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

net/publication/331719851

A multiple-item scale for measuring “sustainable consumption behaviour”

construct: Development and psychometric evaluation

Article  in  Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · March 2019

DOI: 10.1108/APJML-02-2018-0047

CITATIONS READS

93 11,649

3 authors, including:

Farzana Quoquab Jihad Mohammad

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 110 PUBLICATIONS   1,611 CITATIONS   
163 PUBLICATIONS   1,866 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The relationship between job crafting and job performance: Empirical evidence from the automobile industry View project

Green Behavior and Corporate Social Responsibility in Asia (Edited Case Book) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jihad Mohammad on 08 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm

Development
A multiple-item scale for and
measuring “sustainable psychometric
evaluation
consumption behaviour” construct
Development and psychometric evaluation 791

Farzana Quoquab, Jihad Mohammad and Nurain Nisa Sukari Received 6 February 2018
Revised 24 July 2018
International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 5 September 2018
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 21 October 2018
Accepted 8 December 2018

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a reliable and valid scale with desirable psychometric
properties and sufficient level of reliability and validity to measure sustainable consumption from
consumer perspective.
Design/methodology/approach – In achieving this objective: the domain of the construct is specified;
items are generated through qualitative interviews; the initial scale is purified, and finally it is validated.
A survey yielded 1,002 complete, usable questionnaires in order to run the analysis. Data were splitted in half.
First half was utilised for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the second half of the data were utilised
to run confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The initial pool of item was tested using EFA via SPSS version 23.
The CFA was conducted using SmartPLS-3.2.7 to confirm the dimensionality of sustainable consumption
behaviour (SCB) scale.
Findings – The EFA result revealed that SCB is a three-dimensional construct which is consisted of 24 items.
The scale includes: quality of life; care for environmental well-being; and care for the future generation.
The CFA confirmed the dimensionality, reliability and validity of the SCB scale.
Research limitations/implications – This sustainable consumption scale can be used to determine
individual’s level of responsibility towards living a quality life, environment welfare, as well as responsibility
towards sustainability of the future generation. It is expected that this initiative will stimulate further
research on regional, cultural and demographic differences in understanding sustainable development.
Practical implications – Marketing practitioners may benefit from this scale by understanding the SCB of
the socially and environmentally conscious consumers. It may eventually assist them to shape their strategies
to meet the increasing demands of environmentalists.
Originality/value – The notion of sustainable consumption received significant research attention in
present decade. It is regarded as one of the major catalysts of the sustainable development. However, in most
cases sustainable consumption phenomenon is discussed from greater economic perspective and not much
effort has been paid to consider it from consumer’s perspective. Furthermore, there is a lack of readily
available scale to measure this construct in the existing literature.
Keywords Confirmatory factor analysis, Exploratory factor analysis, Quality of life,
Care for the environmental well-being, Care for the future generation, Sustainable consumption behaviour
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In recent years, the notion of sustainable consumption is in the forefront due to its impact on
the economy, society and environment (Abdulrazak and Quoquab, 2018; Kumar, 2017;
Minton et al., 2018; Zhao and Scroeder, 2010). It is regarded as one of the major catalysts of a
nation’s sustainable development (Peattie and Collins, 2009; UNEP, 2014). It suggests for
adopting a wise consumption habit that represents care for the environmental welfare
(Hobson, 2004; Lee, 2014; Quoquab and Mohammad, 2017; Wolff and Schönherr, 2011).
It is evident that excess use and misuse of the environmental resources are at the
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
rise and as a consequence, earth’s vital resources are shrinking to an alarming level and Logistics
(Alisat and Reimer, 2015; Bogueva et al., 2017). Indeed greenhouse effect, rapid depletion Vol. 31 No. 4, 2019
pp. 791-816
of major natural resources and global warming are posing threat to human-being’s © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-5855
quality of life (QL) and even his existence. Thus, it is evident that there is a need to DOI 10.1108/APJML-02-2018-0047
APJML consider paradigm shift from conventional consumption habit to sustainable consumption
31,4 behaviour (SCB). Only government and/or social marketers alone cannot enhance this
movement. Consumers also need to take certain level of responsibility to make this
environmental movement stronger (Quoquab and Mohammad, 2016; Tangsupwattana
and Liu, 2017).
There are significant bodies of literature that focussed on the issues pertaining to
792 sustainable development (Kinoti, 2011; Singh and Kushwaha, 2010), sustainable energy
consumption (Midilli et al., 2006), sustainable supply chain management (Liu et al., 2012),
sustainable education (Castle and McGuire, 2010) and green and ethical marketing
(Cavicchi, 2012; Donoho et al., 2001). Nevertheless, most of the past studies have discussed
the sustainable consumption phenomenon from greater economic perspective and not
much effort has been paid to consider it from consumer’s perspective (see Haron et al.,
2005; Quoquab and Mohammad, 2016; Yin and Ma, 2009; Zhao and Scroeder, 2010).
Additionally, there is a lack of readily available scale to measure this construct in the
existing literature. There are two notable studies that attempted to develop scale in order
to tap sustainable consumption phenomenon – one of them is Balderjahn et al.‘s (2013)
“consciousness for sustainable consumption” scale and the other one is Sudbury-Riley and
Kohlbacher’s (2016) “ethically minded consumer behaviour” scale. However, the earlier
one has focussed on measuring consumer’s consciousness level by ignoring the
behavioural aspect. There is an ongoing debate that though consumers may be conscious
about particular issue and may hold positive attitude towards a particular product or
services, they may not make it a habit in reality (Carrigan et al., 2011; Cowe and Williams,
2000; Eckhardt et al., 2010). Thus, the present study attempts to focus on behavioural
aspect of the sustainable consumption phenomenon. Again the later study focussed on
ethically minded consumer behaviour which intend to understand the “environmental”
aspect by ignoring the other two facets of sustainable consumption which is QL and care
for the future generation.
The accumulative consumers’ behaviour in term of sustainable consumption can be
considered as a vital solution for saving natural resource and achieving sustainable
development for the nation (Kates et al., 2005; Nguyen et al., 2017; Quoquab and
Mohammad, 2016). Moreover, it can be a solution to reduce poverty worldwide (Connolly
and Prothero, 2003). Nevertheless, adopting such practices is very slow in developing
countries due to various reasons; such as lack of awareness among the general public in
regard to sustainable consumption, lack of media aggression to educate the public
about the need for such consumption pattern and the extra cost that consumers need to
bear (Quoquab and Sukari, 2017). Therefore, measuring SCB from consumer preservative
is very crucial for policymakers, marketers, and scholars. Particularly, policy-makers can
measure the extent to which consumers are practicing these behaviour, legitimate certain
strategies, polices and regulations that can motivate consumers to adopt these practices,
reducing fees and tax that government usually impose upon friendly environment
products to assist consumers to purchase these categories of products. Marketing
practitioners can formulate suitable business strategies to accelerate the sustainable
consumption practices. Social science researchers can find valid and reliable scale to
measure consumers’ SCB. This is likely to motivate and encourage researchers to conduct
more research in this area, which can advance the theory of consumer behaviour in term of
sustainable consumption.
Considering this, the present study aims to develop a reliable and valid scale with desirable
psychometric properties to measure SCB construct. The rest of the paper is fivefold. In the
next section, SCB is conceptualised. Following sections discuss the instrument development
process, validity process and final survey results are reported. Finally, a conclusion has been
made by highlighting the implications and future research directions.
Sustainable consumption Development
Conceptualization of the construct and
Sustainability is “[…] a global approach towards securing lasting welfare for entire human psychometric
race” (Nkamnebe, 2011, p. 222). The notion of sustainable consumption was incepted in Oslo
Symposium in 1994. It suggested that, sustainable consumption spectrum goes beyond of
evaluation
direct consumption. It includes the whole consumption pattern of the individuals and
emphasises on improving QL of individuals without putting focus on materialistic gains. 793
In the existing literature, there is a lack of agreement on defining the sustainable
consumption construct. For instance, Lee (2014) defined sustainable consumption as
individual’s concern towards environmental aspect in which the individuals make
conscious choices in their personal consumption decision. On the other hand, Hornibrook
et al. (2013) referred it as the proper use of goods and/or services to meet basic needs and
to avail better QL. Again, Lim (2017) explained sustainable consumption issue from
responsible consumption, anti-consumption, and mindful consumption perspectives.
Additionally, Seyfang (2005) suggested that, sustainable consumption does not only
take into consideration the impact of consumption on environment, but also assures
protection of the needs of the future generation. Quoquab and Mohammad (2017, p. 120)
provided a holistic definition in which they perceived sustainable consumption as a
multi-dimensional construct:
It refers as the continued act of controlling desire by avoiding extravagant purchases and
rationalising use of goods and services that satisfy the basic needs. Sustainable consumption goes
beyond of the environmental concern by ensuring and managing the existing resources that, not
only able to meet the current demand, but also without jeopardizing the need of future generation.
It ensures at least three aspects: quality of life, protecting and preserving the environment, and
keeping the natural resources useful for the future generation.

The theoretical underpinning

There is a growing body of literature that suggests for considering the attitude-behaviour
gap in relation to understand consumers’ environmental significant behaviour (Carrigan
et al., 2011; Cowe and Williams, 2000; Sudbury-Riley and Kohlbacher, 2016). Particularly,
recent studies argue that there is a clear inconsistency between attitude and behaviour
link in relation to conventional as well as sustainable product consumption which is
referred as attitude–behaviour gap (Carrington et al., 2010; Eckhardt et al., 2010;
Young et al., 2010). For example, Euromonitor (2013) reported that, in USA although
two-thirds of consumers care about ethical issues, only 15 per cent ethical products
account for 15 per cent of the total sales (Sudbury-Riley and Kohlbacher, 2016). In another
study conducted among UK consumers, Young et al. (2010) found that 30 per cent were
very concerned about environmental issues. Nevertheless, the sale of ethical foods was
only 5 per cent of the total sales. This attitude–behaviour gap is noticeable across many
cultures (Eckhardt et al., 2010).
The attitude–behaviour gap is well established across a range of non-consumption-
related behaviours (Ajzen, 1991), and it is partly affected by the type of survey instruments
that are being used in market research (Auger and Devinney, 2007). There are scales that
tend to measure “intention to purchase” or “behavioural intention” rather than purchase
behaviour which likely to overestimate consumers’ actual purchase tendency (Liebe et al.,
2014). Indeed there can be other issues associated with such attitude-behaviour gap.
For instance, respondents may not reveal their true feeling due to social desirability.
However, instead of asking what the consumers intend to do in future or what they believe
at the moment, it is more useful to understand “what do they do in reality” to understand
their behavioural concern (Fukukawa and Ennew, 2010). This is in agreement with
Sudbury-Riley and Kohlbacher’s (2016) argument i.e., accumulating a number of various
APJML behaviours across a variety of situations can be a better predictor of behavioural outcomes.
31,4 Thus, the present study attempts to address this gap by developing a scale that focusses on
recalling actual sustainable consumption practices of consumers rather than measuring the
attitudinal or intentional aspect of the phenomenon.

Instrument development process

794 In this section, the process of developing the instrument to measure “SCB” at higher
orders was discussed (see Table I). Next, the reliability of this instrument was explored
through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) procedures. Based on the EFA results, the
conceptual model was developed and tested empirically using confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) approach.

Reviewing relevant literature

To develop the instrument in order to measure the sustainable consumption construct,
relevant articles were reviewed. In this regard, Wang and Chugh (2014) and Wright et al.’s
(2007) suggested approach was followed. The objective of this search process was to
understand the concept and to define the boundary of sustainable consumption behaviour.
The inclusion and exclusion criterion was set based on the relevance of the article to the
subject matter at hand. Particular, the article was included if it was related to “SCB”,
whereas, article was not considered for the review if it was meant for organisational study or
greater economic aspect and not pertaining to consumer behaviour per se. Several keywords
were used to search most relevant articles; some of these keywords are – “sustainable
consumption”, “ethical consumption”, “green consumption” “ecological behaviour”,
“environmentally significant behaviour”, etc.

Scale purification through

Scale generation and exploratory factor
initial purification stage analysis stage Confirmatory stage

Extensive reading for Pilot study was carried Based on theoretical work of Jarvis et al. (2003) this
literate to identify items out to examine EFA on 46 study treated “Sustainable Consumption Behaviour”
and dimensions used to items (n ¼ 501) as reflective- reflective model
measure “Sustainable EFA resulted in scale 501 questionnaires were distributed to new
Consumption Behaviour” with 24 items and three respondents
which resulted in five dimensions i.e. Quality of Structural equation modelling partial least square
dimensions Life ( factor 1)’, “Care for was employed to assess measurement model and
One focus group and 15 in- the Environmental Well- structural model
depth interviews were being ( factor 2)” and ‘Care Reliability of measurement model was established at
conducted, which result in for the Future Generation first order and second order based on factor loading,
generating 55 items ( factor 3) for next stage composite reliability, and Cronbach’s α (Hair et al., 2014)
To ensure content validity Reliability analysis for the Convergent validity of measurement model was
of the construct, expert three extracted factors confirmed at first and second order based on AVE,
judgement was utilised was then carried out and composite reliability, and factor loading
(n ¼ 5), which result in all dimension found Discriminate validity of model was determined based
removing 9 items reliable (exceeded the cut on Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criteria, and HTMT
To ensure and face of point of 0.70) method
Table I. validity of the Predictive validity of SCB scale was established
Stages in questionnaire, the based on Q2 value, and nomological validity was
measuring SCB as preliminary questionnaire established by testing it is relationships with socially
multidimensional was distributed among responsible behaviour
construct at post-graduate students Final SCB construct consist of 24 items and
higher order (n ¼ 10) three dimensions
Articles were downloaded from various databases such as Science Direct, Emerald, Development
ProQuest and the like. In addition to it, Google Scholar search engine also utilised in and
order to gather conference proceedings, journal articles and e-Books pertaining to the psychometric
topic. The search result yielded 111 articles. However, after considering the inclusion and
exclusion criteria, only 80 scholarly articles related to sustainable consumption that are evaluation
published from different corners of the world were retained. Among these, 62 are journal
articles and the rest consists of conference proceedings and book chapters. Figure 1 795
depicts this search process.

Formulating To understand the concept and to define the

research boundary of sustainable consumption behaviour
objective

Conceptual
boundaries Sustainable consumption from consumer’s
(Inclusion and viewpoint and not from organizational or
exclusion economic viewpoint
criteria)

Sustainable consumption, ethical consumption,

Identifying green consumption ecological behaviour,
Keywords environmentally significant behaviour, etc.

Collecting 111 articles

data

Filtering
and 80 articles
excluding

Synthesizing
and Sustainable consumption behaviour is defined and Figure 1.
summarizing found that it has three main facets in regard to the Process followed in
(Research consumption practice gathering, reviewing
focus area) and analysing articles
APJML A cursory review was made to evaluate the articles in regard to sustainable consumption
31,4 from socio-economic perspective. It is understood that, this concept is still in its infancy.
Most of the studies are at conceptual level and there is no valid measure to measure this
construct. Moreover, it is found that, the existing scales to measure ethical consumption or
sustainable consumption are predominantly focussed on understanding consumers’
environmental concern. However, sustainable consumption not only considers
796 environmental aspects (Lee, 2014), also cares for QL and future generation (Hornibrook
et al., 2013; Quoquab and Mohammad, 2017; Seyfang, 2005). By following this school of
thought, three facets are considered: QL; care for the environmental well-being (CEW); and
care for the future generations (Figure 2). It is important to note that, most of the existing
relevant scales (e.g. “consciousness for sustainable consumption” scale and “ethically
minded consumer behaviour” scale) focus on measuring consumers’ environmental
concerns, whereas, the scale developed in this study is distinct, unique and robust since it
considers other facets of the phenomenon. Table II depicts the conceptualization and
operationalization of the construct.

Qualitative study – item creation

After a cursory review of the literature, some initial pool of items was generated.
Following Churchill’s (1979) suggestion, qualitative interviews were then conducted to

Care for the

environmental
well-being

Sustainable
Quality of Consumer
Life Behaviour
Figure 2.
Conceptual framework
of sustainable Care for the
consumer behaviour future
construct generations

Name of the construct Conceptual definition Operational definition Dimensions

Sustainable Sustainable consumption Sustainable consumption refers to Quality of life

consumption suggests for practicing wise
behaviour consumption habit in which
individuals need to consider
the post-consumption
consequences for the
environment, quality of life as
well as for the future
generation. It refers to the act
of avoiding over indulging in
purchase and careful use of
goods and services that satisfy
Table II. the basic needs (Quoquab and
Conceptualization and Mohammad, 2017)
operationalization of
the SCB construct
socially and environmentally Care for the
concerned way of buying, using and environmental
disposing goods and services. It well-being
advocates for considering quality of life Care for the
by adopting wise and careful future
consumption pattern as well as efficient generations
use of goods and services. While it
meets the basic needs of the present
consumers, it does not jeopardise the
need of the future generation
It is a multi-dimensional construct
which is reflected in: (a) Quality of
life (b) Care for the environmental
well-being and (c) are for the future
generations
gain in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. One focus group discussion (FGD) and Development
15 interviews were conducted in this regard. It is suggested that, the focus group panel and
should ideally be comprised of eight to twelve members since too small or unnecessarily psychometric
large group may result in less effective participation (Cooper and Schindler, 2003;
Malhotra et al., 2002). Thus, this study considers 11 members for the FGD. The profile of evaluation
the participants is showed in Table III.
Contacts have been made through e-mail and phone call. Participation to this study was 797
voluntary. In the e-mail, the objective of the interview was explained. Semi-structured
questions were used. It was made clear that, if the respondent is not familiar with the
sustainable consumption phenomenon, they need not to join the interview session. Sample
questions are as follows:
• What do you know about sustainability and SCB?
• How do you perceive SCB?
• (Upon providing the definition of SCB from literature) Do you agree with this
definition? If yes, why? If no, why? Please explain further.
• In your opinion, how many facets do you think SCB should have? Please explain further.
• (Upon providing the list of the items of SCB from literature). Do you think these items
are in-line with the definition of SCB? If not, which items do you think need to be
deleted and why?
• Could you please suggest some more items that reflect SCB?
All interviews were tape-recorded upon the permission of the participants. Transcriptions
were made after each in-depth interviews and FGD. After completion of each interview, the

Focus
Particulars of the respondents Group discussion In-depth interviews

No. of respondents 11 15
Gender
Male 6 5
Female 5 10
Average age 29–48 27–43
Race
Malay 5 7
Chinese 3 4
Indian 2 2
Foreigner 1 1
Educational background
DBA/PhD 1 4
Masters 4 6
Undergraduate 3 3
Diploma – 1
High school – 1
Occupation
Lecturer 2 4
Administrative and managerial 2 3 Table III.
Students 4 3 Respondents’
Entrepreneur 3 2 demographic
Technical – 1 profile for four focus
Clerical – 1 groups and three
House wife – 1 in-depth interviews
APJML transcripts were reviewed by the participants in order to assure the authenticity of the
31,4 information. Before starting to analyse the qualitative data, transcriptions were read several
times to understand the content and to finalise the items to proceed to next step. Both
researchers sat together during the item finalising process.
The items generated from the FGD and in-depth interviews are shown in Table IV. For
the QL, 32 items were generated. On the other hand, 16 items were generated to measure
798 CEW and seven items to measure “care for future generation” (CFG).

Instrument testing
Content validity and face validity
Once the initial pool of items was generated, five lecturers (so called experts of the subject)
were contacted to perform the content validity check. Demographic profile of these five
lecturers is shown in Table V. The experts were chosen due to their expertise in the subject
matter. It was deemed necessary to have understanding about consumer behaviour and to
have specialisation in consumer behaviour as well as green or sustainability related issues
to be considered as the content validity expert. Four of them were specialized in marketing,
consumer behaviour and green marketing-related issues. The fifth expert was a director of a
renowned research institute who was chosen to understand corporate perspective of the
sustainability phenomenon.
Based on these five experts’ opinion/suggestions, some items were deleted. From 55
items, there were 46 items to consider to run EFA to purify the scale (see Table IV ). After the
content validity was assured, face validity was assessed by distributing the preliminary
questionnaire among ten post-graduate students. It is believed that, the post graduate
students are also the consumer of products and services and hold certain level of
understanding about the issue to be considered as respondent.

Pilot study
The purified scale was distributed among university students. Choosing university
students is very much consistent with prior consumer behaviour research (see Ehigie,
2006; Eshghi et al., 2008; Feinberg et al., 1992; Li et al., 2007; Martensen, 2007; Sheth and
Venkatesan, 1968). Based on past study findings (see Ashton and Kramer, 1980; Clevenger
et al., 1965) Ok et al. (2008, p. 4) stated that, “using students as subjects does not falsely
represent research findings and are reasonable surrogates for other consumers”. Using
student samples in this study is justified for six specific reasons: in theory-application
research, homogenous respondents are preferable due to the fact that they enable the
researcher a more accurate theoretical prediction than using heterogeneous respondents
(Cook and Campbell, 1979; Lynch, 1982). Adhere to this norm, using students as the
subject pool in establishing theoretical generalizability is acceptable (Calder et al., 1981); it
is argued that the findings generated from students subjects neither vary greatly from the
findings from other group of consumers nor are less generalizable (Ashton and Kramer,
1980; Clevenger et al., 1965; Khera and Benson, 1970; Lynch, 1999; Sheth, 1970); student
respondents are also “real life consumers” for many products and services (including
mobile phone services) and thus it is obvious that they are familiar with the present
research context (Collie et al., 2000; Mattila, 2001); they typically have considerable
experience with different types of mobile phone service operators due to having much
time to do so as students; students are more accessible as respondents of survey,
compared to say, professionals or factory workers since they are not restricted to office
hours, and tend to be more responsive to being surveyed; and using students to
understand consumer behaviour is an old practice in marketing literature (see Ehigie,
 Operational definition of the sustainable consumption construct
Sustainable consumption refers to socially and environmentally concerned way of buying, using and disposing goods and services. It advocates for considering quality of
life by adopting wise and careful consumption pattern as well as efficient use of goods and services. While it meets the basic needs of the present consumers, it does not
jeopardise the need of the future generation
It is a multi-dimensional construct which include: (a) Quality of life (b) Care for the environmental well-being and (c) are for the future generations
Dimensions and their Items retained based on content
definitions Preliminary items generated for each dimension experts’ suggestion

Quality of life 1. I try to reduce my water and electricity consumption by thinking of other people Retained
Quality of life refers to wise 2. I through the daily domestic rubbish in proper place in order to keep the roads clean Retained
and careful consumption 3. I use my thing wisely to avoid wastage Retained
pattern as well as efficient use 4. I don’t like to waste food or beverage Retained
of goods and services for 5. While dining in restaurant, I order food(s) only the amount that I can eat in order to avoid wasting food Retained
resource efficiency. It refers to 6. I try to avoid contributing to the domestic waste. Suggested to delete
the act of avoiding over 7. I always try hard to reduce miss-use of goods and services (e.g. I switch off light and fan when Retained
indulging in purchase and I am not in the room)
careful use of goods and 8. I avoid over use/consumption of goods and services (e.g. take print only when needed) Retained
services that satisfy the basic 9. I use the product in rational way to increase its life time usage Retained
needs 10. I think before throw out waste Suggested to delete
11. I avoid being extravagant in my purchase Retained
12. I control my desire to purchase more than what I need Suggested to delete
13. I advise my friends and family members about the consequences of extra purchase Suggested to delete
14. I purchase only to fulfil my basic needs and wants Retained
15. I don’t mind to incur a little financial loss while purchasing product in order to keep environment safe Retained
and sound
16. I purchase product that I really need Retained
17. I purchase the product that is within my budget Retained
18. I plan carefully before I purchase product of service Retained
19. I think carefully about what I need to purchase Suggested to delete
20. It became a habit to think about the consequences of excess consumption whenever I shop Retained
21. I choose to buy product(s) with biodegradable container or packaging Retained
22. While purchasing, I try to think whether the purchased product can cause any harm to the environment Retained
23. I purchase products as much as I want (Negative) Suggested to delete
24. I reuse paper to write on the other side Retained

(continued )
psychometric
Development

799
and

purified based on
interviews and
evaluation

Item generated from

Table IV.

content validity
 31,4

800

Table IV.
APJML

Operational definition of the sustainable consumption construct

Sustainable consumption refers to socially and environmentally concerned way of buying, using and disposing goods and services. It advocates for considering quality of
life by adopting wise and careful consumption pattern as well as efficient use of goods and services. While it meets the basic needs of the present consumers, it does not
jeopardise the need of the future generation
It is a multi-dimensional construct which include: (a) Quality of life (b) Care for the environmental well-being and (c) are for the future generations
Dimensions and their Items retained based on content
definitions Preliminary items generated for each dimension experts’ suggestion

25. I recycle old clothes that still in good condition Retained

26. I recycle glass bottle (drinking water bottle) as a container in the kitchen Retained
27. I recycle daily newspaper (e.g. use as pet’s litter box, etc.) Retained
28. I recycle food container whenever there is an opportunity Retained
29. I send daily domestic rubbish such as paper, aluminium and others to the recycle Retained
30. I reuse shopping bag(s) every time go for shopping Retained
31. I recycle my old stuffs in every possible ways (e.g. distribute old clothes among needy people) Retained
32. I repair my belongings (e.g. shoe, handbags) to increase its life time Retained
Care for the environmental 33. I try to avoid using plastic bag usage since it is not environmental friendly Retained
well-being 34. I prefer to use paper bag since it is biodegradable Retained
It is a socially and 35. I purchase and use products which are environmental friendly Retained
environmentally concerned 36. If I see anyone is polluting the environment (e.g. throwing rubbish in the river) I warn that person Retained
way of buying, using and on the spot
disposing goods and services. 37. If I see anyone is polluting the environment (e.g. spitting on the street) I volunteer to make that Suggested to delete
It suggests for considering the person understand the necessity for keeping the environment clean
effect of consumption on 38. I often pay extra money to purchase environmentally friendly product (e.g. organic food) Retained
environment by minimising 39. Before I make decision to purchase, I search for information through the web to find the Retained
the use of toxic materials and environmentally friendly product
emissions of waste and 40. I am concerned about the shortage of the natural resources Retained
pollutants over the life cycle 41. I use eco-friendly products and services Retained
42. I give priority to the environmental welfare Retained
43. I love our planet Retained
44. I try to buy organic food since it is environmental friendly Retained
45. I support all environmental awareness activities Retained
46. I always remember that excess consumption can cause shortage of natural resources Retained
47. I do care for the natural environment Retained
48. I don’t care about the environment, as long the product is usable for me (Negative) Suggested to delete

(continued )
 Operational definition of the sustainable consumption construct
Sustainable consumption refers to socially and environmentally concerned way of buying, using and disposing goods and services. It advocates for considering quality of
life by adopting wise and careful consumption pattern as well as efficient use of goods and services. While it meets the basic needs of the present consumers, it does not
jeopardise the need of the future generation
It is a multi-dimensional construct which include: (a) Quality of life (b) Care for the environmental well-being and (c) are for the future generations
Dimensions and their Items retained based on content
definitions Preliminary items generated for each dimension experts’ suggestion

Care for the future
generations
It refers to minimising the
excess use of natural
resources, but to meet up the
basic needs. While it meets
the basic needs of the present
consumers, it does not
jeopardise the need of the
future generation
49. I always remember that my excess consumption can create hindrance for Retained
the future generation to meet up their basic needs
50. I care for the needs of myself and next generation Retained
51. I often think about future generation’s quality of life Retained
52. It is my responsibility to control desire of excessive purchase for the Retained
sake of future generation
53. I am concern about the future generation Retained
54. I try to minimise the excess consumption for the sake of preserving environmental resources for the Retained
future generation
55. I don’t care about the future generation, as long the product is usable for me (Negative) Suggested to delete
psychometric
Development

801
and

evaluation

Table IV.
APJML 2006; Eshghi et al., 2008; Feinberg et al., 1992; Johnson and Sirikit, 2002; Li et al., 2007;
31,4 Martensen, 2007; Sheth and Venkatesan, 1968).
In total, 2,000 questionnaires were distributed among ten Malaysian universities, among
which 1,002 completed and usable questionnaires were obtained. These questionnaires were
then splitted half to run EFA and CFA. In this way, EFA was utilised on 501 questionnaires
and then CFA was utilised on the rest. It fulfilled the minimum sample required for CFA
802 as suggested by Hair et al. (2006) that is to have at least ten times as many observations as
there are variable to be analysed. The total number of items to measure all variables in this
study are 46 and 10 times of 46 equals 460. Therefore, the present sample size of 501 is more
than sufficient.
EFA was utilised to define the underlying structure of the construct (Hair et al., 2006).
As suggested by Byrne (2010), it is useful when a researcher develops a new instrument to
measure the facets of a construct. Therefore, the objective of doing EFA in this study was to
extract the factor structure of the items for SCB construct and also to reduce the number
items to a more relevant set of items. The appropriate factors were determined based on an
eigenvalue representing the amount of total variance explained by the factor and only
factors with an eigenvalue of more than one were selected (Hair et al., 2006; Thompson,
2004). Moreover, communalities were assessed to understand how much of the variance in
each item is explained (Pallant, 2007). In regard to loading, all items of a dimension loaded
strongly on one factor in order to fulfil the requirements of convergent validity and loaded
weakly on other factors to fulfil discriminant validity. Cross-loading items were deleted and
lastly, the extracted factors were labelled.
According to Hair et al. (2006, p. 128), a sample sizes greater than 350 and a factor loading
of 0.30 and above is considered significant. Hence, in this research, the cut-off-point for
identifying significant factor loading was considered 0.30 ( for n ¼ 502). When a variable
was found to have more than one significant loading, it was deleted from the analysis (Hair
et al., 2006). The process followed is explained below.
Initially, the data were assessed with regard to the factorability of the correlation matrix
which included following steps:
(1) examination of the correlations and identification of statistical significance;
(2) Bartlett test;
(3) overall measure of sampling adequacy (MSA); and
(4) individual variable MSA.
Next, significant loading for each variable and cross-loading were examined. After that,
communalities were checked to assess whether the variables meet acceptable levels of
explanations. Then rotated component matrix was examined to see the extracted factors
and was labelled accordingly. Varimax rotation (orthogonal) was carried out to identify the
potential factor structure.

Expert code Gender Age Education Designation Relevance

Expert No. 1 Male 51 PhD Professor Specialized in marketing

Expert No. 2 Female 39 PhD Associate professor Specialized in green marketing
Expert No. 3 Female 43 PhD Associate professor Specialized in consumer
Table V. behaviour
Demographic Expert No. 4 Male 45 DBA Senior lecturer Specialized in green marketing
profile of the content Expert No. 5 Male 53 DBA Director of a research Deals with agricultural food
validity experts institute products
EFA result Development
The inspection of the correlation matrix reveals that more than 50 per cent of the and
correlations are significant at the 0.05 level in the overall sample and thus falling within the psychometric
acceptable range (Pallant, 2007, p. 190). Given the number of high inter-correlations between
the SCB-specific variables, the hypothesised factor model appears to be appropriate (Ho, evaluation
2006). Moreover, the Barlett’s test of sphericity was used to test for the adequacy of the
correlation matrix and was found to be significant at 0.01 level. Kaiser Meyer-Olkin MSA 803
value was 0.954 which fall under the acceptable range. Thus, it was assured that the factor
analysis was appropriate. Furthermore, the overall patterns of these correlations were tested
by the MSA as suggested by Hair et al. (2006).
Next, the communalities or the proportion of variance in each variable accounted for by the
common factors (Ho, 2006, p. 218) were examined. It gives the information about how much of
the variance in each item is explained (Pallant, 2007, p. 196). Although, no statistical guidelines
indicate exactly what is “large”, or “small”, practical considerations dictates it is better to
consider communalities value at minimum 0.5 (Hair et al., 2006). Following this suggestion, the
communalities greater than 0.5 was kept and the rest of the items were deleted.
Although Factor loadings of±0.30 to±0.40 are minimally acceptable, values
greater than±0.5 are generally considered necessary for practical significance, whereas,
loadings exceed±0.7 are considered indicative of well-defined structure and are the
goal of any factor analysis (Hair et al., 2006, p. 128). For SCB, three factors emerged with Eigen
value greater than 1.0, explaining 75.178 per cent of total variance. Based on the interpretation
and meaning of the items, the factors were classified as “Quality of Life ( factor 1)”, “Care for the
Environmental Well-being ( factor 2)” and “Care for the Future Generation ( factor 3)”. All items
loaded in these three factors were ranged between 0.626 and 0.788 and thus proven to have
well-defined factor structure. Few cross-loadings found and thus were deleted.
As mentioned above, three factors have been extracted; first factor consists of 11 items,
whereas, the second factor had seven items and the third factor had six items. The
Cronbach’s α (CA) coefficient for these three factors was 0.929, 0.9180 and 0.905, respectively
(see Table VI). Nunnally (1978) has recommended that the minimum level of acceptance
should be 0.70 and above.

Nomological network of SCB

Based on the result from qualitative study, extensive reviewing of the literature, and the factor
structure of SCB in the exploratory study, a theoretical model of SCB was developed to
measure the dimensions, and their relationship with socially responsible behaviour in a
nomological network (Figure 3). This study operationalizes SCB as a multidimensional, higher
order, reflective model that incorporate three dimensions (i.e. QL, CFG and CEW). Particularly,
this study argued that the relationship between first and second order is reflective, this
argument is based on theoretical criteria developed by Jarvis et al. (2003) and Ringle et al.
(2012). First, the direction of causality is from construct i.e., SCB to dimensions i.e., QL, CFG
and CEW. More clearly, the measures are manifestations of constructs, hence, changes in the
construct will lead to changes in the indicators but changes in the indicators will not lead to
change in the construct. Second, measurement items of particular SCB dimension is
interchangeable with items measuring other SCB dimensions. For example item that measure
QL can be replaced with item measuring CEW. Therefore, dropping an indicator will not
change the conceptual meaning of the construct. Third measures are highly correlated
because they stem from same domain, hence change in one indicator will lead to change in
another indicator. Fourth, according to Jarvis et al. (2003), for the reflective model, all
indicators measure the same underlying construct are assumed to be interchangeable; hence,
they should have the same antecedents and consequences. Considering this, it is expect
indicators to have the same antecedents and consequences.
 31,4

804

behaviour
Table VI.
APJML

sustainable
consumption
Results of EFA on
Kaiser Meyer Olkin 0.954
Bertlett’s test of sphericity 12,632.595 (sig. 0.000, df 276)
Extracted factorsa
Factor 2 (care for Factor 3 (care for the
Full set of variables Factor 1 (quality of life) environmental well-being) future generation) Communalities

SCB5. I always try hard to reduce miss-use of goods and services (e.g. I
switch off light and fan when I am not in the room) 0.764 0.759
SCB19. I recycle daily newspaper (e.g. use as pet’s litter box, etc.) 0.738 0.787
SCB9. I avoid being extravagant in my purchase 0.721 0.782
SCB7. I avoid over use/consumption of goods and services (e.g. take print
only when needed) 0.695 0.759
SCB18. I reuse paper to write on the other side 0.685 0.698
SCB3. While dining in restaurant, I order food(s) only the amount that I
can eat in order to avoid wasting food 0.684 0.647
SCB17. I choose to buy product(s) with biodegradable container or
packaging 0.670 0.710
SCB4. I don’t like to waste food or beverage 0.653 0.629
SCB21. I recycle my old stuffs in every possible ways (e.g. distribute old
clothes among needy people) 0.652 0.751
SCB20. I reuse shopping bag(s) every time go for shopping 0.647 0.758
SCB11. I plan carefully before I purchase product of service 0.626 0.665
SCB33. I do care for the natural environment 0.788 0.831
SCB31. I use eco-friendly products and services 0.766 0.817
SCB28. I purchase and use products which are environmental friendly 0.744 0.813
SCB29. I often pay extra money to purchase environmentally friendly
product (e.g. organic food) 0.696 0.776
SCB30. I am concerned about the shortage of the natural resources 0.684 0.734
SCB27. I prefer to use paper bag since it is biodegradable 0.641 0.751
SCB32. I love our planet 0.635 0.681
SCB41. I always remember that my excess consumption can create
hindrance for the future generation to meet up their basic needs 0.753 0.791
SCB42. I care for the need fulfilment of the next generation 0.736 0.742
SCB43. I often think about future generation’s quality of life 0.733 0.822

(continued )
Kaiser Meyer Olkin 0.954
Bertlett’s test of sphericity 12,632.595 (sig. 0.000, df 276)
Extracted factorsa
Factor 2 (care for Factor 3 (care for the
Full set of variables Factor 1 (quality of life) environmental well-being) future generation) Communalities

SCB44. I try to control my desire of excessive purchase for the sake of

future generation 0.725 0.775
SCB45. I am concerned about the future generation 0.725 0.790
SCB46. I try to minimise the excess consumption for the sake of
preserving environmental resources for the future generation 0.719 0.775
Sum of squares (Eigen value) 15.913 1.120 1.009
Percentage of trace
% of variance explained 28.840 23.647 22.691
Cumulative variance 28.840 52.487 75.178
Cronbach’s α 0.929 0.918 0.905
Note: aFactor loadings less than 0.30 have not been printed and variables have been sorted by loadings on each factor
psychometric
Development

805
and

evaluation

Table VI.
APJML CEW12
31,4
CEW13

QL1 CEW14

CEW15
QL2
806
CEW16
QL3
CEW17 CEW
QL4
CEW18 SCP1
QL5

QL6 SCP2
QL SCB SCP
QL7 SCP3

QL8 CFG19 SCP4

QL9 CFG20 SCP5

CFG

QL10 CFG21 SCP6

QL11 CFG22

Figure 3. CFG23
Conceptual model for
nomological validity CFG24

To assess the nomological validity of the higher order reflective SCB model and to measure
it is predictive validity, this study assume that SCB can exert positive effect on socially
conscious purchasing. The socially conscious consumers came from social involvement
model which suggests that socially conscious consumers are those who are aware of the
social problems or social causes (e.g. air pollution or water pollution). Such consumers
are aware of opportunities to buy products and services which are responsive to the
social problem (Webster, 1975). More clearly, socially conscious consumers score high on
social responsibility and tend to be more active within the community in social, ethical,
political and charitable causes (Pepper et al., 2009). By considering the basic idea of social
involvement model, this study assumes that the consumers who consider sustainable
consumption as the core of their behavioural pattern, will be more likely to be active in social
and ethical causes too. Thus, the following hypothesis is developed:
H1. SCB has a positive effect on socially conscious purchasing.

Confirmatory factor analysis

In this study CFA was used to evaluate the refined instrument. To accomplish this objective
501 surveys were completed using the convenience sampling collected from postgraduate
students at public universities in Klang Valley area. Respondents’ age was between 28 and
55 years. Majority were studying part time (63 per cent). The respondents were almost equal
in gender, 55.2 per cent female and 44.8 per cent male. With respect to ethnic groups, the
majority were Malay (60.1 per cent), followed by Chinese (21.2 per cent), Indian (10 per cent)
and others (8.7 per cent). With regard to respondents’ work experience, 69.4 per cent of the
respondents have almost ten years work experience, With respect to participant’s monthly Development
income, most respondents earn less than RM4,001 per month. and
Structural equation modelling partial least squares (PLS) using the SmartPLS 3.2.7 software psychometric
(Ringle et al., 2015) was employed to evaluate the hierarchical model of SCB. Following two
stage analytical procedures as advised by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), first the measurement evaluation
model was tested in term of validity and reliability of measures, followed by assessing the
structural model to ensure the nomological and predictive validity. Bootstrapping method with 807
5000 resamples was used to test the significance of the path coefficients and the loadings
(Hair et al., 2014; Quoquab et al., 2017). This study applied PLS because the study’s research
model is complex, containing five constructs (i.e. 3 first order +1 second-order +1 outcome
construct) and more than 60 items (24 items at first-order, 24 items at second-order and
6 outcome items). Moreover, PLS can help to achieve theoretical parsimony and less model
complexity by estimating the higher-order model. Most importantly, the main concern of this
study is to develop theoretical model to measure SCB as multidimensional construct, hence the
use of PLS is justifiable. The reflective construct of SCB at the second order was measured by
using indicator reuse technique (the higher order component uses all indicators of the lower
order component) (Wold, 1982).

Assessment of the measurement model ( first order)

As shown in Table VII, the results of the CFA revealed that the loadings of all
items of the first-order model exceeded the threshold value of 0.70 as suggested by

Construct Items Loadings AVEs CRs CAs

CEW CEW12 0.866 0.770 0.929 0.920

CEW13 0.900
CEW14 0.882
CEW15 0.866
CEW16 0.896
CEW17 0.833
CEW18 0.899
CFG CFG19 0.908 0.784 0.916 0.908
CFG20 0.882
CFG21 0.895
CFG22 0.856
CFG23 0.887
CFG24 0.883
QL QL1 0.793 0.710 0.924 0.918
QL2 0.773
QL3 0.853
QL4 0.828
QL5 0.884
QL6 0.819
QL7 0.846
QL8 0.836
QL9 0.886
QL10 0.872
QL11 0.869
SCC SCC1 0.815 0.690 0.919 0.909
SCC2 0.733
SCC3 0.803 Table VII.
SCC4 0.868 Assessment of the
SCC5 0.892 measurement model
SCC6 0.824 ( first-order)
APJML Hair et al. (2014). Also the average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR)
31,4 and CA for all constructs surpassed the cut-off values of 0.50, 80 and 0.7, respectively
(Henseler et al., 2009; Chua et al., 2016). Thus, convergent validity was assured. Moreover,
this study found that the square root of the AVE exceeded the intercorrelations of the
construct with other constructs (Table VIII), which ensured discriminant validity (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981; Tan et al., 2017).This study also assessed discriminant validity using
808 Henseler et al.’s (2015) criteria, i.e., HTMT method, which represent the ratio of between
construct correlation to the within construct correlation. HTMT value less than 0.85 for
constructs that are conceptually different, and 0.90 for constructs that are conceptually
similar indicate the establishment of discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). As
demonstrated in Table IX all HTMT values were less than 0.85 which ascertain the
discriminant validity at the constructs level.

Assessment of the measurement model at higher-order

This study also estimated the validity and reliability of the second order as shown in
Table X. The results revealed that the factor loading for second order which represent
the strength of relationship between first and higher order surpassed the recommend
value of 0.70 (Carmines and Zeller, 1979; Mohammad et al., 2018). Also, the CR, Cronbach’s
α, and AVE of the second order were greater than 0.80, 0.70 and 0.50, respectively,
providing evidence of reliable and valid higher-order measures (Henseler, 2017;
Mohammad et al., 2016). Therefore, it can be concluded that the 24 items, grouped
into three factors (i.e. QL, CFG, and care for environment well-being) could be used to
measure the overall SCB. Consequently, the measurement model at first and second order
was considered satisfactory with evidence of adequate reliability, convergent validity and
discriminant validity.

CEW CFG QL SCC

CEW 0.878
Table VIII.
Assessment of CFG 0.814 0.886
discriminant validity QL 0.826 0.820 0.851
using Fornell and SCC 0.209 0.136 0.198 0.831
Larcker (1981) Note: Diagonal values is the square root of AVE, off-diagonal values the correlation between constructs

CEW CFG QL SCC

CEW
Table IX. CFG 0.838
Discriminant validity QL 0.826 0.811
using HTMT method SCC 0.218 0.141 0.206

Construct Dimensions Outer loading AVE CR CA

Table X.
Assessment of the SCB QL 0.942 0.883 0.931 0.921
measurement model CFG 0.918
(Second-order) CEW 0.938
Assessment of the nomological and predictive validity Development
This study evaluated the nomological validity of the SCB scale by examining its and
relationship with socially responsible behaviour. The factor loadings, AVE and CRs of this psychometric
construct exceeded their cut-off values of 0.70, 0.50 and 0.70, respectively (see Table VII).
This provide sufficient information for the reliability and validity of this construct (i.e. evaluation
socially responsible behaviour). The results reveal that SCB exert positive and significant
effect on socially responsible behaviour (β ¼ 0.257, p W0.01) and explained 25 per cent of its 809
variance, which provide support for the developed hypothesis i.e., H1 (Table XI). This result
confirmed the impact of SCB on socially responsible behaviour, thereby ensuring
nomological validity. Additionally, this research utilised Stone–Geisser’s Q2 to test
predictive validity. Using the blindfolding procedures, this study obtained a Q2 value
greater than zero, which demonstrated the predictive validity of the higher-order SCB scale
(Fornell and Cha, 1994).

Discussion
The main objective of this study was to develop and validate a scale to measure SCB with
desirable psychometric properties. To achieve this objective both qualitative and
quantitative method were utilised. Based on the cursory review of the literature and
qualitative interviews (15 in-depth interviews and 1 FGD), 55 items were generated. This
initial scale was validated by discussing with five subject experts and 46 items were
remained after the content validity. Once the content validity was assured, face validity was
conducted in order to assess the readability and understandibility of the wording and
sentences. A survey yielded 1,002 complete and usable questionnaires in order to run the
analysis. Data were splitted half. First half was utilised for EFA and the rest of the data
were utilised to run CFA. Principle component analysis using varimax method was run on
these 46 items in order to reduce the number of the items and to understand the factor
structure of the construct. Subsequently, three factors and 24 items were extracted, namely:
QL (11 items); CEW (7 items); and care for the future generation (6 items).
The results of CFA confirm the reflective-reflective model of SCB. In the first order,
items were a manifestation of their respective constructs; items that formed a specific
construct were interchangeable, have a similar theme, and were highly correlated.
For example, CFG was reflected in six items: “I always remember that my excess
consumption can create hindrance for the future generation to meet up their basic needs”,
“I care for the need fulfilment of the next generation”, “I often think about
future generation’s quality of life”, “I try to control my desire of excessive purchase for
the sake of future generation”, “I am concerned about the future generation”, “I try to
minimize the excess consumption for the sake of preserving environmental resources for
the future generation”. Based on the established criteria stated earlier, these items stem
from same domain and shared a common theme; thus, they are interchangeable. Second,
the findings of the EFA confirmed a reflective nature because the correlation between the
items was positive and high. At the second order, the three dimensions (i.e. CFG, CEW, QL)
were manifestation of the construct and the indicators were interchangeable and highly
correlated. In the first and second order, internal consistency reliability, factor loading, CR
and convergent validity reached a satisfactory level. This confirmed the reflective-
reflective model in the first as well as second order. Subsequently, the theoretical and

Hypothesis Path coefficient SD t values R2 Q2 Decision

Table XI.
SCBWSCC 0.274 0.043 6,372 0.251 0.050 Supported Nomological validity
APJML empirical evidence supported our argument, i.e. SCB is a higher order multidimensional
31,4 latent construct in the form of a reflective-reflective type A model. Additionally, this study
confirmed the nomological validity of the model by demonstrating a strong and positive
effect of SCB on socially conscious purchasing (β ¼ 0.257, p o 0.01).
In nutshell, the findings of this study suggest that Malaysian consumer base their
perception of SCB on three dimension i.e., CFG, CWE and QL. The findings also indicate that
810 Malaysian consumers assess their consumption behaviour at different level: overall,
dimensional and attribute level.

Theoretical and practical implications

This study contributes significantly to theory and practice alike. Theoretically, this
study conceptualises and measure the construct of SCB from consumer view of points.
Particularly, this study contribute to existing literature by conceptualising the
construct of SCB, proposing new taxonomy to categorise different behaviour into three
dimensions of SCB, developing items for each of the three categories, and empirically
testing its validity and reliability. The new SCB construct is a three-dimensions, 24 items
and seven-responses choice frequency scale. The findings suggest that, sustainable
consumption is a multidimensional, hierarchical and reflective construct which is
manifested in three aspects: individuals’ act in obtaining QL, care for environmental well-
being, and CFG. Overall, this study identified and defined complex dimensions of SCB in
non-western context. It identified the nature of the relationships between the first order
and its items. It also identified the nature of the relationships that exist between the first
and second orders based on theoretical justification and empirical evidence. This make
significant contribution to theory, method as well as practice. In nutshell, the results
provide evidence of the dimensionality, reliability and validity of the scale that has the
potential to bridge the gap between consumer attitude and his/her actual sustainable
consumption practices.
The output of this research has essential implications for marketers, researchers and
policy makers alike. First, the methodological framework of this study can provide useful
guideline for future studies that aim to develop and validate new constructs. Second,
evaluating the second order of reflective construct of SCB will assist academicians to
conduct empirical studies based on the reflective measurement model. This may open up
new avenues for measuring and understanding SCB of consumers in future studies. Third,
marketing practitioners may benefit from this scale by understanding the SCB of the
socially, ethically and environmentally conscious consumers. It may eventually assist them
to shape their strategies to meet the increasing demands of environmentalists. Fourth, this
behavioural scale can be used to determine individual’s consciousness of their responsibility
towards living a quality life, environment welfare, as well as responsibility towards
sustainability of the future generation. Accordingly, policy makers and marketers can
develop new strategies, polices and educational programs that can enhance and advance
consumer awareness about these kind friendly environmental practices. Also trigger their
sense of moral obligation and societal responsibility to adopt such behaviours. Last but not
least, the results of this study highlight the vital role of consumers to shift the consumption
paradigm from conventional to SCB. Therefore, policy-makers need to measure the extent to
which consumers are practicing these behaviour. Accordingly, they may legalise policies
and regulations that can encourage individuals to adopt these practices, such as reducing
fees, tariffs and taxes that government usually enact upon environmentally friendly goods.

Conclusion and future research directions

While the discussion on conventional marketing is mostly driven by need gratifying motive,
the sustainable consumption focusses on a controlled consumption pattern for the sake of
environment and future generation. This study extends sustainable consumption research Development
by developing and validating a sustainable consumption model which consisted of three and
main dimensions: QL, CEW and care for the future generation. The scale shows strong psychometric
psychometric properties and appears to be a reliable and valid measure of sustainable
consumption that correspond with theoretical conceptualization. evaluation
Although this study generates insight about an interesting and timely issue which is
sustainable consumption, it is not free from its limitations. However, this limitation 811
can act as the research direction for the future researchers in the field. For instance, the
data for the study were collected from university students. Therefore, the result
of this study cannot be generalised across all kind of consumers. Future researchers may
test this scale among consumers such as who are illiterate or based in rural areas.
Additionally, since the data were collected from a sample drawn only from Malaysia,
future studies can collected data from different culture to cross-validate the finding.
Additionally, this study has used cross-sectional design to collect data from respondent
at single point of time. To gain a better understanding of consumers’ actual sustainable
consumption practices at different point of time, a longitudinal study could be used to
achieve this objective.

References
Abdulrazak, S. and Quoquab, F. (2018), “Exploring consumers’ motivations for sustainable
consumption: a self-deterministic approach”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 14-28.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Alisat, S. and Reimer, M. (2015), “The environmental action scale: development and psychometric
evaluation”, Journal of Environment Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 13-23.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Ashton, R.H. and Kramer, S.S. (1980), “Students as surrogates in behavioral accounting research: some
evidence”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Auger, P. and Devinney, T.M. (2007), “Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of
preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 76 No. 4,
pp. 361-383.
Balderjahn, I., Buerke, A., Kirchgeorg, M., Peyer, M., Seegebarth, B. and Wiedmann, K.P. (2013),
“Consciousness for sustainable consumption: scale development and new insights in the
economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability”, AMS Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 181-192.
Bogueva, D., Marinova, D. and Raphaely, T. (2017), “Reducing meat consumption: the case for social
marketing”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 477-500.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W. and Tybout, A.M. (1981), “Designing research for application”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 197-207.
Carmines, E.G. and Zeller, R.A. (1979), Reliability and Validity Assessment, EEUU: Sage Publications, CA.
Carrigan, M., Moraes, C. and Leek, S. (2011), “Fostering responsible communities: a community
social marketing approach to sustainable living”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100 No. 3,
pp. 515-534.
Carrington, M., Neville, B. and Whitwell, G. (2010), “Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk:
towards a framework for understanding the GAP between the ethical purchase intentions and
actual buying behaviour of ethical minded consumer”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 1,
pp. 139-158.
APJML Castle, S.R. and McGuire, C.J. (2010), “An analysis of student self-assessment of online, blended, and
31,4 face-to-face learning environments: implications for sustainable education delivery”,
International Education Studies, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 36-40.
Cavicchi, A. (2012), “The new rules of green marketing, strategies, tools, and inspiration for sustainable
branding”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 310-311.
Chua, K.b., Quoquab, F., Mohammad, J. and Basiruddin, R. (2016), “The mediating role
812 of new ecological paradigm between value orientations and pro-environmental personal norm
in the agricultural context”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 323-349.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Clevenger, T.J., Lazier, G.A. and Clark, M.L. (1965), “Measurement of corporate images by the semantic
differential”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 80-82.
Collie, T.A., Sparks, B. and Bradley, G. (2000), “Investigating in interactional justice: a study of the fair
process effect within a hospitality failure context”, Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 448-472.
Connolly, J. and Prothero, A. (2003), “Sustainable consumption: consumption, consumer and the
commodity discourse”, Consumer Market Cult, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 275-291.
Cook, T.C. and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field
Settings, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2003), Business Research Methods, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Cowe, R. and Williams, S. (2000), Who Are The Ethical Consumers? The Co-Operative Bank, London.
Donoho, C.L., Polonsky, M.J., Roberts, S. and Cohen, D.A. (2001), “A cross-cultural examination of the
general theory of marketing ethics: does it apply to the next generation of managers?”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 45-63.
Eckhardt, G.M., Belk, R. and Devinney, T.M. (2010), “Why don’t consumers consume ethically?”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 426-436.
Ehigie, B.O. (2006), “Correlates of customer loyalty to their bank: a case study in Nigeria”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 494-508.
Eshghi, A., Roy, S.K. and Ganguli, S. (2008), “Service quality and customer satisfaction: an empirical
investigation in Indian mobile telecommunication services”, The Marketing Management
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 119-144.
Euromonitor (2013), “International global consumer trends survey”, available at: www.euromonitor.
com/global-consumer-trends-summary-of-2013-survey-results/report (accessed 13 August 2014).
Feinberg, F.M., Kahn, B.E. and McAlister, L. (1992), “Market share response when consumers seek
variety”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 227-237.
Fornell, C. and Cha, J. (1994), “Partial least squares”, in Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.), Advanced Methods of
Marketing Research, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 52-78.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Fukukawa, K. and Ennew, C. (2010), “What we believe is not always what we do: an empirical
investigation into ethically questionable behavior in consumption”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R. (2006), Multivariant Data Analysis,
Pearson International Edition, NJ.
Haron, S.A., Paim, L. and Yahya, N. (2005), “Towards sustainable consumption: an examination of Development
environmental knowledge among Malaysians”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, and
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 426-436.
psychometric
Henseler, J. (2017), “Bridging design and behavioral research with variance-based structural equation
modelling”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 178-192. evaluation
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modelling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 813
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modelling in
international marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds), Advances in International
Marketing, Vol. 20, Emerald, Bingley, pp. 277-320.
Ho, R. (2006), Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis and Interpretation with SPSS,
Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Hobson, K. (2004), “Environmental justice: an anthropocentric social justice critique of how,
where and why environmental goods and bads are distributed”, Environ Politics, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 474-481.
Hornibrook, S., May, C. and Fearne, A. (2013), “Sustainable development and the consumer: exploring
the role of carbon labelling in retail supply chains”, Business Strategy Environment, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 266-276.
Jarvis, C.B., Mackenzie, S.B. and Podaskoff, P.M. (2003), “A critical review of construct indicators and
measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Johnson, W.C. and Sirikit, A. (2002), “Service quality in the Thai telecommunication industry:
a tool for achieving a sustainable competitive advantage”, Management Decision, Vol. 40 No. 7,
pp. 693-701.
Kates, R., Parris, T.M. and Leiserowitz, A.A. (2005), “What is sustainable development?”, Environment,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 9-21.
Khera, I.P. and Benson, J.D. (1970), “Are students really poor substitutes for businessmen in behavioral
research?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 529-532.
Kinoti, M.W. (2011), “Green marketing intervention strategies and sustainable development:
a conceptual paper”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 23,
pp. 263-273.
Kumar, P. (2017), “Intents of green advertisements”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 70-79.
Lee, K.M. (2014), “Predictors of sustainable consumption among young educated consumers in Hong
Kong”, Journal of International Consumer Market, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 217-238.
Li, D., Browne, G.J. and Wetherbe, J.C. (2007), “Online consumers’ switching behavior: a
buyer-seller relationship perspective”, Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Liebe, U., Andorfer, V.A., Gwartney, P.A. and Meyerhoff, J. (2014), “Ethical consumption and social
context: experimental evidence from Germany and the United States”, available at: http://repec.
sowi.unibe.ch/files/wp7/liebe-andorfer-gwartney-meyerhoff-2014.pdf (accessed 15 July 2018).
Lim, W.M. (2017), “Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: critical concepts
for sustainability, consumption, and marketing”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 78 No. 3,
pp. 69-80.
Liu, S., Kasturiratne, D. and Moizer, J. (2012), “A hub-and-spoke model for multi-dimensional
integration of green marketing and sustainable supply chain management”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 581-588.
Lynch, J.G. Jr (1982), “On the external validity of experiments in consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 225-239.
APJML Lynch, J.G. Jr (1999), “Theory and external validity”, The Journal of Academy of Marketing Science,
31,4 Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 367-376.
Malhotra, N.K., Hall, J., Shaw, M. and Oppenheim, P. (2002), Marketing Research: An Applied
Orientation, Prentice Hall.
Martensen, A. (2007), “Tweens’ satisfaction and brand loyalty in the mobile phone market”,
Young Consumers, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 108-116.
814 Mattila, A.S. (2001), “The effectiveness of service recovery in a multi-industry setting”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 583-596.
Midilli, A., Dincer, I. and Ay, M. (2006), “Green energy strategies for sustainable development”, Energy
Policy, Vol. 34 No. 18, pp. 3623-3633.
Minton, E.A., Spielmann, N., Kahle, L.R. and Kim, C.H. (2018), “The subjective norms of
sustainable consumption: a cross-cultural exploration”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 82
No. 1, pp. 400-408.
Mohammad, J., Quoquab, F., Mohd Makhbul, Z. and Ramayah, T. (2016), “Bridging the gap between
justice and citizenship behavior in Asian culture”, Cross Cultural & Strategic Management,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 633-656.
Mohammad, J., Quoquab, F., Idris, F., Al-Jabari, M., Hussin, N. and Wishah, W. (2018), “The relationship
between Islamic work ethic and workplace outcome: a partial least squares approach”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 1286-1308.
Nguyen, N., Lobo, A. and Greenland, S. (2017), “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.
Nkamnebe, A.D. (2011), “Sustainability marketing in the emerging markets: imperatives, challenges
and agenda setting”, International Journal of Emerging Market, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 217-232.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ok, C., Shanklin, C.W. and Back, K.J. (2008), “Generalizing survey results from student samples:
implications from service recovery research”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 1-23.
Pallant, J. (2007), SPSS Survival Manual–A Step By Step Guide To Data Analysis Using SPSS For
Windows, 3rd ed., Open University Press, Maidenhead.
Peattie, K. and Collins, A. (2009), “Guest editorial: perspectives on sustainable consumption”,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 107-112.
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.
Quoquab, F. and Mohammad, J. (2016), “Environment dominant logic: concerning for achieving the
sustainability marketing”, Procedia – Economics and Finance, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 234-238.
Quoquab, F. and Mohammad, J. (2017), “Managing sustainable consumption: is it a problem or
panacea?”, in Filho, W.L., Pociovalisteanu, D.M. and Al-Amin, A.Q. (Eds), Sustainable Economic
Development: Green Economy and Green Growth, World Sustainability Series, Chapter 7,
Springer International Publishing, pp. 115-125.
Quoquab, F. and Sukari, N.N. (2017), “Why sustainable consumption is not in practice? A developing
country perspective”, in Filho, W.L., Pociovalisteanu, D.M. and Al-Amin, A.Q. (Eds), Sustainable
Economic Development: Green Economy and Green Growth, World Sustainability Series,
Chapter 6, Springer International Publishing, pp. 103-113.
Quoquab, F., Pahlevan, S., Mohammad, J. and Thurasamy, R. (2017), “Factors affecting consumers’
intention to purchase counterfeit product: empirical study in the Malaysian market”, Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 837-853.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D.W. (2012), “A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS
quarterly”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.M. (2015), “SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: Smartpls GmbH”, Development
available at: www.smartpls.com (accessed 15 January 2018). and
Seyfang, G. (2005), “Shopping for sustainability: can sustainable consumption promote ecological psychometric
citizenship?”, Environment Politics, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 290-306.
evaluation
Sheth, J.N. (1970), “Are there differences in dissonance reduction behaviour between students and
housewives?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 243-245.
Sheth, J.N. and Venkatesan, M. (1968), “Risk-reduction processes in repetitive consumer behavior”, 815
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 307-310.
Singh, P. and Kushwaha, R. (2010), “Green marketing: opportunity for innovation and sustainable
development”, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1636622
(accessed 19 May 2017).
Sudbury-Riley, L. and Kohlbacher, F. (2016), “Ethically minded consumer behavior: scale review,
development, and validation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 2697-2710.
Tan, V., Quoquab, F., Ahmad, F.S. and Mohammad, J. (2017), “Mediating effects of students’ social
bonds between self-esteem and customer citizenship behaviour in the context of international
university branch campuses”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 305-329.
Tangsupwattana, W. and Liu, X. (2017), “Symbolic consumption and generation Y
consumers: evidence from Thailand”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 29
No. 5, pp. 917-932.
Thompson, B. (2004), Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and
Applications, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
UNEP (2014), “Education for sustainable consumption (ESC)”, available at: www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/
Consumption/EducationLifestylesandYouth/EducationforSustainableConsumptionESC/tabid/101302/
Default.aspx (accessed 31 May 2016).
Wang, C.L. and Chugh, H. (2014), “Entrepreneurial learning: past research and future challenges”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 24-61.
Webster, F.E. (1975), “Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 188-196.
Wold, H. (1982), “Soft modelling: the basic design and some extensions”, in Joreskog, K.G. and Wold, H.
(Eds), Systems Under Indirect Observations: Part II, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 1-54.
Wolff, F. and Schönherr, N. (2011), “The impact evaluation of sustainable consumption policy
instruments”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
Wright, R.W., Brand, R.A., Dunn, W. and Spindler, K.P. (2007), “How to write a systematic review”,
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 455 No. 1, pp. 23-29.
Yin, H. and Ma, C. (2009), “International integration: a hope for a greener China?”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 348-367.
Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S. and Oates, C. (2010), “Sustainable consumption: green consumer
behaviour when purchasing products”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 20-31.
Zhao, W. and Scroeder, P. (2010), “Sustainable consumption and production: trends, challenges and
options for the Asia-Pacific region”, Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 4-15.

Further reading
Geisser, S. (1975), “A predictive approach to the random effect model”, Biometrika, Vol. 61 No. 1,
pp. 101-107.
Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions”, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111-147.
APJML About the authors
31,4 Farzana Quoquab is Associate Professor at Azman Hashim International Business School, UTM. She
has received her Doctorate Degree from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. She has presented papers at
various international and national conferences and published articles in peer-reviewed international
journals such as IIUM Journal of Case Studies in Management, World Review of Business Research,
Asian Case Research Journal, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, International Journal of
Business Governance and Ethics, Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies, Asian Academy of
816 Management Journal and Journal of Islamic Marketing. Since 2008, she has produced 53 international
conference proceedings and eight book chapters. She is one of the editorial board members of Case
Studies in Business and Management and Journal of Economic and Administrative Science.
Jihad Mohammad is Senior Lecturer at Azman Hashim International Business School, UTM, and
Malaysia. He has received his Doctorate Degree from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. He has
presented papers at various international and national conferences and published articles in
peer-reviewed international journals. He has versatile career exposure. His area of research interest
includes organisational citizenship behaviour, psychological ownership, psychological capital,
leadership, innovation and Islamic work ethics. Jihad Mohammad is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: jihad@ibs.utm.my
Nurain Nisa Sukari is MBA student at Azman Hashim Intentional Business School. She is working
as Research Assistant under Dr Farzana. She is active in research and publication.

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

View publication stats