The influence of a governmentally accredited eco-label on consumer’s brand
attitude and purchase intentions across high and low involvement products and
consumers level of environmental concern.
Master Thesis
Graduate School of Communication – University of Amsterdam Master in Persuasive Communication (MSc)
Author: Stefan Todorovic Student ID: 11107839 Supervisor: Ed Peelen
Abstract
This study examines the influence of an eco-label that is supported by the government on consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions and how this influence varies across product types (high and low involvement products) and consumers level of environmental concern. Using a controlled online experiment, this study demonstrates that eco-labels do have a positive influence on consumers purchase intentions, but only when attached to a low involvement product. The study also shows that accompanying an eco-label with a governmental certification claim, signifying that the eco-label is accredited by the
government, does not improve consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions. In addition, the study suggests that eco-labels do not have a more positive influence on people who are more concerned about the environment compared to those that are less concerned about the environment, in terms of brand attitude and purchase intentions. The results of this study suggest that the usefulness of using an eco-label supported by the government with the aim to stimulate consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions should not be generalized. In light of the findings, theoretical and practical implications are discussed and avenues for future research suggested.
Introduction
The climate change has never been more felt and never has the issue of environmental degradation been more acute. Governments, organizations and the consumers all know that a change is needed which will reduce the environmental damage caused by human activity. Green marketing tools have emerged partly as a response to the growing need for such a change to happen (Alwitt & Pitts, 1996). One of these tools are the eco-labels. The purpose of eco-labels is to inform the consumers about the green product characteristics, guiding them into purchasing environmentally sustainable products. In this sense, eco-labels play a key role in altering consumers purchasing habits for the benefit of greener consumption (Case, 2004). While the amount of consumers who are willing to pay for sustainable products is increasing (Berghoef & Dodds, 2013), so is the sizeable amount of marketers who see an opportunity in distinguishing their products as environmentally friendly (Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibanez 2009; McEachern & Warnaby, 2004). This has been reflected on the consumer market, which offers an ever-increasing amount of eco-labeled products (Westervelt, 2015). Although this could be a sign of the effectiveness of eco-labels, it could also be an indication of the
greenwashing trend. The practice of greenwashing involves corporations who, inspired by the consumer demand for green products, falsely promote their products as green. Such practice also includes issuing of self-declared eco-labels (Delmas & Burbano, 2011). A growing number of consumers are becoming aware of this marketing trend and starting to question the truthfulness of eco-labels (Moon, Costello, & Koo, 2016). Against the background of this situation, one may wonder whether the eco-labels are effective and under which
circumstances.
eco-some studies have focused on the eco-label design, such as visual versus verbal aspects (Tang, Fryxell, & Chow, 2004), positive versus negative eco-labels (Grankvist, Dahlstrand, & Biel 2004), and weak versus specific arguments (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). Some have examined the relationship between eco-labels and consumers socio-economic factors, such as age, gender, level of education and income (Teisl, Rubin, & Noblet, 2008; Shen, 2012; Brécard, Hlaimi, Lucas, Perraudeau, & Salladarré, 2009), while others have explored the effect of eco-labels for different product categories (Teisl, Peavey, Newman, Buono, & Hermann, 2002; Xu, Zeng, Fong, Lone, & Liu, 2012; Teisl, Roe, & Hicks, 2002).
Consumers interest for environmental issues has also been investigated to see how this might moderate the relationship between eco-labels and consumers attitudes and purchase intentions (Bickart and Ruth, 2012). It is noteworthy that most of the studies on eco-labels have focused on measuring the influence of eco-labels on consumer willingness and probability to purchase an eco-labeled product (commonly known as consumers purchase intentions (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993)). Few have investigated the relationship between eco-labels and consumer attitude towards the brand of the eco-labeled product (commonly known as consumers brand attitude (Spears and Singh (2004)). Moreover, there is little scientific research on consumers trust in the eco-labels and what role trust plays in it the effectiveness of eco-labels. The existing research suggests that a lack of trust towards the eco-labels can lead consumers to ignore eco-labels as well as the regulations which lend corporations authorization to eco-label their products (Lyer, 1999). In one of the latest studies on eco-labels, the issue of credibility of the eco-labels as well as lack of eco-label certification was found to hamper the positive effect of eco-labels on consumer responses (Bickart and Ruth, 2012). Apart from finding that the source of the eco-label is a good predictor of eco-label trust, the study by Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014) also found that a governmental eco-label (one that is supported or
accredited by the government) has a positive effect on eco-label trust. With the exception of the study by Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014), there is a limited understanding of the effects eco-labels that are supported by the government in relation to consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions.
Past research in green marketing suggests that product involvement plays an
important role in the way green advertising influences consumers brand attitude and purchase intentions. Product involvement is defined as the level of involvement that a person has with a product, which is in turn determined by the relative importance of the product to a person’s inherent values and interests (De Wulf, Odekerken- Schröder & Lacobucci, 2001;
Zaichkowsky, 1985). As such, there are two main product types; high and low involvement products. According to the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), level of involvement predicts how a message is processed and to what extent it will be persuasive (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986). Applied to the context of the current study, this entails that an eco-label will be more or less persuasive depending on the level of involvement i.e. which product type it is attached to. Although product involvement has been examined in the general green marketing literature, little is known about the relationship between product involvement and eco-labels specifically.
This study intends to fill the research gap by examining the influence of an eco-label that is accredited by the government on brand attitudes and purchase intentions, across different products (high and low involvement products). Along the way, the current study wants to investigate the role of consumers environmental concern in relation to eco-labels, as the previous research has suggested that consumers who are more concerned for the
RQ: To what extent do eco-labels that are accredited by the government have an influence on consumers brand attitude and purchase intentions and how does this influence vary across product types and across consumers who have different levels of environmental concern?
Theoretical background
Eco Labels
Eco-labels as defined by the Global Environmental Network (GEN) are labels which identify a product's or a services environmental overall performance, within one or more product or service categories (“What is ecolabelling?,”2016). According to the International Standard Organization (ISO), eco-labels can be classified into three main categories: type I, type II and type 3 III (Rex & Baumann, 2007). Most eco-labels belong to either type I or type II
category. Unlike type II labels which are self-declared often by manufacturer, type I eco-labels are based on a predetermined set of criteria (Rashid, 2009), verified by a third party and usually supported by the government. Eco-labels that fall into this category are intended to signify that eco-labeled products have passed the criteria for being environmental friendly based on life cycle considerations (Galarraga, 2002). As of today, there are hundreds of eco-labels available in the market. The largest global directory of eco-eco-labels includes a list of 463 eco-labels in 199 countries covering 25 industry sectors (“Environmental Standards” 2016).
Eco-labels are seen as important green marketing tools, which can reduce the information asymmetry that exists between sellers and consumers (Sammer and Wu Stenhagen, 2006). The often hidden environmental features of a consumer product can be communicated visible to the consumer with the help of an eco-label (Xu et al., 2012). As
such, eco-labels are intended to guide the consumers in their purchase decision making process, letting them know how products were produced and which products are
environmentally friendly (Rahbar & Wahid, 2011). Hence, eco-labeling a product is a simple way to communicate complex product-related environmental information to the consumers (Bjørner, Hansen, & Russell, 2004), informing them about the environmental consequences of their purchasing decisions and consumption (Rahbar & Wahid, 2011).
In essence, the idea behind eco-labeling schemes is that providing consumers with clear and credible environmental information about products will motivate them towards green consumption, subsequently increasing the market share for corporations who employ green technologies in their production, leading to a greener consumption and production patterns (Grankvist, Lekedal, & Marmendal, 2007). For this reason, eco-labels have long been considered as an important instrument for indirectly reducing environmental
degradation (Thøgersen, Haugaard, & Olesen, 2010).
Although eco-labels are seen as one of the main available green marketing tools for altering the conventional and environmentally detrimental production and consumption patterns (Rahbar & Abdul Wahid, 2011; Grolleau, Ibanez, Mzoughi, & Teisl, 2015), the research on eco labels in relation to consumer behavior is limited. The existing empirical evidence, though sparse, suggests that eco-labels are effective in generating positive consumers responses.
Based on the data gathered from several EU countries, Thogersen (2000) examined
with the help of a psychological model, how the attention towards eco-labels varied across consumers and found that a big majority did notice labels. In their examination of
eco-about a product in form of an eco-label did positively influence product evaluation and preferences (Rashid, 2009). For example, a discrete choice analysis found that the EU-energy label was effective in increasing consumers willingness to purchase a environmental-friendly product (Sammer, & Wüstenhagen, 2006). In another study, Rashid (2009) illustrated how being aware of the eco-labels can positively influence the effect between knowledge of green products and consumers purchase intentions (Rahbar & Wahid, 2011). Other studies have tested the influence of different eco-label designs on consumer purchase intentions. For example, Testa, Iraldo, Vaccari, & Ferrari (2015), investigated the effect of visual and verbal labels on purchase intentions for a number of consumable goods. It was found that eco-labels, regardless of their design, had a significant effect on the purchase of the tested products.
Thus, the research on eco-labels suggests that eco-labels have a positive influence on consumers responses in general as well as on consumers purchase intentions. Yet, there is little evidence on how labels influence consumers attitude towards the brand of the eco-labeled product. Nevertheless, researchers have argued that, although there is conceptual and empirical difference between brand attitude and purchase intentions, the relationship is strong and predictive. More specifically, brand attitude is seen as an important determinant of purchase intentions (Bagozzi 1981; Bagozzi and Burnkrant 1979; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Triandis 1977). Following this line of reasoning, one could expect to find that the positive influence of eco-labels on purchase intentions are caused by positive attitudes towards the brand. In other words, the influence of eco-labels ought to be positive not only on purchase intentions but also on brand attitude. Moreover, looking at the research done in the broader context of green marketing, shows that green claims (an umbrella term for green marketing techniques), are effective in influencing both consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions
(Brécard, 2014; Kong, & Zhang, 2013; Matthes, Wonneberger, & Schmuck, 2014). Since eco-labels are a type of green claim, one could assume that eco-labels too will have a positive influence on brand attitude. The following hypotheses is therefore proposed:
H1: Products with an eco-label will be have a positive influence on consumer a) brand attitude and b) purchase intentions compared to products without an eco-label.
Source
While the empirical evidence predominantly supports the positive effect of eco-labels on consumer behavior, the strength of the effect can depend on several factors which can influence the relationship (Tang et al., 2004). One such factor is source of the eco-label. In a study by Tang et al. (2004) it was found that eco labels have a positive effect on consumers’ purchase behavior, however, the results also suggested that the effectiveness of any eco label will in the end depend on the consumers’ attitude towards the environmental claims and/-or their trust towards the certification of the eco label, i.e. the source of the eco label.
The credibility of the eco-labels has been addressed in literature as an important determinant of the eco-label effect on consumer responses (Brécard, 2014). Green product claims belong to the category of credence claims, meaning that such claims are unverifiable by the consumers, neither through information search nor through product experience (Darby and Karni 1973; Nelson 1970, 1974). Consumers exposed to green claims can therefore choose to either trust and accept them or distrust and reject them. As a result, consumer’s credibility and trust in green claims are often challenged by the consumers (Horne, 2009). According to a number of surveys conducted at the EU level, consumer confidence and trust in green claims has been in decrease (Eurobarometer, 2011). The literature mentions
green-washing as one of the factors which fuels consumer distrust and undermines confidence in green claims (Peattie and Crane, 2005). This negative trend can also be seen in the case of eco-labels. For example, a study by Rahbar & Abdul Wahid (2011) found no positive
significant effects of eco-labels on consumers actual purchase behavior, arguing that this can be explained by the lack of consumer’s trust and confidence in eco-labels, making it hard to motivate them into buying the product. When green claims are perceived with low level of trust and credibility, consumers are less likely to purchase green products, (Kangun, Carlson, and Grove 1991; Thøgersen 2002), which as a result can work against the idea behind a greener economy.
Accordingly, research has shown that the source of the green claim can influence the credibility perceptions of green claims in general (Teisl, 2003) as well as eco-labels (De Pelsmacker et al. 2005; Thøgersen 2010). The two main issuers of the eco-labels are either a governmental body or the manufacturer of the product himself, i.e. a corporation (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). Previous research has shown that eco-label are perceived differently by the consumers depending on whether they are communicated by a governmental body or a corporation (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). Several studies have found that a label that is supported by an independent party (as well as the government) is perceived as more credible by consumers (Bonroy and Lemarie 2008; De Pelsmacker et al. 2005; D’Souza et al. 2007).
For example, in an empirical study by Sønderskov, & Daugbjerg (2011), consumer confidence in several organic food labeling programs were analyzed and it was found that governmental involvement has a positive and significant effect on consumer confidence. Similarly, Atkinson & Rosenthal (2014) found that label source was a good predictor of eco-label trust, more specifically, the findings suggest that consumers have greater trust in
governmentally supported eco-labels compared to eco-labels supported by a corporation. Based on these findings, eco-labels issued or supported by the government should be more effective than eco-labels originating from other sources.
Most of the existing eco-labels that are supported and or accredited by the
government (including the eco-label used in this study) fail to explicitly communicate their source to the consumers. Clarifying the source of the eco-label to the consumers is therefore very important for the purpose of examining the true impact of an eco-label that is accredited and supported by a governmental body. Based on the this discussion the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: A product with an eco-label that is accompanied with a “governmental certification claim”, (signifying that the eco-label is accredited by the government) will have a more positive influence on consumer a) brand attitude and b) purchase intentions compared to a product with eco-label that is not accompanied with such a claim.
Product Involvement
Some scholars have suggested that consumers usually interpret an environmental claim differently and attach different meanings to it, depending on the product carrying the environmental claim (Steinhart, Ayalon & Puterman, 2013). This can be explained by the famous construct of product involvement. Product involvement is defined as a consumer's perception of how important a product category is to him/her based on his/hers inherent values, interests and needs (Zaichkowsky, 1985). As such, a product category can be of more or less importance to consumer’s lives, their relationship with the world as well as their sense of identity and can therefore be reflected in product involvement (Traylor, 1981).
Accordingly, products that are perceived as more relevant to a consumer ought to appeal more to him/her and stimulate a more motivated information processing (Clarke and Belk 1978; Krugman 1966).
Involvement is another important element of the ELM model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In the model, the level of involvement determines the processing route (central or peripheral) in our brains through which the information is being processed. According to the model, unlike low-involved individuals, high-involved individuals will have both the ability and the motivation to process information. The model also suggests that high-involved individuals will use cognitive efforts when evaluating a message and will base their evaluation on arguments. Low-involved individuals on the other hand will evaluate the message based on salient and readily available cues, such as visuals (Kong, & Zhang, 2013).
Based on this line of reasoning, different level of product involvement should influence the way an environmental claim is processed and will determine the extent of its persuasiveness. Thus the differences in information processing mechanism, might explain why consumers react differently to the environmental claim (including eco-labels) depending on which product type is considered.
In the case of low-involvement products, consumers will less likely be motivated to in depth evaluate the green message and will more likely evaluate the product based on the salient peripheral cues (Coulter, 2005). Literature suggests that eco-labels can be seen as salient and rather accessible peripheral green cues (Kong, & Zhang, 2013). Therefore, the positive persuasive effect of eco-labels on consumer’s attitudes in the case of
low-involvement products should be present (Liu & Shrum, 2009). Since eco-labels are considered as green cues, this also means that little or no positive persuasive effect of
eco-labels should be present when attached to high-involvement products. As mentioned above, in the case of high-involvement products consumers are more motivated to process the green message and will search for and be more influenced by strong arguments rather than
peripheral cues, including eco-labels (Liu and Shrum 2009; Zhang & Zinkhan, 2006).
Product involvement might also influence the perception of eco-label source.
According to the literature, source of a persuasive message, including an eco-label is usually seen as a peripheral cue, and should therefore be more effective as a low-involvement feature (Pornpitakpan, 2004). In other words, source should have a stronger positive influence on consumers attitudes and behavior in the case of low-involvement products (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). Source of the eco-label should be less influential in the case of high-involvement products, highly involved consumers are more interested in what the source communicates and the content of the message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
Although the research on eco-labels in relation to product involvement is limited, several studies have found that green claims in advertising are more persuasive and have a stronger influence on consumers brand attitude and purchase intentions in the case of low-involvement products (Kong and Zhang 2013; Xue, 2014). Since eco-labels are a type of green claim, one could expect to find similar effects even in the case of eco-labels. The following hypothesis is therefore proposed:
H3: An Eco-label (with or without the governmental certification claim) will have a more positive influence on consumer a) brand attitude and b) purchase intentions when attached to a low involvement product compared to when the eco-label is attached to a high involvement product.
Environmental Concern
Environmental concern as defined by Aman et al. (2012) is ’the level of emotion and commitment towards environmental issues’. The extent to which an individual is
environmentally concerned depends on the views he or she has in regards to environmental questions (Antonides & Van Raaij, 1998). These views are formed under the influence of many factors, which explains why individuals differ in their level of environmental concern (Paco & Raposo, 2008). Some scholars have argued that there are different market segments of green consumers distinguished according to their level of environmental concern (Charter, Peattie, Ottman, & Polonsky, 2002; Simintiras, Schlegelmilch, & Diamantopoulos, 1994). Broadly, there are two main groups of consumers, those with high level of environmental concern and those with low level of environmental concern. The two-dimensional model of cognitive perspective of environmental products refers to these two segments of consumers as the conventional consumers and the environmentally green consumers respectively (D'Souza, 2004). The consumers with low level of environmental concern (or the conventional
consumers) are described as non-green, having no regard for green products. Consumers of this segment are largely ignorant of the potential benefits that environmental friendly
products might offer (D’Souza, 2004). Consumers with high level of environmental concern (or environmentally green consumers) on the other hand are described as consumers who are concerned for the environment and will use every opportunity to purchase an environmentally friendly product. Such consumers put effort into buying environmentally friendly products with the aim to favor the environment. They will check and look for environmental
information and justifications for products they purchase (D’Souza, 2004). Some refer to them as the “ultra-greens” and others see them as the key force behind environmentalism (Volsky et al., 1999). Against this background, eco-labels ought to be more influential among
consumers who have high level of environmental concern than among those who have low level of environmental concern.
Several empirical studies have found evidence suggesting that green claims in general and eco-labels in particular have a stronger positive effect on those consumers with higher levels of environmental concern. For example, in a study by Rashid (2009) it was found that the level of environmental concern is positively related to stronger consumer preference for green products. The findings suggested that those individuals with some concern for the environment would much more likely purchase a green product, once they were informed about the products environmentally friendly features via an eco-label. Similarly, in a series of three experiments, a study was able to show that consumers who scored high on the level of ecological motivation had a strong preference for eco-labeled products in comparison to the consumers who scored low on ecological motivation (Hahnel et al., 2015). Moreover, Grankvist et al. (2004) studied the effect of positive and negative eco-labels across
individuals with different levels of interest for environmental issues and found that eco-labels (either positive or negative) had no effect on those with low level of interest for
environmental issues. For individuals with strong interest in environmental issues, the effect of eco-label was equally strong, regardless of the kind of eco-label used. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: A product with an eco-label (with or without the governmental certification claim) will have a more positive influence on a) consumer brand attitude and b) purchase intentions among people who have higher levels of environmental concern compared to people who have lower levels of environmental concern.
Fig 1. The conceptual model
Methods
Research design
The experiment was conducted based on a 3(Ecolabel: absent vs. present vs. present with governmental certification claim) x 2(Product Involvement: high vs. low) mixed factorial design with eco-label as a between-subject variable and product involvement as a within-subject variable. There were thus six conditions in the experiment: no label/high, label/high, label with governmental certification claim/high, no label/low, eco-label/low and eco-label with governmental certification claim/low.
Sample
The sample of this study consists of 157 participants who were recruited online through social networking websites. The participants were sequentially exposed to two
advertisements and asked to fill in the measurements for each ad. Hence, in total there were 157 x 2 = 314 responses. The age of the participants range between 19 to 60 years, however most of the participants fall in the age group 22-29. The mean age of the participants is 25 years (SD = 4.35). 73.9% were identified as female and 26.1% were identified as male. In
terms of nationality, the sample was diverse, with Swedes, Germans and Dutch representing the three biggest groups. In terms of level of education, 91.1 % of the participants had acquired a Bachelors or Masters degree. The sample is a convenience sample, meaning that the participants were chosen because of their availability and accessibility to the researcher. This is necessary considering the purpose of the study and the its circumstances. The advantage of such a sample is that it significantly facilitates data collection. On the other hand, using a conveniences sample runs the problem of receiving biased population representation, and thus biased results. Nevertheless, considering that young adults are the key stakeholders and catalyst for change in regards to greener consumption (Bentley, Fien, & Neil 2004), focusing on young adults fits the nature and purpose of the study. In addition, understanding how eco-labels influence current young consumers is important for these consumers will represent the main group of consumers in the future (Hume, 2010).
Independent variables
Stimuli
In the experiment two factors were used, eco-label (three levels) and product involvement (two levels). For both chosen products, a base ad was created illustrating only the product and product specifications. In order to avoid bias due to already existing opinions and attitudes towards a brand, fictitious brands were created for the two products: Clean for the dishwashing detergent and LX for the smartphone. Two other versions of the ads were created for each product which were identical to the base ads in all aspect but two: presence and absence of an eco-label and governmental certification claim (see appendix).
In one version of the ads, an eco-label was added. The eco-label chosen for the experiment was the EU eco-label, launched by the European Commission in 1992. The EU eco-label was chosen for several reasons. First, it is an already existing eco-label, which might increase familiarity among the participants. Second, the EU eco-label is a Europe-wide label available in most EU countries (“Facts and Figures”, 2016), and relates well to the characteristics of the sample in geographical terms. And third, the label is available for several product categories and products, including the ones which are the focus of this study (“Product groups”, 2016). More broadly, choosing an eco-label that is well known to the participants of the study was seen as a way to increase the ecological validity of the stimuli.
In the second version of the ads a governmental certification claim accompanying the EU eco-label was added. The claim which reads “Accredited by the EU governmental
bodies” was chosen because it communicates to the participants that the EU eco-label is supported and accredited a governmental body. Such acknowledgement by the consumers should make the effect of the eco-label stronger as the research on eco-label source has suggested (Sønderskov & Daugbjerg (2011). Although the claim is accurate (i.e. the EU eco-label really is accredited by the EU governmental bodies (“Facts and Figures”, 2016)), such a claim does not appear together with the EU eco-label on consumer products in the current consumer market. In this sense, the statement is fictitious.
It is important to mention that the manipulation of the eco-label was done in conjunction with the product ads. As such, the present study intended to examine the
influence of an eco-label on consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions by attaching the eco-label to a product.
A pretest was conducted among 20 participants in order to test for the product ads. More specifically, the purpose of the pretests was to reassure that the eco-label and the certification claim on the ads were noticeable and acknowledged and that they had the effect on the participants that the researcher intended. For the purpose of an effective manipulation, making sure that the governmental certificate claim was perceived as a low rather than a high-involvement feature was in particularly important. All pretests were successful.
Product Selection
The manipulation of product involvement was based on previous literature. According to the often cited Personal Involvement Index (PII) developed by Zaichowsky (1994), expensive and technological products are seen as high involvement products such as cameras and computers while low-cost consumer goods are seen as low-involvement products such as milk and detergent. In line with this reasoning, smartphone and dishwashing detergent were chosen for this study. Smartphone representing the high involvement condition and
dishwashing detergent representing the low-involvement condition. In previous research, these products were identified as low and high involvement products (Chow, Tang, & Fu, 2007). Smartphones and dishwashing detergent were also chosen because of their popularity to the sample. Both products are common consumer goods and are thus very likely to be purchased.
Environmental Concern
The level of environmental concern was assessed using five items (see Appendix A), taken from the revised New Ecological Paradigm (Dunlap et al. 2000), on a seven-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree (see appendix). Following a reliability analysis one
item was excluded in order to improve the reliability from α = .577 to α = .620. Dropping an item was prioritized for the sake of a more reliable scale. Principal component analysis was conducted to assess environmental concern on four items. Results of an exploratory factor analysis showed that scale was unidimensional. Only one component had an Eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 1.88), explaining 47% of the variance in the four original items.
Manipulation Checks
To ensure that the effect of eco-labels and the governmental certification claim was not biased, manipulation checks were included as a part of the postexposure questionnaire. The participants were asked to answer two questions with an YES or a NO: 1) ‘Did you notice the eco-label in the ad?’ and 2) ‘Did you notice the certificate in the ad?’. Only those participants exposed to the ads that included an eco-label and/or an eco-label and the governmental certification claim were posed these questions. Consequently, those participants who were exposed to an ad without the eco-label were not asked the above questions. For those who answered YES on one or both of the previous questions were presented with follow up
questions asking them to answer with a YES, More or less or NO, whether 1) they knew what the purpose of an eco-label is and/or 2) they realized that the governmental certification claim in the ad under the eco-label belongs to the eco-label.
Dependent variables
Attitude towards the brand
Attitude towards the brand were measured using a seven-point, semantic-differential scale adopted by Spears and Singh (2004). The measurements consisted of five items:
likeable/unlikeable. Since brand attitude was measured separately for the two product conditions, in the beginning there were two measurement scales before they were combined into one measurement scale. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to assess the five items for each of these brand attitude measurement scales. In the case of the high involvement product condition, results of an exploratory factor analysis showed that the scale was unidimensional. Only one component had an Eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 4.01),
explaining 80.24% of the variance in the five original items. In the case of low-involvement product condition, results of an exploratory factor analysis showed that the scale was
unidimensional. Only one component had an Eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 3.78), explaining 75.49 % of the variance in the five original scale. Reliability of the scale was good for both low-involvement condition (Cronbach’s α = 0.912) and high involvement condition
(Cronbach’s α = 0.938 ). The two scales were later combined to represent one attitude towards the brand index.
Purchase intentions
Participants were evaluated on their purchase intentions using a seven-point semantic scale including three items: possible/not possible, probable/improbable and likely/unlikely
developed and introduced by MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986). Again, just like in the case of brand attitude, two separate PCA were conducted to assess the three items for both
purchase intentions measurement scales (one per product involvement condition). In the case of the high involvement product condition, results of an exploratory factor analysis showed that the scale was unidimensional. Only one component had an Eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 2.65), explaining 88.30 % of the variance in the three original items. In the case of low-involvement product condition, results of an exploratory factor analysis showed that the scale
was unidimensional. Only one component had an Eigenvalue above 1 (EV= 2.79), explaining 93.14 % of the variance in the three original items. Reliability of the scale was good for both low-involvement product condition (Cronbach’s α = 0.963) and high-involvement product condition (Cronbach’s α = 0.931 ). The two scales were then combined to represent one purchase intentions index.
Procedures
Participants were randomly assigned to two of the six different conditions, once for each product. The true purpose of the study was concealed from the participants in order to
minimize potential bias related to minimize the influence of such a disclosure on participants opinions. After the informed consent process was completed, the participants were first asked to answer some questions regarding their demographic characteristics such as gender, age, level of education and nationality. Next, participants were exposed to two different ads for the two different products. In the case of both ads, the participants would either be exposed to an ad without an eco-label, an ad with an eco-label or an ad with an eco-label and the
governmental certification claim, representing the different conditions. No time-constraint was added to the observation of the ads. Following each ad exposure, participants were asked to answer question related to the ads, measuring the dependent variables: brand attitude and purchase intentions. In addition, all participants were asked to complete some questions which measured their level of environmental concern. The questionnaire ended with a set of questions related to manipulation checks. After the questionnaire was completed, all
participants were thanked, debriefed and dismissed. Lastly, participants were asked whether they wish to participate in a contest with the possibility of winning 30 euros.
Randomization checks
Chi-square tests and an ANOVA were run to test whether there was a random assignment between the conditions eco-label (absent vs. present vs. present with certificate) and product involvement (high vs. low) in terms of demographic characteristics; age, gender, nationality and education. The ANOVA showed that there was no significant relationship of age for either eco-label F(2, 308) = 0.698, p = .498, partial n = 0.005 nor product involvement
F(1,308) = 0.000, p = .993, partial n = 0.000. Neither was there a significant interaction effect of the two F(2,308) = 0.076, p = .927, partial n = 0.000. The remaining three demographic variables were tested for randomization using chi-square tests. The results of the chi-square tests showed that there is no significant relationship of gender for either the eco-label x2(2) = 0.042, p = .979 nor the product involvement x2(1) = 0.000, p = 1.000. No significant
relationship of nationality for the eco-label x2(106) = 140.862, p = .130 and the product involvement x2(53) = 0.000, p = 1.000 was found. Lastly, the chi-square tests showed no significant relationship of education for the eco-label x2(6) = 3.960, p = .682 and the product involvement x2(3) = 0.000, p = 1.000. The results of the tests revealed that the conditions did not differ significantly for any demographic variable, indicating that the randomization was successful.
Results
Manipulation Checks
As expected, among the group of participants that were exposed to an ad with an eco label or an eco-label with the governmental certification claim, the eco-label was noticed 77% of the participants, while 23% of the participants did not. Somewhat surprisingly, from the group of
participants that were exposed to an ad with an eco-label with the governmental certification claim only 46% of the participants noticed the claim, while 54 % of the participants did not notice the claim. While 25% participants knew what the purpose of an eco-label is, 69% did knew more or less and 7% did not know. Lastly, 53 % of the participants realized that that governmental certification claim belongs to the eco-label in the ad, 36% realized more or less, and 11% did not realize. Apart from the governmental certification claim, which was not noticed by unexpectedly many participants, the results suggest that the manipulation check was mostly successful.
Hypotheses testing
All the hypotheses were tested using a series of independent-samples t-test. Important to mention is that while H1 and H2 were intended to measure the general influence of the eco-label and eco-eco-label with the certification (on consumer brand attitude and purchase
intentions), regardless of product type, H3 intended to measure the influence of eco-label (with or without the certification) for low and high involvement products separately. The last hypothesis, H4, intended to measure the influence of eco-label (with or without the
governmental certification claim) on consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions for people who have high versus low level of environmental concern. Since the results of the manipulation checks suggested that not all participants noticed the eco-label and especially the governmental certification claim, additional analysis was conducted in order to examine whether the results would substantially differ once controlling for people who noticed the eco-label and the governmental certification claim. For the purpose of additional analysis, all hypotheses were tested a second time with independent samples t-tests. Only for H3 and H4 did these additional t-tests yield statistically significant findings.
The first hypothesis (H1) predicted that a product with an eco-label will have a more positive influence on consumer a) brand attitude and b) purchase intentions than a product without an eco-label. An Independent t-tests was conducted to test the hypothesis comparing the no eco-label conditions and eco-label conditions. 114 participants could be found in the no eco-label conditions and 102 participants could be found in the eco-label conditions. It was found that brand attitude was more positive for those exposed to the ad with an eco-label (M = 4.58, SD = 1.11) compared to those exposed to the ad without an eco-label (M = 4.34, SD = 1.42). The mean score for eco-label conditions was 0.24 (SE = 0.17) higher than for no eco-label conditions. However, the difference is not statistically significant t(-1.404) = 210.1, p = .162. The results also revealed that Purchase Intentions were higher for those exposed to the ad with an eco-label (M = 4.45, SD = 1.57) compared to those exposed to an ad without the eco-label (M = 4.04, SD = 1.83). The mean score for the eco-label conditions was 0.41 (SE = 0.23) higher than for no eco-label conditions. The difference was again found not to be statistically significant t(-1.771) = 213.6, p = .078. Thus the findings suggest that the eco-label does not have a statistically significant positive influence on consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions. Therefore the first hypothesis (H1) is not supported.
The second hypothesis (H2) predicted that a product with eco-label that is
accompanied with a governmental certification claim will have a more positive influence on consumer a) consumer brand attitude and b) purchase intentions compared to a product with eco-label that is not accompanied with a governmental certification claim. Independent samples t-test was conducted, comparing the eco-label conditions and eco-label with governmental certification claim conditions. 98 participants could be found in the governmental certification claim conditions. More positive brand attitude was displayed
certification claim conditions (M = 4.62, SD = 1.10) compared to participants exposed to the eco-label conditions (M = 4.58, SD = 1.11). Although the difference in mean brand attitude was 0.05 (SE = 0.16) higher for eco-label with governmental certification claim conditions, the difference was not statistically significant t(- 0.305) = 197.7, p = .761. The results revealed similar findings in the case of purchase intentions. Slightly higher purchase intentions were displayed among the participants in the eco-label with governmental
certification claim conditions (M = 4.49, SD = 1.54) compared to participants in the eco-label conditions (M = 4.45, SD = 1.57), indicating a mean score 0.04 (SE = 0.22) higher for eco-label with governmental certification claim conditions. The difference in the mean score was however not statistically significant, which fails to support H2. The findings show no
statistically significant more positive influence of an eco-label accompanied with a
governmental certification claim compared to an eco-label without such a claim on consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions. The hypothesis (H2) is therefore not supported.
The third hypothesis (H3) predicted that an eco-label (with or without the
governmental certification claim) will have a more positive influence on consumer a) brand attitude and b) purchase intentions, when attached to the low involvement product than when attached to a high involvement product. Two independent-samples t-tests were conducted, one for each product type. Of all the participants exposed to the ad with the high
involvement, 56 participants could be found in the no eco-label condition and 101 could be found in either eco-label or eco-label with governmental certification claim condition. Brand attitude was more positive among the participants that were exposed to an ad with an label (M = 4.61, SD = 1.83) compared to the ones that were exposed to an ad without an ecolabel (M = 4.30, SD = 1.41) a difference that was however not statistically significant M = -0.31, SE = 0.211, t(155) = -1.477, p > 0.05. Purchase intentions were higher for participants
that were exposed to an ad with an eco-label (M = 3.97, SD = 1.45) compared to those exposed to an ad without an eco-label (M = 3.56, SD = 1.74 ). The difference was however not statistically significant M=-0.41, SE=0.27, t(155) = -1.593, p > 0.05.
Of all the participants that were exposed to the ad with the low-involvement product, 58 participants could be found in the no eco-label condition and 99 participants could be found in either the eco-label or eco-label with governmental certification claim condition. Mean score for brand attitude was slightly more positive among the participants that were exposed to an ad with an eco-label (M = 4.60, SD = 1.02) compared to participants exposed to an ad without an eco-label (M = 4.38, SD = 1.45). The difference was however not statistically significant M = -0.22, SE = 0.22, t(90.572) = -1.022, p> 0.05. Purchase
intentions were higher among the participants in exposed to the an ad with an eco-label (M= 4.97, SD = 1.50) compared to those exposed to an ad without an eco-label (M = 4.50, SD = 1.81) a difference that was not statistically significant M = 0.47, SE = 0.28, t(102.18) = -1.665, p> 0.05. The results show no statistically significant positive influence of eco-labels (with or without the governmental certification claim) on consumer brand attitude nor purchase intentions, when attached to either low or high involvement product. The H3 is therefore not supported.
However, after controlling for participants who did notice the eco-label, additional independent samples t-tests showed that in the case of low-involvement product, purchase intentions were higher for participants exposed to an ad with an eco-label (M = 5.06, SD = 1.37) than for those exposed to an ad without an eco-label (M = 4.50, SD = 1.81). A
difference that was now statistically significant M = -0.56, SE = 0.28, t(101.201) = -1.987, p = 0.05. In the case of high-involvement product, although the purchase intentions were higher
for participants exposed to an ad with an eco-label than for those exposed to an ad without an eco-label, the difference remained statistically insignificant M = -0.37, SE = 0.26, t(151) = - 1.441, p = 0.06. These findings are consistent with the predicted direction in H3b. (The results are presented in Table 1, see appendix)
The fourth and last hypothesis (H4) predicted that a product with eco-label (with or without governmental certification claim) will have a more positive influence on consumer a) brand attitude and b) purchase intentions among people who have higher level of
environmental concern compared to people whose level of environmental concern is lower. Prior to hypothesis testing, a median split was used to categorize participants into two groups: a low and a high environmental concern group. Two independent samples t-tests were
conducted, one for each environmental concern group. Of all the participants that scored low on environmental concern, 59 could be found in the no eco-label condition and 117 could be found in either the eco-label or eco-label governmental certification claim condition. Among these participants, brand attitude was more positive for those exposed to an ad with an eco-label (M = 4.61, SD = 1.10) than for those exposed to an ad without an eco-eco-label (M = 4.39, SD = 1.19). However the difference was not statistically significant M = -0.22, SE = 0.18, t(174) = -1.195, p > 0.05. Purchase intentions was also higher for those exposed to an ad with an eco-label (M = 4.61, SD = 1.50) than for those exposed to an ad without an eco-label (M = 4.11, SD = 1.87), a difference that was however again not statistically significant M = -0.50 , SE= 0.28, t(96.866) = -1.791, p > 0.05.
Of all the participants that scored high on environmental concern, 52 could be found in the no eco-label condition and 82 could be found in either the eco-label or eco-label governmental certification claim condition. Among these participants, the score for brand
attitude was higher for those exposed to an ad with an eco-label (M = 4.57, SD = 1.11), than for those exposed to an ad without an eco-label (M = 4.15, SD = 1.59). The difference was however not statistically significant M = -0.42, SE =0.25, t(82.099) = - 1.653, p > 0.05. Purchase intentions were also slightly higher for those exposed to an ad with an eco-label (M = 4.24, SD = 1.59) than for those exposed to an ad without an eco-label (M = 3.85, SD = 1.79) a difference that was not found to be statistically significant M = -0.38, SE =0.30, t(132) = -1.303, p > 0.05. The results show no statistically significant influence of an eco-label on consumer brand attitude nor purchase intentions, for neither high or low
environmentally concerned group of participants. The hypotheses H4 is therefore not supported.
Again, additional independent t-tests showed some significant findings, after
controlling for those participants who noticed the eco-label. Among the participants with high level of environmental concern, brand attitude was more positive for those participants exposed to an ad with an eco-label (M = 4.70, SD = 1.10), than for those exposed to an ad without an eco-label (M = 4.15, SD = 1.59), a difference that was now statistically significant M = -0.55, SE = 0.258, t(86.827) = - 2.109, p = 0.03. In contrast, for the participants with low level of environmental concern, although brand attitude was more positive for participants exposed to an ad with an eco-label than for those exposed to an ad without an eco-label, the difference remained statistically insignificant M = -0.36, SE = 0.19, t(145) = -1.917, p = 0.06. However, among the participants with low level of environmental concern, purchase
intentions were higher for those participants exposed to an ad with an eco-label (M = 4.74, SD = 1.46), than for those exposed to an ad without an eco-label (M = 4.11, SD = 1.87). The difference was statistically significant, M = -0.63, SE = 0.29, t(103.735) = -2.185, p = 0.04.
intentions were higher for those exposed to an ad with an eco-label than for those exposed to an ad without an eco-label, the difference was not statistically significant M = -0.60, SE = 0.31, t(116) = -1.958, p = 0.06. The findings of the additional analysis are inconsistent with the prediction of H4.
Discussion
The current study intended to investigate the influence of an eco-label (when attached to product ad), on consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions, together with the influence of product involvement and consumer level of environmental concern.
First, the study found no evidence that an eco-label (without a governmental certification claim) has a positive influence on consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions. This does not coincide with the findings of previous studies according to which eco-labels have positive influence on consumer responses (Grankvist et al., 2004; Sammer, & Wüstenhagen, 2006; Testa et al.,2015). There is a possibility that the insignificant influence of the eco-label on purchase intentions (but also on brand attitude), found in this study are related to the features of the EU eco-label specifically. A study that found a positive
significant relationship between eco-labels and purchase intentions, were examining the EU energy label. No study, known to the author, has to date tested the EU eco-label in an
experimental setting. Perhaps the participants of this study had prior negative views about the EU eco-label and/or eco-labels in general. Moreover, although many scholars would agree that colorful symbols and visuals can attract people’s attention and affect their advertising responses (Coomber 2008; Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ib´a˜nez 2009), some have reported that substantive claims (factual/functional) have a stronger positive effect on brand attitude and purchase intentions than associative claims (visual) (Chan et al., 2006). Related to this, a study by An (2007) found that people in the low-context culture nations are more persuaded
by ads which provide functional information rather than ads which rely on symbolic visuals and illustrations. A large number of participants in this study were from a low-context culture nation (including Sweden, Germany and Netherlands), which might provide an explanation to why this study found no significant positive influence of eco-labels on consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions among this sample of the population. Indeed, a lot of the studies that found positive effects of eco-labels and green appeals in general were conducted among a sample from a high-context nation (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014; Brécard, 2014; Sammer & Wüstenhagen, 2006; Testa et al., 2015).
Second, this study failed to prove that an eco-label with a governmental certification claim has a more positive influence on brand attitude and purchase intentions, compared to an eco-label without such a claim. These findings are also inconsistent with previous research, which has suggested a governmental certification has a positive influence on consumer advertising responses (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). First of all, it is noteworthy that a surprisingly high percentage of participants failed to notice the governmental certification claim in the ads. However, controlling for the people who saw the claim did not change the results. One explanation to the insignificant results could be that other eco-label sources were more influential and persuasive than the governmental source for the participants of this study. It could also be an issue of trust. In a study by Sønderskov and Daugbjerg (2011), it was shown that consumers who trust the governmental institutions also trust the eco-labels that are accredited or supported by governmental bodies. Perhaps the insignificant effect of governmental certification claim as reported in the present study can be an indication of low consumer confidence regarding the government among this study’s participants. This would be plausible considering the ever increasing anti-EU sentiment in Europe (Wright, 2016).
Third, the study found some evidence that an eco-label has a more positive influence on consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions when attached to a low-involvement product than when attached to a high-involvement product. Although, the results of the initial t-tests found no significant result in support of H3, controlling for participants who noticed the eco-label yielded different results. Additional analysis showed that the eco-label did have a more positive influence on purchase intentions (but not on brand attitude) for those that were exposed to the ad with low-involvement product than for those exposed to the ad with high-involvement products. In this sense, the findings coincide with previous research, which found the green appeals are more persuasive when attached to low-involvement product (Kong, & Zhang, 2013; Xue, 2014). Furthermore, these findings are consistent with one of the core assumptions of the ELM model. According to the model, when consumers are low-involved (for instance when evaluating a low-involvement product), they pay more attention to and are persuaded by heuristic cues (eco-label and the source of the eco-label) (Zhang & Zinkhan, 2006). These heuristic cues should not have a persuasive effect on consumers who are evaluating a highly involved product for the model assumes that when consumers are highly involved, they pay more attention to and are persuaded by solid and informative arguments (Scudder, 2010). Nonetheless, the additional analysis failed to correct for the insignificant influence of eco-labels on consumer brand attitude for participants who were exposed to the ad with low-involvement product. This is surprising because previous research has found that brand attitude is related to purchase intentions so that a positive brand attitude leads to higher purchase intentions (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). The current study therefore offers no explanation to this finding.
Finally, the study found no evidence that eco-labels will have a more positive influence on consumer brand attitude and purchase intentions for people who have higher
levels of environmental concern than for those who have lower levels of environmental concern. One possible explanation for the insignificant findings could be that the eco-label and/or the governmental certification claim are not convincing enough for people with high level of environmental concern (Polonsky et al. 1997). Although the eco-label (and/-or the governmental certification claim) might present itself as an effective heuristic cue in general, when the people feel strong about the environment, such cues might lose their persuasive strength (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). Consumers that are involved and concerned for the environment are critical, and they want to be sure that the product that they are buying really is green (Kikuchi-Uehara, Nakatani & Hirao, 2016). As the green-washing trend increases, this demand for “greener evidence” is likely to increase. On the other hand, it is possible that the participants with high level of environmental concern were more persuaded by non-environmental product features than by the green features (eco-label) in the ad (Belk, Devinney and Eckhardt 2005; Carrigan and Attalla 2001).
Once controlling for people who have noticed the eco-label, interesting but contradictory findings emerged. While brand attitude was now statistically significantly higher for the participants with high level of environmental concern compared to those with low level of environmental concern, the opposite was found for purchase intentions. Such contradictory findings might be a reflection of a flawed measurement scale. Indeed, the scale for environmental concern in this study did not have a strong reliability as indicated by Cronbach's Alpa 0.62, suggesting that it did not accurately measure participants level of environmental concern. This limitation could also, at least in part, explain why the initial results for H4 failed for provide support for the hypotheses.
eco-label did not increase when the eco-label was accompanied with a governmental certification claim. The results indicate that there was no significant influence of either
product involvement nor environmental concern on eco-label, unless the additional analysis is taken into consideration. Only then does the positive influence of product involvement on eco-label appear, suggesting that eco-labels when attached to a low-involvement product do have a positive influence on consumer purchase intentions but not on consumer brand attitude.
Implications
From a research point of view, this study expands the existing scientific knowledge on eco-labels mainly by showing that product involvement is an important factor to consider when exploring the influence of eco-labels on consumers responses. Specifically, this study
provides empirical evidence, which suggest that eco-labels are able to generate more positive influence on consumers brand attitude and purchase intentions when attached to a low- (versus high) involvement product. Likewise, by testing one of the core assumptions of the ELM model in a relatively unexplored research context and finding support for it, this study increases our understanding of the ELM model. The present study adds to the current body of research on eco-labels by exploring the issue of eco-label source, something that so far has not been well explored.
To the extent that the findings of this study are generalizable, they also provide some practical implications. The main practical implication of this research is that adding an eco-label to a product might prove profitable but only if the product is a low-involvement product. Eco-labels should therefore not be seen as a universally effective green marketing tool. It is thus suggested that only those companies that promote and sell frequently
purchased products, such as household products (including dishwashing detergent) might consider applying for an eco-label.
Limitations and further research:
The findings of the present study should be considered in light of the several limitations. These limitations should be seen as suggestions for further research on the topic. With regards to the stimuli material, this study used only two products to represent the low and high involvement products, one per involvement type. Moreover, only one eco-label and one claim representing governmental certification was examined. It was beyond the scope of this study to test for multiple and different kinds of products, eco-labels and types of claims. Doing so however, might yield different results as well as increase generalizability of the findings. Further research should therefore try test for different kind of products, different eco-labels and different types of governmental certification claims.
Second, the sample of the study is homogenous in terms of age and education level
which in addition to biasing the results also prevents the results to be generalized to the wider population. It is possible that other segments of the population would have reacted differently to the stimuli of this study. Future studies should strive for a truly random sample with a more diverse segment of the population, not least in terms of age and education.
Third, in this study the level of environmental concern was not explored in relation to product involvement. Previous research has shown that for consumers with high level of environmental concern, green advertising is more effective when used for low-involving products (Kong, & Zhang, 2013). Future research could investigate whether there is a similar relationship in the case of eco-labels.
Future studies, which are intending to use the New Ecological Paradigm (Dunlap et al. 2000) to measure environmental concern, should add more measurements items to their scale in order to improve its reliability.
An additional avenue for future research in this field is to study eco-labels in a qualitative manner. A qualitative approach could increase our understanding on how people really think and reason in the purchase moment of an eco-labeled product. Such insights, which are hard to get in an experimental setting, could help in the development of more effective eco-labels.
References
Alwitt, L. F., & Pitts, R. E. (1996). Predicting purchase intentions for an environmentally
sensitive product, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(1), 49-64.
Aman A. H. L., Harun A, Hussein Z. (2012). The influence of environmental knowledge and concern on green purchase intention the role of attitude as a mediating variable. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 7, 145–167.
An, D. (2007). Advertising visuals in global brands’ local websites: a six-country comparison. International Journal of Advertising, 26(3), 303-332.
Atkinson, L., & Rosenthal, S. (2014). Signaling the green sell: the influence of eco-label source, argument specificity, and product involvement on consumer trust. Journal of Advertising, 43(1), 33-45.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses. Journal of personality and social psychology, 41(4), 607.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1979). Attitude organization and the attitude–behavior relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 913.
Belk, R. W., & Clarke, T. K. (1978). The effects of product involvement and task definition on anticipated consumer effort/BEBR No. 508. Faculty working papers; no. 508. Belk, R. W., Devinney, T., & Eckhardt, G. (2005). Consumer ethics across cultures.
Consumption Markets & Culture, 8(3), 275-289.
Bentley, M., Fien, J., & Neil, C. (2004). Sustainable consumption: Young Australians as agents of change. Canberra: Department of Family and Community Services. Berghoef, N., & Dodds, R. (2013). Determinants of interest in eco-labelling in the Ontario
wine industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52, 263-271.
Bickart, B. A., & Ruth, J. A. (2012). Green eco-seals and advertising persuasion. Journal of advertising, 41(4), 51-67.
Bjørner, T. B., Hansen, L. G., & Russell, C. S. (2004). Environmental labeling and
consumers’ choice—an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47(3), 411-434.
Bonroy, O., & Lemarie, S. (2008). Downstream labeling and upstream competition. Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL) Working Papers.
Brécard, D. (2014). Consumer confusion over the profusion of eco-labels: Lessons from a double differentiation model. Resource and energy economics, 37, 64-84.
Brécard, D., Hlaimi, B., Lucas, S., Perraudeau, Y., & Salladarré, F. (2009). Determinants of demand for green products: An application to eco-label demand for fish in Europe. Ecological economics, 69(1), 115-125.
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer-do ethics matter in
purchase behaviour?. Journal of consumer marketing, 18(7), 560-578.
Chan, R. Y., Leung, T. K. P., & Wong, Y. H. (2006). The effectiveness of environmental claims for services advertising. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(4), 233-250. Charter, M., Peattie, K., Ottman, J., & Polonsky, M. J. (2002). Marketing and sustainability.
Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS) in association with The Centre for Sustainable Design, April.
Chow, C. S., Tang, E. P., & Fu, I. S. (2007). Global marketers' dilemma: Whether to translate
the brand name into local language. Journal of Global Marketing, 20(4), 25-38.
Coomber, E. (2008). The visual advantage. Communication World, 25(5), 36-38.
Coulter, K. S. (2005). An examination of qualitative vs. quantitative elaboration likelihood effects. Psychology & Marketing, 22(1), 31-49.
Darby, M. R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. The journal of law & economics, 16(1), 67-88.
De Pelsmacker, P., Janssens, W., Sterckx, E., & Mielants, C. (2005). Consumer preferences for the marketing of ethically labelled coffee. International marketing review, 22(5),
512-530.
Do Paço, A. M. F., & Raposo, M. L. B. (2008). Determining the characteristics to profile the
“green” consumer: an exploratory approach. International review on public and
nonprofit marketing, 5(2), 129-140.
D'Souza, C. (2004). Ecolabel programmes: a stakeholder (consumer) perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9(3), 179-188.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., & Peretiatko, R. (2007). Green decisions: demographics
and consumer understanding of environmental labels. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 31(4), 371-376.
measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 425-442.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Environmental standards by product catergory. (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.globalecolabelling.net
Eurobarmeter. (2011). Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment.
Retrived from: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives
Facts and figures. (2016, June 08). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/ Fishbein, M., & Icek A. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Galarraga Gallastegui, I. (2002). The use of eco‐ labels: a review of the literature. European Environment, 12(6), 316-331.
Gerrit, A., & Van Raaij, F. W. (1998). Consumer Behaviour: A European Perspective. Londres: Johnn Wiley & Sons Ldt.
Grankvist, G., Lekedal, H., & Marmendal, M. (2007). Values and eco-and fair-trade labelled
products. British Food Journal, 109(2), 169-181.
Grolleau, G., Ibanez, L., Mzoughi, N., & Teisl, M. (2015). Helping eco-labels to fulfil their promises. Climate Policy, 1-11.
Hahnel, U. J., Arnold, O., Waschto, M., Korcaj, L., Hillmann, K., Roser, D., & Spada, H. (2015). The power of putting a label on it: green labels weigh heavier than
contradicting product information for consumers’ purchase decisions and post-purchase behavior. Frontiers in psychology, 6.
Revisited: Conditioning Virtual Nature Experiences, International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 715–739.
Horne, R. E. (2009). Limits to labels: The role of eco‐ labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(2), 175-182.
Hume, M. (2010). Compassion without action: Examining the young consumers consumption and attitude to sustainable consumption. Journal of world business, 45(4), 385-394. Kangun, N., Carlson, L., & Grove, S. J. (1991). Environmental advertising claims: a preliminary investigation. Journal of public policy & marketing, 47-58. Kikuchi-Uehara, E., Nakatani, J., & Hirao, M. (2016). Analysis of factors influencing consumers' proenvironmental behavior based on life cycle thinking. Part I: effect of
environmental awareness and trust in environmental information on product choice.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 117, 10-18.
Kong, Y., & Zhang, A. (2013). Consumer response to green advertising: the influence of product involvement. Asian journal of communication, 23(4), 428-447.
Krugman, H. E. (1966). The measurement of advertising involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 30(4), 583-596.
Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). A dual-process model of interactivity effects. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 53-68.
Lyer, G. R. (1999). Business, consumers and sustainable living in an interconnected world: A multilateral ecocentric approach. Journal of business ethics, 20(4), 273-288.
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of
