Table xx: Reflective Measurement Model Assessment

Construct Item Loadings CA CR AVE

Attitude ATTD1 0.943 0.973 0.978 0.881
ATTD2 0.919
ATTD3 0.952
ATTD4 0.94
ATTD5 0.934
ATTD6 0.943
Environment ConcernEC1 0.906 0.943 0.959 0.854
EC2 0.919
EC3 0.944
EC4 0.927
Perceive Behavioral INT1 0.959 0.721 0.845 0.647
INT2 0.954
INT3 0.889
Purchase Intention PBC1 0.712 0.927 0.954 0.874
PBC2 0.773
PBC3 0.916
Subjective Norm SUBN1 0.955 0.919 0.961 0.924
SUBN2 0.967
*No item was deleted as loading Composite Reliability > .708 (Hair et al., 2017)
 Table xx: HTMT Criterion
Environment Perceive
Attitude Concern Behavioral
Attitude
Environment Concern 0.838
Perceive Behavioral 0.499 0.433
Purchase Intention 0.572 0.554 0.836
Subjective Norm 0.712 0.634 0.564
Discriminant validity is established at HTMT0.85 (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2001)
Notes: (APB) Actual Purchase Behaviour, (ATTD2) Attutude, (AVI) Availability, (EC) Environmenta
(HC3) Health Consciouness, (INFO5) Information, (PI6) Purchase Intention, (TRU6) Trust
 Purchase Subjective
Intention Norm

0.722

lability, (EC) Environmental Concern,

on, (TRU6) Trust
 Table xx: Path Coefficients and Model Quality Assessmen
Direct Effect Beta S.E. t-value
H1: Environment Concern -> Purchase Intention 0.166 0.108 1.545
H2: Attitude -> Purchase Intention -0.039 0.165 0.235
H3: Subjective Norm -> Purchase Intention 0.382 0.110 3.462
H4: Perceive Behavioral -> Purchase Intention 0.466 0.102 4.577
Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, Bias Corrected, LL=Lower Limit, UL=Upper Limit
p-value of 0.01, 0.05 (Hair et al., 2017)
f2 ≥ 0.35 consider Substantial (Cohen, 1988)
R2 ≥ 0.26 consider Substantial (Cohen, 1989)
VIF ≤ 3.3 (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006) or ≤ 5.0 (Hair et al., 2017)
Q2 > 0.00 consider large (Hair, 2017)
0.02 ≤ Q² < 0.15: weak predictive power
0.15 ≤ Q² < 0.35: moderate predictive power
Q² ≥ 0.35: strong predictive power
nts and Model Quality Assessment
p-value LLCI ULCI Decision f2 R2 VIF
0.061 -0.037 0.319 Not Supported 0.027 0.641 2.856
0.407 -0.313 0.229 Not Supported 0.001 3.439
0.000 0.231 0.590 Supported 0.207 1.963
0.000 0.293 0.631 Supported 0.459 1.316
 Table xx: Result of PLSpredict

PLS-
SEM_RMS PLS- LM_MA
Construct Items E SEM_MAE LM_RMSE E
ATTD1 0.658 0.485 0.688 0.478
ATTD2 0.694 0.525 0.704 0.533
ATTD3 0.709 0.546 0.689 0.506
Attitude
ATTD4 0.667 0.494 0.672 0.516
ATTD5 0.69 0.519 0.601 0.449
ATTD6 0.702 0.536 0.696 0.502
INT1 0.889 0.654 0.936 0.675
Purchase
INT2 0.847 0.615 0.901 0.649
Intention
INT3 0.79 0.577 0.745 0.546

Intrepretation:
The PLSpredict technique (see Shmueli et al., 2019) was used to examine the prediction releva
As presented in Table 4, all values for Actual Purchase Behaviour, Purchase Intention, and Tru
suggesting Actual Purchase Behaviour, Purchase Intention, and Trust had low prediction powe
 le xx: Result of PLSpredict

PLS-LM PLS-LM Predictive

RMSE MAE Q²predict Power
0.173 0.21 0.567 LOW
0.169 0.171 0.543
0.163 0.183 0.528
0.173 0.156 0.58
0.171 0.152 0.515
0.166 0.194 0.583
0.235 0.261 0.395 LOW
0.232 0.252 0.442
0.213 0.199 0.502

examine the prediction relevance of the endogenous constructs (Actual Purchase Behaviour, Purchase Intention, and Trust)
, Purchase Intention, and Trust indicators had higher prediction error (i.e., RMSE and MAE) than the linear model (LM)
rust had low prediction power (Shmueli et al., 2019).
tion, and Trust)
r model (LM)
 Table 6.1 : Mediation Assesment
Mediatation Assesment Beta S.E.
Environment Concern -> Attitude -> Purchase Intention -0.031 0.132
on Assesment
t-value p-value LLCI ULCI Decision
0.236 0.814 -0.305 0.2 Supported