examine whether consumers
4.5
who show a high health-consciousness respond more positively to
green restaurant practices with a food focus than those who are
4 less health conscious (see Table 6 and Fig. 5). Using the mean value
(4.87) of the three health-consciousness items (e.g., I choose food
carefully to ensure good health), this study divided the samples into
3.5 high health conscious diners and low health-consciousness din-
typeA typeB typeC ers. Due to the small sample size across each scenario, this study
merged upscale casual and casual data into casual dining. Thus, the
Upscale casual Casual Fastfood
high health conscious diners (n = 41) were those who rated their
Fig. 4. Green behavioral intentions by experimental condition. Note: 1 = strongly self-perception of health-consciousness higher than average (4.87)
disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree. and the remaining respondents were grouped as the low health
92 Y. Namkung, S. Jang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 85–95
Table 6
Perceived quality, green brand image, and green behavioral intentions by health consciousness group.
Casual dining
High (n = 59) Low (n = 41)
Perceived quality 5.37 ± 1.27 5.08 ± 0.99
Brand image 4.94 ± 1.23 4.60 ± 1.17
Behavioral intention 5.10 ± 1.46 4.41 ± 1.17
Low = low health conscious group/high = high health conscious group.
*
p < 0.05.
conscious diners (n = 59). In the casual dining group, participants’
health-consciousness did not significantly influence their percep-
tions of quality in green practices with a food focus, although the
high health-consciousness group showed higher perceived quality
than the low health-consciousness group, as expected (p = 0.056).
Similarly, significant differences between the two groups were not
found in consumer perceptions of green brand image, while the
levels of green brand image for high health conscious diners were
higher than the low health conscious diners. With regard to behav-
ioral intentions, the effects of respondents’ health-consciousness
were statistically significant (p < 0.05), indicating diners with high
health-consciousness were more willing to return to the restaurant
than diners with low health-consciousness when they experienced
green foods.
As in casual dining restaurants, this study divided high
health conscious diners (n = 28) and low health conscious din-
ers (n = 42) in fast food restaurants. The differences between the
groups were statistically significant in terms of perceived quality,
green brand image, and behavioral intentions (p < 0.05), indicating
the effects of consumer self-perceptions of health-consciousness
on their evaluation of green restaurant practice focused on
food.
4.6. Effects of self-perception: environmental-consciousness
An independent samples t-test was conducted to test
whether consumers who show high environmental-consciousness
responded more positively to green restaurant practices with
an environmental focus than those with low environmental-
consciousness (see Table 7 and Fig. 6). Using the mean value (4.22)
of the five health-consciousness items (e.g., I think of myself as an
environmentally friendly consumer), this study divided the sample
into high environmentally conscious diners and low environmen-
tally consciousness diners. Considering the small sample size across
each scenario, this study merged upscale casual and casual data into
casual dining. Thus, the high environmentally consciousness diners
(n = 35) rated their self-perception of environmental-consciousness
Perceived quality by group Green brand image by group
casual
5.5 5.5
5 5
4.5
4.5
4 4
4 3.5
low high low
Fig. 5. Perceived quality, green brand image, and green behavioral intentions by health consciousness group. Note: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree,
low = low health conscious group/high = high health conscious group.
Fast food
t (p-value) High (n = 28) Low (n = 42) t (p-value)
1.222 (0.225) 4.94 ± 1.34 4.25 ± 1.25 2.174* (0.033)
1.368 (0.174) 4.66 ± 1.34 3.89 ± 1.66 2.053* (0.044)
2.525* (0.013) 4.72 ± 1.59 3.74 ± 1.71 2.412* (0.019)
higher than average (4.22) and the remaining respondents were
grouped as the low environmental-consciousness group (n = 35).
In both casual dining and fast food restaurants, partici-
pants’ environmental-consciousness significantly influenced their
perceptions of quality in terms of green practices with an envi-
ronmental focus (p < 0.01), green brand image (p < 0.001), and
behavioral intentions (p < 0.01), as expected. The results suggest
the positive effects of consumer self-perceptions of environmental-
consciousness in their evaluation of green restaurant practices with
an environmental focus, as well as green brand image and willing-
ness to revisit to the restaurant.
5. Discussions and implications
5.1. Theoretical implications
Previous research on brand equity applied Aaker’s (1991) multi-
dimensional concept comprised of four components: perceived
quality, brand awareness, brand image, and brand loyalty. How-
ever, few studies have taken into consideration the effects of green
restaurant practices in conjunction with brand equity formation
from the customer’s perspective. By filling this gap in the research
this study highlights several theoretical implications.
This study focused on the links between green practices and
individual components of brand equity. The study employed
perceived quality, brand image, and behavioral intentions as com-
ponents of customer-based brand equity using a hypothetical
scenario approach. The hypothetical scenarios involve two cate-
gories of green practices (green practices focused on food and green
practices with an environmental focus) and three types of restau-
rants (upscale casual, casual, and fast food restaurants). In addition,
this study examined whether consumer self perceptions of health
and environmental-consciousness affect how they evaluate green
restaurant practices.
Our findings show that the effects of green practices on three
different elements of brand equity (perceived quality, green brand
image and behavioral intentions) were not all statistically signif-
icant. Green practices significantly enhance consumer perceptions
Green behavioral intentions by group
fast food
5.5
5
4.5
3.5
high low high
 Y. Namkung, S. Jang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 85–95 93

Table 7
Perceived quality, green brand image, and green behavioral intentions by environmental consciousness group.

Casual Fast food

High (n = 57) Low (n = 45) t (p-value) High (n = 35) Low (n = 35) t (p-value)

Perceived quality 5.57 ± 0.94 4.91 ± 1.47 2.624* 5.11 ± 1.22 4.26 ± 1.46 2.646*
Brand image 5.21 ± 1.03 4.13 ± 1.39 4.508*** 4.78 ± 1.46 3.59 ± 1.51 3.349**
Behavioral intention 5.31 ± 1.00 3.86 ± 1.54 5.474*** 4.92 ± 1.47 3.53 ± 1.43 4.015***

Low = low environment conscious group/high = high environment conscious group.

*
p < 0.05.

of green brand image and behavioral intentions, whereas the
effects of green practices on perceived quality were not significant.
Additionally, the effects of the two types of green practices differed
across the three types of restaurants.
Regarding the association between green practices and per-
ceived quality, regardless of restaurant type the two types of green
restaurant practices did not significantly elevate perceived qual-
ity as compared with no green practices. This finding indicates that
green practices may not be an important determinant of restaurant
quality and are less essential than other key aspects of perceived
quality, such as food, service, and atmosphere, no matter what type
of restaurant consumers go to.
Analyzing the impact of two types of green practices on green
brand image, the results showed that in both upscale casual and
casual dining restaurants the effects of either type of green practice
on green brand image and behavioral intentions were significant as
compared to a lack of green practices. Specifically, upscale restau-
rant diners rated green brand image with a food focus higher
than those with an environmental focus. Casual restaurant din-
ers’ perceptions of green brand image were significantly higher
for environmentally focused practices than food focused practices.
However, in fast food restaurants the effects of the two types of
green practices on green brand image were not statistically notice-
able. These findings are not consistent with Jeong and Jang’s (2010)
study, which demonstrated that green practices significantly influ-
ence consumers’ perceptions of ecological image at Starbucks. Our
results did not support the proposed effect of green practices on
brand image and behavioral intentions in fast food restaurants,
but the positive effects of self-perceptions of health and environ-
mental consciousness in consumers’ evaluation of green restaurant
practices might help explain those non-significant links. Thus, addi-
tional research is needed to more deeply examine the association
between green practices, brand image, behavioral intentions and
their linkage to self-perceptions.
5.2. Managerial implications
From a practical perspective, the study’s findings suggest that
restaurant practitioners should consider type of restaurant when
they seek to engage in different aspects of green practices. Accord-
ingly, restaurant managers should understand that green practices
with a food emphasis would be more effective in the formation of
a green image than an environmental emphasis in upscale dining
restaurants where consumers put a high priority on healthy foods.
In upscale casual restaurants, highlighting locally grown or organic
ingredients on the menu can be good evidence of a restaurant’s
green sensitivity. On the contrary, in casual dining restaurants
practitioners need to pay more attention to green practices with
environmental aspects when developing green brand image. When
establishing a green image, installing motion sensors in the bath-
rooms and providing to-go containers with compostable materials
instead of Styrofoam are good signs of energy consumption mini-
mization and waste reduction policies. Furthermore, our findings
indicate that as compared to restaurants with no green practices the
effects of either type of green practice on green behavioral inten-
tions are similar to the effects of green practices on green brand
image.
Further investigations of the effects of self-perception show that
respondents’ health-consciousness largely affected how they per-
ceived green restaurant practices with a food focus. In fast food
restaurants, where the effects of green practices were not salient in
respondents’ evaluations of restaurant green practices, the impact
of green practices on perceived quality, green brand image, and
behavioral intentions were significantly different between high
health conscious diners and low health conscious diners. In casual
dining restaurants, due to small sample size significant differences
were not observed between the high health-consciousness group
and the low health-consciousness group in terms of consumer per-
ceptions of perceived quality and green brand image. However, the
results revealed that high health conscious diners rated perceived
quality and green brand image higher than low health conscious
diners. Similarly, in both casual dining and fast food restaurants the
results showed the positive effects of consumer self-perceptions of
environmental-consciousness in their evaluation of green restau-
rant practices with an environmental focus, as well as green brand
image and willingness to revisit the restaurant. This finding echoes
that customers’ environmental concerns were important determi-
nants of their intentions to patronize green restaurants (Hu et al.,

Perceived Quality by Group Green Brand Image by Group Green Behavioral Intentions by Group

casual fast food

5.5
6 5.5
5 5
5.5
4.5 4.5
5 4
4
4.5 3.5
3 3.5
4
low high low high
low high

Fig. 6. Perceived quality, green brand image, and green behavioral intentions by environmental consciousness group. Note: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly
agree, low = low environmentally conscious group/high = high environmentally conscious group.
94 Y. Namkung, S. Jang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 85–95
2010). Based on these research findings, management needs to
look for more effective green marketing strategies considering that
more and more consumers are becoming health and environmen-
tally conscious and sensitive to a restaurant’s green practices and
sustainability.
The challenge for marketers in building a strong brand is ensur-
ing that customers have the right type of experiences with products
and services. Depending on the type of restaurant, providing evi-
dence of green practices, either food emphasis or environmental
focus allows restaurant managers to reinforce green brand equity.
Also, management needs to spur customers into greener behaviors
in restaurants as well as at home. For instance, fast food restau-
rants could offer green points that can be used as cash if consumers
bring their own mug instead of using a take-out cup. Thus, restau-
rant managers should develop strategies for implementing green
initiatives as well as communicating their green and sustainable
practices.
6. Limitations and further research
Despite its contributions and managerial implications, several
limitations of this study need to be addressed. First, this study
emphasizes two aspects of green practices that are significant,
visible, and noticeable to customers. Thus, the inclusion of other
dimensions of green practices, which may influence consumers’
perceptions and behaviors, may help expand our knowledge
regarding customer perceptions of green restaurant practices in
relation to perceived quality, green brand image, and behavioral
intentions.
Second, this study viewed green practices as a quality enhancer;
however, our results did not support the positive effects of green
practices on perceived quality. Therefore, future research should
address other key variables of quality in restaurants, such as food,
service, and atmosphere and test the relative impact of green prac-
tices on perceived quality.
Third, this study was conducted in the United States, which is
perceived as having higher levels of environmental awareness and
green momentum. Future studies need to be conducted in other
countries as well given the differences in consumer awareness of a
restaurant’s green practices and self or society-directed values.
Another direction for future research involves personal charac-
teristics, such as income-level or perceived socioeconomic class,
which could relate to dining establishment and interest in green
activities. How does the level of socioeconomic class influence
the way customers choose and evaluate green restaurants? Are
customers with high incomes willing to pay more for green prac-
tices than low income customers? Are highly educated customers
more likely to go to green restaurants than less educated cus-
tomers? Thus, further research that includes these variables may
help broaden our knowledge of the customers’ perceptions of green
practices and their relationship with brand-equity formation con-
structs.
References
Aaker, D.A., 1991. Managing Brand Equity. The Free Press, New York.
Aaker, D.A., 1996. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review 38 (3), 102–120.
Atilgan, E., Aksoy, S., Akinci, S., 2005. Determinants of the brand equity: a verification
approach in the beverage industry in Turkey. Marketing Intelligence & Planning
23 (3), 237–248.
Biel, A.L., 1992. How brand image drives brand equity. Journal of Advertising
Research 32 (6), 6–12.
Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K., 1998. On the relationship between store image, store
satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing 32 (5/6), 499–513.
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 18 (7), 1008–1021.
Chen, Y-S., 2009. The drivers of green brand equity: green brand image, green sat-
isfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics 98, 307–319.
Choi, G., Parsa, H.G., 2006. Green practices II: measuring restaurant managers’ psy-
chological attributes and their willingness to charge for the green practices.
Journal of Foodservice Business Research 9 (4), 41–63.
Collins, C.M., Steg, L., Koning, M.A.S., 2007. Customers’ values beliefs on sustain-
able corporate performance, and buying behavior. Psychology & Marketing 24,
555–577.
Cook, A.J., Kerr, G.N., Moore, K., 1992. Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing
GM food. Journal of Economic Psychology 23 (5), 557–572.
Crane, F.G., Clarke, T.K., 1988. The identification of evaluative criteria and cues used
in selecting services. The Journal of Services Marketing 2 (2), 53–59.
Dyson, P., Farr, A., Hollis, N.S., 1996. Understanding, measuring, and using brand
equity. Journal of Advertising Research 36 (6), 9–21.
Elan, E., 2009. Chains growing green efforts despite economy. Nation’s Restaurant
News, February 18.
Faircloth, J.B., Capella, L.M., Alford, B.L., 2001. The effect of brand attitude and brand
image on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 9 (3), 61–75.
Fekadu, Z., Kraft, P., 2001. Self-identity in planned behavior perspective: past
behavior and its moderating effects on self-identity-intention relations. Social
Behavior and Personality 29 (7), 671–686.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction
to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gilg, A., Barr, S., Ford, N., 2005. Green consumption or sustainable lifestyle? Identi-
fying the sustainable consumer. Futures 37, 481–490.
Green Restaurant Associations, 2011. Available at:
http://www.greenrestaurant.com (retrieved July 13, 2011).
Ham, S., Lee, S., 2011. US restaurant companies’ green marketing via company web-
sites: impact on financial performance. Tourism Economics 17 (5), 1055–1069.
Hu, H-H., Parsa, H.G., Self, J., 2010. The dynamics of green restaurant patronage.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51 (3), 344–362.
Hu, W., Wall, G., 2005. Environmental management, environmental image and the
competitive tourist attraction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13 (6), 617–635.
Hyun, S.S., Kim, W., 2011. Dimensions of brand equity in the chain restaurant indus-
try. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52 (3), 1–9.
Jang, Y.J., Kim, W.G., Bonn, M.A., 2010. Generation Y consumers’ selection attributes
and behavioral intentions concerning green restaurants. International Journal
of Hospitality Management 30 (4), 803–811.
Janiszewski, C., Osselaer, S.M.J.V., 2000. A connectionist model of brand-quality
associations. Journal of Marketing Research 37 (3), 331–350.
Jeong, E.H., Jang, S.C., 2010. Effects of restaurant green practices: which practices are
important and effective? Caesars Hospitality Research Summit, Paper 13. Avail-
able at: http://digitalcommons.library.unlv.edu/hhrc/2010/june2010/13 (June
8, 2010).
Kassinis, G.I., Soteriou, A.C., 2003. Green the service profit chain: the impact of envi-
ronmental management practices. Production and Operations Management 12
(3), 386–403.
Keller, K.L., 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1), 1–22.
Keller, K.L., 2003a. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Keller, K.L., 2003b. Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge.
Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4), 595–600.
Kim, H.B., Kim, W.G., 2005. The relationship between brand equity and firms’ per-
formance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants. Tourism Management 26 (4),
549–560.
Kim, W.G., Kim, H.B., 2004. Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity:
investigating the relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 45 (2), 115–131.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., Sharma, A., 1995. Measuring customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Consumer Marketing 12 (4), 11–19.
Lorenzini, B., 1994. The green restaurant. Part II. Systems and service. Restaurant &
Institutions 104 (11), 119–136.
MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), 2009. Restau-
rant Pollution Prevention and Waste Reduction, Available at:
www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ead-p2-food-restp2wr.pdf (retrieved
March 11, 2009).
Miles, M.P., Covin, J.G., 2000. Environmental marketing: a source of reputational,
competitive, and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics 23 (3), 299–311.
Motameni, R., Shahrokhi, M., 1998. Brand equity valuation: a global perspective.
Journal of Product and Brand Management 7 (4), 275–290.
National Restaurant Association, 2011. Available at: http://www.restaurant.org/
pdfs/sustainability/recycling full survey results.pdf (retrieved July 13, 2011).
Nations’ Restaurant News, 2010. Study: Going Green may Help Costs, Brand Image.
Available at: www.FindArticles.com (March 22, 2010).
Noone, B., Kimes, S., Mattila, A., Wirtz, J., 2007. The effect of meal pace on customer
satisfaction. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 48 (3), 231–245.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L., 1999. Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of Marketing 63 (4), 33–44.
Schubert, F., Kandampully, J., Solnet, D., Kralj, A., 2010. Exploring consumer percep-
tions of green restaurants in the US. Tourism and Hospitality Research 10 (4),
286–300.
Schwaiger, M., 2004. Components and parameters of corporate reputation: an
empirical study. Schmalenbach Business Review 56, 46–71.
 Y. Namkung, S. Jang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 85–95
Schwartz, S.H., Bilsky, W., 1987. Toward a universal psychological structure of
human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (3), 550–562.
Schwartz, S.H., Bilsky, W., 1990. Toward a theory of universal content and structure
of values: extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 58 (5), 87–91.
Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L., Warrington, P., 2001. An online prepurchase inten-
tions model: the role of intention to search. Journal of Retailing 77 (3), 397–416.
Simon, C.J., Sullivan, M.W., 1993. The measurement and determinants of brand
equity: a financial approach. Marketing Science 12 (1), 28–52.
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., 1992. Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior:
assessing the role of identification with green consumerism. Social Psychology
Quarterly 55 (4), 388–399.
Squires, L., Juric, B., Cornwell, B.T., 2001. Level of market development and intensity
of organic food consumption: cross-cultural study of Danish and New Zealand
consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18 (4/5), 392–409.
Tarkiainen, A., Sundqvist, S., 2009. Product involvement in organic food con-
sumption: does ideology meet practice? Psychology and Marketing 26 (9),
844–863.
95
Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S., 2010. Green identity, green living? The role of
pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-
environmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (3), 305–314.
Wilkins, J.L., Hillers, V.N., 1994. Influences of pesticides residue and environmental
concerns on organic foods preference among food cooperative members and
non-members in Washington State. Journal of Nutrition Education 26 (1), 26–33.
Wolfe, K.L., Shanklin, C.W., 2001. Environmental practices and management con-
cerns of conference center administrations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research 25 (2), 209–216.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., 2001. Developing and validating a multi-dimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research 52 (1), 1–14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Lee, S., 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix ele-
ments and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (2),
195–211.
Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a mean-end
model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52 (3), 2–22.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral consequences of
service quality. Journal of Marketing 60 (2), 31–46.