LUẬN văn THẠC sĩ factors influencing consumers green purchase decision in vietnam

INTRODUCTION

Research background

Environmental issues are one of the biggest challenges in the 21th century (Edgar G.Hertwich, 2010) The emission to the air, land and water is not only caused by natural system processes anymore Nowadays, human activities emit and alter the natural system more quickly than nature can adapt, recycle and purify (Nicolaisen et al., 1991)

Thus, the Earth’s ecology system has been changed significantly: extreme weathers occur; natural resources are depleted and degraded; living creatures suffers unhealthy altered habitat, biodiversity loss occurs, human being’s health problems increases This is not affect living standard of the present creatures but also of the future generation

It is conceivable that human activities have been creating such adverse effects on environment tragically Population, How we consume and How we produce things are 3 elements of human’s impact on the planet (George Monbiot, 2013)

Humankind has induced environment degradation via excessive and polluted producing and consuming process, the increase of population requires higher resource consumption as well Fossil fuel use (for transportation, production of manufacturing goods, etc.) and food consumption (agriculture and fishery) are said to have made significantly negative impacts on the Earth system’s balance In most countries, household consumption takes account up to 60% or more of final consumption’s effects on ecosystem Food and housing have most influence on greenhouse gas emission, in emerging countries (Edgar G.Hertwich, 2010)

In additions, humankind activities’ impacts tend to increase in the future as usual scenario, especially regards in economic activities (Edgar G.Hertwich, 2010) In particularly, the higher economic, income and population growth, the higher level of CO 2 emission Besides, according to the United Nation, with the current trend, global population would be 9.6 billion in 2050 To sustain resource demand of current lifestyle for that significant number of population, 3 planets like the Earth are in needed (United Nation website) If patterns of production and consumption are not changed, creatures will face more extreme effects (UNEP, George Monbiot)

Since negative impacts on environment of excessive producing and consuming have increased tremendously, sustainable development has been emerged Sustainable development supports development which reduces adverse influence on the ecology and society (Joshi & Rahman, 2015) Sustainable production and consumption are two components of sustainable development Firstly, sustainable production encourages on environmental sustainability practices at all processes of goods and services creation Secondly, sustainable consumption indicates consideration of consumers on their buying, using and disposing products and services, how these things impact on environment

Sustainable development has become global level, both in developed countries and developing economies There has been an increase in the number and scope of environmental regulations by many governments Approximately 100 countries are actively implementing policies and indicators to promote sustainable consumption and production (Groening et al., 2018) Green brands is indicated to grow rapidly at global level (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017) European Commission reported that green product’s global market size is around $6 trillion, grow rate is around 13% annually (Goh & Balaji, 2016) Green products have developed in a wide range of industries: food, construction, energy, automobiles, hospitality, tourism, home appliance, etc

In Vietnam, sustainable development is concerned in recent years To promote sustainable production and consumption, Vietnam government has introduced several regulations, takes part in international program and commitment, and is supported by international organizations In terms of business sectors, not only big companies (Unilever, Metro, Big C, etc.) join in this segment, there are enterprises start to provide green products such as Aneco, producer of bio compostable kitchen appliances (Thuy Ho Thanh, 2018) Even small business like café, restaurants, retail stores, their awareness for providing environmental friendly products and services has increased They supply cane container, biodegradable or paper bag for food and beverage products, bamboo and rice straw for drinks, reducing price for customers who bring their own jars to buy products The variety of green products has been broaden, besides traditional green products like energy saving electronic appliances, companies provide a wide range of organic foods and beverage, natural component cosmetic, home appliance, green construction, ecotourism, etc Vietnamese consumers also show their interest in green products and services As Nielsen Vietnam reported, Vietnamese consumers are concerned on “green”, “clean” issues and willing to pay higher for brands which commits on environmental friendly products and services (Thuy Ho Thanh, 2018)

However, other polls show contrast results with the above positive patterns, both in the context of Vietnam and global (Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Goh & Balaji, 2016;

Shao & ĩnal, 2019; Joshi & Rahman, 2015; Gleim et al., 2013) Actually, green products accounts for a small part of global demand, about 1-3% of the total market, green product sales seem to be trending downward (Goh & Balaji, 2016)

Regarding to consumer, there is group of consumer does not trust in green claims of the products to be accurate (Goh & Balaji, 2016) There is another group who even shows their concern for environment or preference attitude for green product, but does not willing to obtain or pay a premium price for sustainable product (Gupta &

Ogden, 2009), even there is the growing popularity of green products on retail shelves (Gleim et al., 2013) This result is similar with what written in Jing Shao’s study (Shao & ĩnal, 2019): Almost 50% of respondents showed preference when being asked about buying hybrid cars, less than 12% of the respondents are predicted to purchase one due to current trade-offs Hence, the positive tendency of consumers’ attitude would not predict accurately for their purchase on green product

These phenomena show that it is challenge for marketer in green products field, there are barriers for consumers to acquire environmental friendly products Besides, it is essential to have perspective on the demand side Firstly, as Groening said:

“The need to understand green purchasing behavior is especially timely due to environmental, scientific, and communication advances, such as the internet, and social media, and increases in consumer awareness of and concern with environmental issues including population growth and global warming” (Groening et al., 2018) Secondly, it is advantage for business to capture benefits from green orientation (Gleim et al., 2013)

Hence, to have an insight of green purchase decision is necessary when the pattern of producing and consuming should be changed toward sustainable development goal for the current as the future generation.

Research objectives

Derived from the context described above, this present research aims to contribute prior studies on identifying factors for purchase decision on green products of consumers

In particularly, the present study examines proposed framework from previous theoretical studies to understand determinants on consumers’ green purchase based on two theories - social dilemma theory and self-control theory These determinants are categorized into three groups including individual, situation and social factors

- Individual factors are: value (altruism and egoistic), hedonic motivation (novelty seeking), and knowledge

- Situation factors are: perceived behavior control and perceived product efficiency

- Social factors are: reference group’s influence (informative, utilitarian and value expressive influences), in-group identity and expectation to others’ cooperation

This research aim to find answer for research question which is:

- What factors influence on consumers’ green purchase decision?

- To what extend these factors impact on consumers’ green purchase decision?

Research scope

1.3.1 Content scope : Factors influencing on consumers’ green purchase decision

1.3.2 Place scope: Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City

In Vietnam, due to the fast speed of emerging economy, high rate of urbanization, social changes which led to numerous issues related to environment Thus, many cities in Vietnam are polluted with atmosphere indication and waste problem are urgent recently with the fast pace of living lifestyle Besides, citizens, especially in fast-growing cities like Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City, is considered to concern for green products and services, and also would have chances to approach this product segment

Thus, investigation of green purchase decision, especially in a fast developing cities as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh city, might give an insight of how consumers decision on green products are influenced

1.3.3 Time scope: October 2019 to May 2020.

Research structure

This research content has 5 chapters:

- The first chapter introduces research background which is circumstance as motivation for this research to be conducted

- The second chapter is on literature review This chapter presents related definitions, gives overview of previous studies on consumers’ green purchase, literature gap, which are foundation for developing hypotheses

- The third chapter is on research methodology, design and procedure, pilot test, survey adjustment, variables measurement, data collection and analysis method

- The fourth chapter is data analysis

- The fifth chapter is discussion on findings, limitations of this research, recommendation for future studies and implications if there is any.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Green Purchase Inconsistency and related definitions

In Yatish et al.’s study (Joshi & Rahman, 2015), first of all, as function of a product, green product satisfies consumers’ needs, then, does not damage the environment

This product is better for environment and has low impact on environment It is made from environment-friendly material It is recyclable and less packaged For examples, green products are: organic, natural products, energy saving electric appliances, etc

Based on characteristic of producing and material, Gleim defines that: “A green product is one that is produced with concern for the physical environment: air, water and land This definition incorporates all facets of green as a marketing strategy, not just a select set of subcomponents (e.g., recycling, organic purchasing, and energy consumption)” (Gleim et al., 2013)

According to Liobikiene and Bernatoniene (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017), green products have negative influence on the ecology and human health less than conventional counterparts They point out these terms “green product”, “sustainable product”, “environmental friendly product” are similar and interchangeable

Expressing on design to reduce impacts on nature, Liobikiene says that green products are designed to reduce required natural resources usage and minimize negative impacts on environment during these products’ life-cycle The author clarifies the main requirements for this product type that the component (or material) should be non-toxic, no chemical and environment friendly package (Liobikiene et al., 2016)

A simplified, widely accepted definition is introduced by Liang: “Green products are typically durable, non-toxic, made of recycled materials, or minimally packaged”

(Liang et al., 2019) This author clearly explains that green and non-green products both use energy and resources, make by-product, as well as emission before and during consumers’ consumption and ultimately disposal Thus, green is “relative” concept, depending on different point of views of consumer and contextual conditions He gives an example that: some people may consider energy saving labeled appliances as green products, but others, with higher strict criteria to evaluate, still believe those products as polluting

In academic literature, “green purchasing”, “ green acquisition” and “adoption of green product” are used to indicate environmental purchase behavior (Joshi &

There are three streams when initial studies define green purchase They are ground on: 1) Sustainable development, 2) Ethical dimension and 3) Pro-environmental behavior These streams to explain green purchase are also related to several terms such as “green consumption”, and “green consumer”, which are also discussed in the following part

Firstly, green purchase is explained based on sustainable development Sustainable development includes two parts: green production and green consumption As goods and services consumption is growing, green consumption concerns for environmental impact of consumption behavior It does not aim on reducing consuming but on decreasing its negative impacts on environment , not worsening the quality of environment (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017; Liobikiene et al.,

2016) In Moisander’s paper, green consumption occurs when consumers take into account on environmental influence of their buying, using, and disposing of goods or using green services Thus, following this perspective, Moisander defines green purchase as a step of green consumption (Joshi & Rahman, 2015) In addition, not only concern for environmental impact, Liobikiene adds one detail which is to lessen impact on damaging human health (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017)

Secondly, green purchase is defined in context of pro-environmental behaviors

Since the 1960s, when environmental movement happened (Choi & Johnson, 2019;

Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017), green consumption is perceived as pro- environmental behavior Not only to minimize harm to the environment as much as possible, pro- environmental behavior also achieve to benefit the environment

According to Liang et al., pro-environmental behavior has two components: pollution avoidance and green purchasing As a passive behavior, pollution avoidance stays away from polluting products (recycle, reuse, reduce), and changes current consumption practice on traditional polluting goods Green purchasing is active behavior which seeks to obtain green products, takes green benefit into consumption decision process (Liang et al., 2019) Following this stream, Dooyoung Choi illustrates green purchase as pro-environmental behavior which

“occurs when consumers acquire products that do not pollute or deplete natural resources and that can be recycled or conserved” (Choi & Johnson, 2019)

The third stream of green purchase explanation includes ethical dimension Hsui defined green purchase as a voluntary behavior for environment friendliness of manufacturing In comparison with purchasing traditional products, Yatish describes green purchase as it is planned and is a responsible purchasing for products which would not damage environment adversely (Joshi & Rahman, 2015)

Meanwhile, Gleim compares green consumers versus non-green consumer when explain on green purchase A green consumer is person who takes into account his/her responsibility to society by minimizing the potential negative impact on ecology when he/she decides on purchasing green product Thus, non-green consumer is demonstrated as person does not concern for helping the environment when green products alternatives are available (Gleim et al., 2013)

According to Yatish, green purchase behavior is “a complex form of ethical decision-making behavior and is considered a type of socially responsible behavior

As a socially responsible consumer, the green consumer “takes into account the public consequences of his or her private consumption and attempts to use his or her purchasing power to bring about social change”” (Joshi & Rahman, 2015)

In summary, in this research:

Green product is product concerns for physical environment, does not deplete natural resources, harm environment and living creatures, is made of recycled, non- toxic materials or less packaged (Liang et al., 2019)

Green consumer is individual acquiring green products Non-green consumer is person who chooses to use conventional polluting products while green product alternatives are available (Gleim et al., 2013)

Green consumption is a pro-environment behavior, a part of sustainable development Green consumption is to not reduce consumption while not exploit the environment, but even seek for the sake of environment Green consumption definition is explained in contexts with green production and pollution avoidance

Theories examined

Due to environmental degradation because of consumption level growing, the late 1960s was the beginning of research about green marketing and green purchase behavior Until 1980, there was the main period of green purchasing studies, and also saw a rise in eco-labeling (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017) Up to now, there are 2 main streams of research regarding on green purchase behavior: 1) Researches identifies different main factors; 2) Researches guided by theories

The first stream is researches focus on identifying different factors underlying consumers’ green purchase behavior They point out the effects of socio- demography, culture, personality, concern on environment, knowledge (objective, subjective), attitude, values, consciousness, etc on consumers’ attitude and behavior related to green goods and services (Gleim et al., 2013; Magnusson et al., 2003; Makatouni, 2002; Tanner & Kast, 2003; Tsakiridou et al., 2008; Aertsens et al., 2011; Chan & Wong, 2012; Niinimọki, 2010) Nevertheless, this approach only reaches to a small percentage of the green market, whereas there is lack of knowledge on a significant number of consumers who state to be pro-environmental, but do not buy sustainable products (Gleim et al., 2013) Besides, there are researches investigate on general green products, whereas, there are ones concern on specifically product types: cosmetic, textile, food or electric appliances

The second stream is researches guided by theories while identifying factors influence on green purchase Gleim wrote that: “Well-grounded theoretical explanations as to why consumers do, or do not, engage in environmentally sustainable behaviors or purchase green products are rare” (Gleim et al., 2013)

Christopher Groening et al, (Groening et al., 2018) made an overview of prior studies on individual – level of consumer’s behavior in green marketing Their work provided a comprehensive, synthesized framework for theories applied in green purchase behavior In the framework, they described clearly position of each theories in the process of forming purchase behavior

Mainly studies were guided by consumption value theory while considering values of function, condition, society and environment of green purchasing Nonetheless, in investigating green purchase, Theory of planned behavior is the most widely used theory, which partially including consumption theory as well (Liobikiene et al.,

2.2.2 Frameworks examined on buyer purchase decision process

In the second stream of research on green purchase, a majority of researches explain green purchase behavior based on a behavior process which has similarity with the purchase decision process of Kotler and Amstrong These studies could be divided into two groups: 1) Researches focus on phases from awareness (or attitude) to intention, which assumes that intention leads to behavior For instance, researches apply TRA, TPB theories; 2) Researches focus on phase from intention to behavior

1) Regarding to attitude-intention stage researches :

These researches are guided by Theory of reasoned action (TRA) and Theory of planned behavior (TPB), and take account for a large part of green purchase literature

TRA explains that there are 2 factors determine behavior, including social norm and attitude of individual Individual considers the questioned actions’ implication before decide to take that action or not Attitudes, norms and intentions are created before being translated into behavior However, due to missing control over a person’s action, this theory fails to explain the inconsistency between intention and behavior (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

Thus, to improve that limitation, Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) encompasses a new component, “perceived behavior control” TPB was presented by Ajzen in

1985 This model has three variables: Attitude, Subjective norm (expectations of important people to the person), and Perceived behavior control (the person’s perception on ability to perform behavior) All variables form into behavior Intention, then lead to Behavior (Choi & Johnson, 2019; Yadav, 2016) The center of this framework is intention, which is a good predictor for behavior Thus, many studies only focus on intention as a mediator of attitude-behavior relationship and generally assume that behavior is performed (Yadav, 2016)

TRA and TPB are often used to explain behavior of consumer: attitude leads to behavior (Gupta & Ogden, 2009) However, when explain green purchase behavior these theories have limitation that they could not explain the disconnection between attitude-behavior A large number of the studies proved there is a weak relationship between positive attitude and behavior in reality of consumers on green purchase (Tanner & Kast, 2003; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006)

Even prior researches, which used these theories, pointed out one of their limitations was that they investigate on intention, not actual purchase (Choi &

There are reasons could explain for these theories limitations:

+ Characteristics of green products: Green products are new Consumers do not have experience, and specific knowledge to use green product which might be unfamiliar, due to they are innovation or have new feature, in comparison with conventional product Whereas, attitude is said to strongly predict behavior when:

“Attitudes are based on high levels of issue specific knowledge and/or personal experience” (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

+ TPB is not suitable to explain ethical behavior , buying habit behavior of consumers, influence of situational factors (economic limitations e.g.), cannot explain consumer’s choice during and future purchase for the product (Gupta &

+ Personal (knowledge, attitudes, emotion, etc.) and situational (attractive alternatives, resources limitations, ease of purchase, etc.) factors may impact environmental attitudes and behavior connection (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

Thus, due to these reasons, a number of studies apply TPB have renewed this theory by including other factors such as interaction of value and product attribute (perceived value of green product), knowledge and product attribute (confidence in green products)

2) In terms of intention-behavior phase researches:

These researches agree that there is a weakness of attitude/intention’s prediction for actual behavior Hence, these studies concentrate on different factors influencing on green purchase These researches’ inconsistency measurements and their relationship with green purchase decision are clarified in Appendix 1

However, all two groups of researches above mainly focus on specific values, not a wide range of determinants Therefore, a broader range of determinants which include other factors might reduce limitation of two research groups above is proposed in studies of Yatish and Rahman, and Liobiekiene and Bernatoniene (Joshi & Rahman, 2015; Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017)

● Yatish and Rahman’s study (Joshi & Rahman, 2015): As Memery mentions that a comprehensive study on a wide-range of determinants of green purchase has not been done (Memery et al., 2005), Yatish et al found no study done a review on attitude-behavior gap of green purchase Hence, Yatish et al.’s study reviewed 53 empirical papers (from 2000 to 2014) about consumer green purchase This study identifies a variety of drivers and barriers impact on purchase decision making towards green products, then explains reasons of green purchase inconsistency

These factors are categorized into individual factors (those belong to decision maker) and situational factors (those are related to situational in nature) They are summarized as the following table:

Table 2.1 Factors on Green Purchase (Joshi & Rahman, 2015).

Values and personal norms Subjective norm/ Social norm/ Reference group

Emotions Attributes of product, Quality, Price,

Trust, Perceived consumer effectiveness, Perceived behavioral control

Brand image, Green label and certification

Other: Habits, Perceived consequences of green purchase, Variety seeking, Self- indulgence, Response efficacy

Other: Local environmental involvement of consumer, Environmental messages media, Regulatory laws

Factors influencing on Green Purchase Decision - Hypothesis development

Based on two previous studies of Yatish et al and Liobiekiene et al and perspective of social dilemma and self- control theories, determinants of green purchase decisions are explained below

Reference group is defined, by Gupta & Ogden, as “a person or a group that influences another person’s decision A person uses reference group as a basis of comparison in forming affective and cognitive responses” (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

Reference groups can have effects on behaviors because of the influence role A person is under more pressure to conform, if a group, to which that person belongs or aspires to belong, behaves congruently to their pro-environmental attitude On the other hand, when reference group discourages pro-environment behaviors, a person has lower tendency to perform behavior Thus, reference group is expected to influence green purchase (Gleim et al., 2013; Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Liobikienė

Reference group and social norm, or subjective norm have examined in many researches on purchase intention and actual intention However, reference group has a broaden meaning than subjective norm, social norm While social norm is defined as perceived social pressure of a person to perform or not to perform a behavior, as support or not support a specific behavior comes from important people to that person, influences from reference group not only includes this pressure but also points out specific types or this pressure source

Shruti Gupta and Ogden examined the inconsistency of attitude-behavior in sustainable consumption by social dilemma theory and reference group theory (Gupta & Ogden, 2009) The result shows that belief in others, consumer’s perceived efficacy, in-group identity, and expectation of cooperation have strong influence on distinguishing “non-green” and “green” consumers However, this prior research has not examined product attribute and specific impacts on consumers’ green purchase of reference group Therefore, this study would investigate on 3 specific reference group’s influences mentioned in Park & Lessig study (Park & Lessig, 1977), which are: informational, utilitarian and value expressive

- Informational influence: provides information which improves knowledge or help consumer deal with the environment, such as buying a product

Information from reference group may be used in 2 manners: “One is to actively search for information from opinion leaders or from a group with the appropriate expertise Second, the individual makes an inference by observing the behavior of significant others” (Park & Lessig, 1977)

- Utilitarian influence: happens when rewards and punishments are perceived to be mediated by reference group If a person believes his/her action will be public, this is especially effective (Park & Lessig, 1977)

- Value-expressive influence: occurs when a person has incentive to support or enhance his/her self-concept Reference group is utilized to show or bolster a person’s image and ego Moreover, a person is influenced by value-expressive reference group due to that person likes that group His/her response to reference group (adopts suggestions, e.g.) in spite of the response content is irrelevant to that group (acceptance of suggestions, e.g.) (Park & Lessig, 1977)

A consumer’s behavior can be altered, and the attitude-behavior gap can be strengthen or weaken, due to pressure of these 3 types influence from reference group put on a consumer (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

From these three influences of reference group, three hypotheses are stated as following:

H1: Reference group’s (RF’s) Informative influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s green purchase decision (GPD)

The more/less information which enhance knowledge/ help consumer cope with green purchase from Reference group, the higher/ lower consumer forming GPD

H2: RG’s Utilitarian influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s GPD

The more/less desire to satisfy RG consumer has, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

H3: RG’s Value Expressive influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s GPD

The high/low motive for consumer to enhance/support self-concept from RG, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

Social dilemma theory suggests a significant interrelationship between a person’s expectation of group members’ cooperation and his/her decision to collaborate

When a person’s expectation on others to do the same thing is high, they tend to cooperate On the other hand, they deny cooperating in order to reduce chance of being a “sucker”

This phenomenon links to influences of reference group Decision-making process of consumer is influenced strongly by close knit people’s attitudes (friends, family, e.g.) and other important groups If people, whom a person associates with, do not concern with environment, that person’s consumption is unlikely to be sustainable

In contrast, if a person believes his/her fellows are not making pro-environmental behavior, that person would have little motive to pay higher price for, or looking for, sustainable products (Liobikiene et al., 2016; Gleim et al., 2013)

Therefore, it is expected that expectation to others’ cooperation has effect on green purchase decision of consumer

H4: Expectation to Others’ Cooperation positively influences consumers’ GPD

The higher/lower consumer’s expect others also cooperate in GP, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

Cooperation is promoted by increasing in-group identity (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

Taifel proved that salience of group membership enhances members’ cooperation (Morley, 1982) Besides, when individuals tied themselves with a group strongly, their decisions tend to be driven by mutual goals rather than self-benefits (Gupta &

Ogden, 2009) Since a group identity increase the altruism of member, individuals tend to be willing to cooperate (Thứgersen & ệlander, 2003)

The reason for cooperation of individual who has high in-group identity is that they believe other members are trustworthy and accompanying They feel their behavior represents for group, they fell their self-worth and group’s reputation and outcome become one (Marilynn B.Brewer, 1991) And this would increase their awareness on their individual choice’s impact, by enhancing connection between personal responsibility and maximizing collective gain Thus, group identity increases a person’s sense of group belonging, and his/her cooperation to collective goal

Furthermore, the more discussion individual has within group, the stronger belonging that person has with group (Lee, 2008) When a person has chance to discuss conflicts with the other members in group, he/she has lower tendency to defect in following self-benefits (Dawes et al., 1977) As Gupta & Ogden pointed out, communication within group improves cooperation because: “1) Establishes group norms and induces conformity pressures, especially to whom feel likely to defect by stressing on moral values to enhance collective gain; 2) Enhances individual belief that others in the group are committed to cooperate; 3) Builds a sense of group identity among members” (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

H5: In Group Identity positively influences consumers’ GPD

The higher/lower consumer’s ingroup identity consumer has with RG, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

As Rokeach defines, value is a set of personal standard which is exerted to behave in situations (Chryssohoidis & Krystallis, 2005)

Connection between values and behavior has been noted in researches (Shrum et al.,

Research conceptual model

The framework of this research is illustrated as below, based on the above discussion

Individual Factors Situational Factors Social Factors

Reference group’s Influence - Value Expressive

In-group identity Expectation to others’ Cooperation

Perceived Behavior Control Perceived Product Efficiency Environment Knowledge

Social Dilemma Theory Self-Control Theory

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Approach and Research Design

This research employs deductive approach to have an insight of relationship between individual, social and situational factors and consumers’ Green Purchase Decision Observing the rise and necessary of green purchase behavior in Vietnam context, author finds related literature and theories to understand this phenomenon

After having an overview of existing knowledge related to research problem, author finds the gap of existing literature Then based on two main previous studies of Yatish et al and Liobiekiene et al., this research is conducted to examine proposed framework In particular, this study aims to find out factors influencing on green purchase decision of consumers

In order to collect data addressing research question, this research employs quantitative method In terms of research strategy, survey strategy is suitable solution for target of this study, which aims to answer what factors influencing green purchase decision of consumers by examining proposed theoretical framework adopted from prior studies

This research’s procedure is illustrated as below:

Operationalization Research Method Sampling Strategy

Constructs Operationalization

Based on related literature, conceptualization is implemented, questionnaire is conducted Measurement items are adopted from pre-validated items, some are used directly, some are adjusted to reflect closely intended conceptualization and in context of Vietnam

Table 3.1.Measurement of Social Factors

“I seek green product related knowledge and experience (such as how product A’s performance compares to product B’s) from relatives, friends, neighbors, colleague who have reliable information about the green product.”

“The green product which I select is influenced by observing a seal of approval of an independent testing agency (such as seal about

GAP, organic, saving energy, no test on animal, etc.).”

“My observation of what experts do influences my choice of a green product (such as observing the type of food which animal protect activist, vegetarian) and I seek information about various green products from independent group of those experts.”

“My decision to purchase a particular green product is influenced by the preferences of people with whom I have social interaction.”

5 RGIU 2 “My decision to purchase a particular is influenced by the preferences of who I have close relationship with.”

6 RGIU 3 “The desire to satisfy the expectations which others have of me has an impact on my green product choice.”

Reference Group’s Influence – Value Expressive (4)

7 RGIVE 1 “I feel that the purchase or use of a particular green product will enhance the image which others have of me.”

8 RGIVE 2 “I feel that those who purchase or use a particular green product possess the characteristics which I would like to have.”

9 RGIVE 3 “I feel that the people who purchase a particular green product are admired or respected by others.”

“I feel that the purchase of a particular green product helps me show others what I am, or would like to be (such as an activist, successful businessman, good mother, etc.)”

11 EOC 1 “In this time, most consumers will purchase green products.”

12 EOC 2 “Most people are willing to make sacrifices to help protect environment.”

13 IGI 1 “When I feel lonely or have problems, there are several people in my reference group I can talk to.”

14 IGI 2 “The people I interact with in reference group make me interested in things that happen outside of my daily routine.”

15 IGI 3 “I feel the sense of “us” in the relationship with people in reference group.”

16 IGI 4 “I feel that I and other in reference group of this community share similar needs.”

17 IGI 5 “This reference group satisfies the needs and desires of mine and other members to some degree.”

18 IGI 6 “I feel a sense of closeness with people in reference group.”

19 IGI 7 “There are many opportunities to represent my opinions in the activities in this community.”

20 IGI 8 “I often share information regarding green products with people in my reference group.”

21 IGI 9 “I often buy green products with people in my reference group.”

Table 3.2.Measurement of Individual Factors

22 A1 “I am concerned about the environment.”

23 A2 “The condition of the environment affects the quality of my life.”

24 A3 “I am willing to make sacrifices to protect the environment.”

25 A4 “I am emotionally involved in the environmental protection issues.”

26 A5 “I purchase green product because it is environmental friendly (does not harm the environment, takes animal welfare into account, etc.)” Yadav and

27 A6 “I purchase green product because it has more environmentally benefit than conventional product.”

28 Eg1 “Green products are healthier than conventional products” (food, drink)

29 Eg2 “Green products are safer than conventional products.”

30 Eg3 “Green products perform better than conventional products” (clothes, bag, straw, cosmetic, etc.)

31 Eg4 “Green products are tastier than conventional products.” (food, drink)

32 Eg5 “Green products fit into my lifestyle.”

33 NS1 “I often seek out information about new products and brands”

34 NS2 “I like go to places where I will be exposed to information about new products and brands.”

35 K1 “I know about environmental issues well.”

36 K2 “Compared to my friends and acquaintances, I know about environmental issues better than them.”

37 K3 “Compared to an environmental expert, I know about environmental issues better than them.”

38 K4 “I can understand and identify the environmental symbols on product packaging or in advertising.”

Table 3.3 Measurement of Situational Factors

39 PBC 1 “I am familiar with the availability of green products in my locality” Kumar 2014

40 PBC 2 “Green products are easily acquirable at proximity” (being near in space or time)

“When making a decision on what products to buy, the price of the product is important to me.”

42 PBC 4 “Consuming green products requires commitment and effort.” Grimmer et al 2016

Table 3.4 Measurement of Green Purchase Decision

Adopted from Green Purchase Decision – Products: “I often buy […]”

51 GPDPR 1 Organic/ GAP Food and Beverage: fruit, vegetable, milk, drink, meat, medical herb, baking product Cerjak et al 2010

52 GPDPR 2 Natural component: clothes, cosmetic (soap, shampoo)

53 GPDPR 3 Natural component: bamboo/rice powder straw, food package, green detergents/ cleaning product

54 GPDPR 4 Performance: energy saving, water consumption

55 GPDPR 5 Reused electronic appliance, home appliances, etc

57 GPDPR 7 Recycled material content: clothes, paper, etc

58 GPDPR 8 Product not tested on animals: cosmetic, etc Martin and

Simintiras 1995 Green Purchase Decision – Frequency (for descriptive analysis)

GPD-F1 “I have never bought, nor considered buying green products.”

Thứgersen 2011 GPD-F2 “I have not yet bought, but I have considered buying green

43 PBC 5 “I tend to shop when I have time to look at the green product information.”

44 PBC 6 “Consuming green products is an inconvenience.”

45 PBC 7 “Ease of purchasing is important for me when buying green products.”

46 PPE 1 “Products that are environmentally friendly are less pollutive on the environment.”

47 PPE 2 “Green products will positively affect the environment.”

48 PPE 3 “Green products are good products for the price.”

49 PPE 4 “Green products are economical for the attributes they offer.”

50 PPE 5 “Green products have an expectable standard quality.” products.”

GPD-F3 “I buy green products few times a year.”

GPD-F4 “I buy green products one or a couple of times a month.”

GPD-F5 “I buy green products always when possible.”

Green Purchase Decision – Expense (for descriptive analysis) GPDE1 Less than 10%

Green Purchase Decision – Place (for descriptive analysis) GPDPL 1 Specialized shops

GPDPL 2 Direct selling GPDPL 3 Super markets GPDPL 4 Local markets GPDPL 5 Online shopping GPDPL 6 Never buy green products

Questionnaire and Pilot Testing

Measurement instruments are collected from earlier studies in English Then, they are exerted for questionnaire conducting on theoretical framework Later, the survey is translated into Vietnamese

Then, to detect potential problems, pilot testing was practiced to check coherence of the items, to prevent misunderstanding derived from the questionnaire’s design and content The questionnaire was distributed to 10 people, who have high level of education as university students, graduated students and university lecturer They are persons who purchased and who have never purchased for green products Then their feedbacks on the questionnaire were received Based on pilot testing, the questionnaire was adjusted to reduce misunderstanding issue and be more suitable in Vietnam context

The questionnaire encompasses 3 parts The first section involves demographic information (gender, age, education, income and living city) The second section is about green purchase behavior of consumers: frequency of buying green product, monthly expense for green product, place to buy green product and kind of green products consumers usually buy The third section consists of questions related to 3 factor groups influencing on consumers’ green purchase decision

To measure variables describe intensity in question, five-point Likert scale is adopted (Bryman, 2012) Respondent is asked to demonstrate his/her congruent degree with the statement (“1: Strongly disagree, 2: Disagree, 3: Neutral, 4: Agree, 5: Strongly Agree”)

The questionnaire is shown in Appendix 2, on page 89.

Data collection

This research exerts 2 data source types, including primary and secondary data

Secondary data is gathered mainly from academic, science papers, journals and articles Some information comes from websites and textbooks In order to find suitable and reliable secondary data, author try to find related data in terms of

“green purchase behavior”, “green purchase decision”, “green marketing”,

“sustainable consumption”, etc The data base is provided by Science Direct, national online paper such as The Guardian, government’s websites (Consumption and Production Office of Ministry of International Trade and Industry e.g.) and organizations’ official websites (the United Nations’s website e.g.)

According to Hair et al., to do factor analyzing, sample size must have larger number of observations than number of variables, would not fewer than 50 observations, the figure of 100 or larger would be more preferred (Joseph F.Hair et al., 2014)

SEM requirement for sample size is sensitive and based on several considerations related to the complexity of model, number of items for each construct, estimation technique, number of missing data, etc (Joseph F.Hair et al., 2014) Overall, sample size of 100 is acceptable for SEM for practical purpose (Joseph F.Hair et al., 2014)

As suggestion from Pallant, when apply SEM by using AMOS, sample size should be “at least 5 times the number of question items” (Hong, 2019) This study’s number of observed items is 58 in total Therefore, the acceptable size of sample is

After pilot testing, questionnaire was transferred into Google form, then distributed via social media platform (Facebook) and email Online survey tool has several benefits, such as saving resources and costs in compare with paper survey Besides, it is easier to approach participants despite time and geographical barriers.

Data analysis

To analysis data, EXCEL, SPSS and AMOS are used

For inferential analysis, Cronbach’s Alpha, EFA, CFA and SEM are practiced to evaluate measurement construct and research model’s reliability and validity

Due to measurement items are adopted from different researches in related area knowledge, thus, to increase measurement’s reliability and validity, Cronbach’s Alpha calculation and EFA are employed to estimate reliability and purify items

Later, CFA is used to evaluate construct validity for newly created data Since the construct measures satisfy most or all of the required conditions of reliability and validity described in phases of procedure, the operationalized measures are reasonably acceptable Then SEM is for hypothesis testing

Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Reliability measurement

Construct validity, Reduce data, Explore underlying relationship based on collected data

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Construct validity, Convergent validity, Discriminant validity

Structural Equation Model (SEM) Hypotheses Testing

Reliability of measurement estimates to what extent the observed variables represent for their latent factors One method to estimate reliability is Internal Consistency Reliability This method calculates, in the same construct (or latent variables), how consistency among observed variables (or items) is A tool to examine this reliability is Cronbach’s Alpha measurement

Requirement for Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient is larger than 0.6 The higher and closer of Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient to 1 is, the higher “satisfactory level” is (Bryman, 2012) In condition that this value is less than 0.7, whereas there is an item has Corrected item – total correlation higher than 0.3, the item should be eliminated Because it means that the item does not represent for the target latent variable

Not only measure the reliability of interrelationship among items inside each latent variable, observed variables’ reliability is examined among different latent variables belongs to the research’s conceptual research Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is a step to make sure every observed variables of each latent is distinguished from other latent variables’ ones, based on collected data In other words, EFA helps to define which factors really exist and belong appropriate to which constructs to be retained

To estimate validity, relationship of items among distinct factors, EFA consists of 3 main steps: 1) Specify acceptable variables, 2) Factor extraction, 3) Factor rotation

Table 3.6 Requirement for EFA result

Kaiser- Mayer – Olkin index (KMO)

Examine EFA is suitable or not

KMO < 0.5: EFA is not suitable for collected data

Examine observed variables have correlation or not

Show the result after EFA is suitable for collected data or not

The Rotation Sum of Squared Loadings (Cumulative %) ≥ 50%

This research is considered to use Principal Component Analysis, as extraction method, and VARIMAX, for rotation method, to determine the structure of observed variables and factors These methods are said to be widely used for purpose of reducing to a smaller number of variables (Josephine Njeri Ngure, 2015)

In process of factor extraction, factor loading shows observed variable’s correlation with its factors The more correlation between observed variable and factor, the higher factor loading is It is usually expected that, factor loadings of 0.60 (or higher) for a single factor shows that items belonging to a mutual construct (Bhattacherjee, 2012) Factor loading requirement is also different based on sample size In case of this research, with sample size of 274, Factor Loading 0.35 is the lowest requirement as Hair’s opinion (Joseph F.Hair et al., 2014) However, author decides to use Factor loading 0.6 to increase the strength of correlation between observed variables and their factor

After EFA stage, to estimate the retained model’s validity, CFA is employed

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) helps to evaluate how well measured variables represent constructs

Different from EFA which allows statistical method to control number of factors and loading, CFA helps researchers to know how well theoretical factors matching actual data (Joseph F.Hair et al., 2014) CFA helps to test measurement theory, to enable researcher to “confirm” or “reject” preconceived theory (Joseph F.Hair et al.,

2014) Then, researcher can combine the measurement theory with structural theory to generate SEM model Two tables below show requirements of model fit, reliability and validity indicators

Normed Chi - square CMIN / df ≤ 3: good

Goodness – of – fit Index 0 < GFI ≤ 1

GFI ≥ 0.9: good Tucker Lewis Index 0 < TLI ≤ 1

0 < CFI ≤ 1 CFI ≥ 0.9: good CFI ≥ 0.8: acceptable

Root Mean Square of Estimation

Table 3.8 Reliability of construction, Convergent validity and Discriminant validity

Average Variance Extracted Convergent Validity AVE ≥ 0.4

Square Root of AVE SQRTAVE > Inter– construct Correlations

As a multivariate technique, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) examines “a series of interrelated dependence relationships among measured variables and latent constructs, as well as between several latent constructs” (Joseph F.Hair et al., 2014)

In SEM, there are: Measurement model and Structural model Measurement model

(1) defines indicators for each construct and (2) evaluates validity of construct The next major step is analyzing Structural model Structural model contains at least one dependent relationships connecting constructs of hypothesized model This model represents the interrelationships of variables between constructs

Only when measurement model achieve acceptable fit, structural relationship would be specified To ensure this process, analysis techniques need to practiced are:

+ Measurement model test: assess Cronbach’s Alpha, employ EFA and CFA + Structural model validity as CFA’s procedure to check model fit.

DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive Analysis

The questionnaire is distributed to 295 participants Due to the target is investigating on consumer who purchased for green product, the requirement for valid response is that the respondents are persons purchased for green product already Thus, invalid responses are from persons choose 1 of 2 options for purchase frequency question: “I have never bought, nor considered buying green products” and “I have not yet bought, but I have considered buying green products”

Finally, within 295 respondents, encompassing: 274 valid responses from consumers who purchased for green product, 21 invalid responses

This amount of valid response achieved acceptable minimum sample size requirement for SEM to be employed

Survey participants’ demographic and green purchase decision overall information is described as below:

Table 4.1 Respondents’ demographic information (Calculated by SPSS)

Figure 4.1 Frequency of Green Purchase (Calculated by SPSS)

As Figure 4.1 shows the percentage of occasionally-buying consumer (few times a year) is higher than 2 other groups combined (55% and 45%) This might show that green purchase is not a usual habit of most of consumers

Figure 4.2 Monthly Expense for Green Purchase (Calculated by SPSS)

As Figure 4.2 demonstrates, consumers mostly spend less than 10% for Green Purchase The highest level of expense – more than 30% - only takes 7% in total

Figure 4.3 Place to buy Green Product (Calculated by Excel)

According to Figure 4.3, consumers often buy green product in super markets, specialized shops and via online shopping Local markets and direct selling are 2 options with lower level of preferred choice

Monthly Expense for Green Purchase

Direct selling Super markets Local markets Online shopping

Place to buy green product

Measurement Model Test

To estimate to what extent do observed variables represented for latent factors, which is reliability of measurements, Cronbach’s alpha analyzing is conducted This is also a step to purify observed variable by excluding unreliable measurements

The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient estimation is shown in following table:

Table 4.2 Cronbach’s Alpha result 1 (Analyzed by SPSS)

The Cronbach’s Alpha Result table shows that whereas, in 12 variables, 10 variables have the coefficient above 0.6 (with Corrected Item-Total Correlation higher than 0.3), whereas, there are 2 variables:

- Environment Knowledge: K4 has Corrected Item- Total Correlation 0.251 (

“Ease of purchasing is important for me when buying green products.”

In brief, the final Cronbach’s Alpha measurement result is as following table:

Table 4.5 Cronbach’s Alpha result 2 (Analyzed by SPSS)

11 Ease Of Purchase EOP (PBC 5-7) 2 0.621

Table 4.4 shows Cronbach’s Alpha values of 13 variables All variables are acceptable for next step – Exploratory Factor Analysis

In order to evaluate validity of observed variables, EFA is conducted

Table 4.6 EFA result 1 (Analyzed by SPSS)

After extraction and rotation step, there are 25 observed variables are eliminated

The remaining variables are grouped into 9 components In addition, Cronbach’s Alpha measurement is checked again to make sure new groups of variables are reliable These 9 components are shown as following:

Table 4.7 Rotated component – EFA result 1 (Analyzed by SPSS).

To estimate validity of retained model after EFA, CFA is employed After adjusting as Modification Indices, EFA and Cronbach’s Alpha measurement are also conducted simultaneously Excepting that A4 and EOP2 are excluded, other observed variables’ components are not changed as EFA result 1 Thus, reliability of Component 2 and 7 are rechecked The result of Cronbach’s Alpha for Component 2 and 7 are 0.771 and 0.608, respectively

Finally, ultimate EFA and CFA results are described below

Table 4.8 Rotated component – EFA result 2 (Analyzed by SPSS)

AVA2 “Green products are easily acquirable at proximity (being near in space or time.” 0.784

EOC1 “In this time, most consumers will purchase green products.” 0.719

Eg3 “Green products perform better than conventional products (clothes, bag, straw, cosmetic, etc.).” 0.697

Eg2 “Green products are safer than conventional products.” 0.673

AVA1 “I am familiar with the availability of green products in my locality” 0.635

A5 “I purchase green product because it is environmental friendly (does not harm the environment, takes animal welfare into account, etc.)” 0.763 A2 “The condition of the environment affects the quality of my life” 0.755

PPE2 “Green products will positively affect the environment.” 0.750

A1 “I am concerned about the environment.” 0.668

GPDPR5 “I often buy: Reused electronic appliance, home appliances, etc.” 0.916

GPDPR6 “I often buy: Reused, recycled clothes.” 0.907

GPDPR7 “I often buy: Recycled material content: clothes, paper, etc.” 0.794

IGI6 “I feel a sense of closeness with people in reference group.” 0.859

IGI5 “This reference group satisfies the needs and desires of mine and other members to some degree.” 0.803

IGI4 “I feel that I and other in reference group of this community share similar needs.” 0.743

RGIU2 “My decision to purchase a particular is influenced by the preferences of who I have close relationship with.” 0.811

RGIU3 “The desire to satisfy the expectations which others have of me has an impact on my green product choice.” 0.808

“I feel that the purchase of a particular green product helps me show others what I am, or would like to be (such as an activist, successful businessman, good mother, etc.)”

K2 “Compared to my friends and acquaintances, I know about environmental issues better than them.” 0.840

K3 “Compared to an environmental expert, I know about environmental issues better than them.” 0.776

K1 “I know about environmental issues well” 0.661

RGIVE3 “I feel that the people who purchase a particular green product are admired or respected by others.” 0.833

RGIVE2 “I feel that those who purchase or use a particular green product possess the characteristics which I would like to have.” 0.826

GPDPR2 “I often buy: Natural component: clothes, cosmetic (soap, shampoo).” 0.838

GPDPR3 “I often buy Natural component: bamboo/rice powder straw, food package, green detergents/ cleaning product.” 0.745

EOP1 “I tend to shop when I have time to look at the green product information” 0.781

NS1 “I often seek out information about new products and brands” 0.774

Based on result of factor analysis, 27 items are grouped into 9 groups Accordingly, 9 latent variables are interpreted and renamed: LATENT VARIABLE 1, called “EGOTISM 2”, has 5 observed variables

LATENT VARIABLE 2, called “ALTRUISM”, has 4 observed variables

LATENT VARIABLE 3, called “REUSED PRODUCT has 3 observed variables

LATENT VARIABLE 4, called “GROUP IDENTITY” (In – Group Identity), has 3 observed variables

LATENT VARIABLE 5, called “UTILITARIAN” (Reference Group Influence – Utilitarian), has 3 observed variables

LATENT VARIABLE 6, called “KNOWLEDGE” (Environment Knowledge), has 3 observed variables

LATENT VARIABLE 7, called “EXPRESSIVE” (Reference Group Influence – Value Expressive), has 2 observed variables

LATENT VARIABLE 8, called “NATURAL PRODUCT”, has 2 observed variables

LATENT VARIABLE 9, called “NOVELTY SEEKING”, has 2 observed variables

In terms of CFA related examination, all values are demonstrated in below table

Table 4.9 Model Fit result (Analyzed by AMOS)

Root Mean Square of Estimation

Model Fit related values are almost acceptable In terms of construction’ Reliability, validity of Convergent and Discriminant, all values are described as following:

Table 4.10 Reliability, Convergent validity and Discriminant validity result (Calculated by Excel).

● Maximum Shared Variance: MSV < AVE

● Square Root of AVE: SQRTAVE > Inter – construct Correlations

Standardized Regression Weights are above 0.5 (the highest is 0.914, the lowest is 0.550)

All model fit value, reliability and validity of construct are measured and achieve acceptable levels of requirement, although RMSEA is 0.103 (lower than 1) All values are acceptable for the next step

Table 4.11 Latent variables and Observed variables

Code Observed Variables Latent Variables

1 AVA2 (PBC2) “Green products are easily acquirable at proximity (being near in space or time).”

2 EOC1 “In this time, most consumers will purchase green products.”

3 Eg3 “Green products perform better than conventional products (clothes, bag, straw, cosmetic, etc.)”

4 Eg2 “Green products are safer than conventional products (food, drink).”

5 AVA1 (PBC1) “I am familiar with the availability of green products in my locality.”

6 A5 “I purchase green product because it is environmental friendly (does not harm the environment, takes animal welfare into account, etc.).”

7 A2 “The condition of the environment affects the quality of my life.”

8 PPE2 “Green products will positively affect the environment.”

9 A1 “I am concerned about the environment.”

10 GPDPR5 “I often buy: Reused electronic appliance, home appliances, etc.”

11 GPDPR6 “I often buy: Reused, recycled clothes.”

12 GPDPR7 “I often buy: Recycled material content: clothes, paper, etc.”

13 IGI6 “I feel a sense of closeness with people in reference group.”

14 IGI5 “This reference group satisfies the needs and desires of mine and other members to some degree.”

15 IGI4 “I feel that I and other in reference group of this community share similar needs.”

16 RGIU2 “My decision to purchase a particular is influenced by the preferences of who I have close relationship with.”

17 RGIU3 “The desire to satisfy the expectations which others have of me has an impact on my green product choice.”

18 RGIVE4 “I feel that the purchase of a particular green product helps me show others what I am, or would like to be (such as an activist, successful businessman, good mother, etc.)”

19 K2 “Compared to my friends and acquaintances, I know about environmental issues better than them.”

20 K3 “Compared to an environmental expert, I know about environmental issues better than them.”

21 K1 “I know about environmental issues well.”

22 RGIVE3 “I feel that the people who purchase a particular green product are admired or respected by others.”

23 RGIVE2 “I feel that those who purchase or use a particular green product possess the characteristics which I would like to have.”

24 GPDPR2 “I often buy: Natural component: clothes, cosmetic (soap, shampoo).” Natural

25 GPDPR3 “I often buy Natural component: bamboo/rice powder straw, food package, green detergents/ cleaning product.”

26 EOP1 (PBC5) “I tend to shop when I have time to look at the green product information.” Novelty

27 NS1 “I often seek out information about new products and brands.”

Structural Model Test

To evaluate Hypotheses, Structural Model is examined According to values of Normed Chi-square, Goodness- of fit Index - GIF, Tucker Lewis Index - TLI, Comparative Fit Index – CFI, RMSEA, this model achieves almost acceptable requirement

Table 4.12 Model fit value of conceptual framework (Analyzed by AMOS)

Root Mean Square of Estimation 0 < RMSEA ≤ 1

To evaluate interaction between latent variables to confirm hypotheses, P-value and Standardized Regression Weights are considered

Figure 4.4 Hypotheses Structural Equation Modeling (Analyzed by AMOS)

Due to the distinct interactions between latents with 2 kinds of green product (natural product and reused product), these interactions are shown seperatedly as following

Table 4.13 Natural product: Interaction between latent variables (Analyzed by AMOS)

Natural Product ← Group Identity 0.098 -0.491 0.618 -0.048 Natural Product ← Utilitarian 0.116 2.473 0.011 0.267 Natural Product ← Knowledge 0.127 -0.614 0.944 -0.006 Natural Product ← Expressive 0.089 -0.681 0.555 -0.051 Natural Product ← Novelty Seeking 0.159 -1.247 0.406 -0.093

There are 2 P-values less than 0.05 and Estimate values greater than 0, including interaction between Natural Product with Egotism 2 and Utilitarian In Egotism 2 latent variable, there are influence of Perceived Behavior (Availability of green product – AVA1 -2), Expectation of Others’ Cooperation (EOC1), Perceived Product Efficiency related to Egoistic value (Eg2-3)

In terms of Estimate values, Egotism 2 has the highest value (0.589) that means Egotism has the strongest impact on Natural product purchase decision

Finally, hypotheses test result is shown as following

Table 4.14 Hypotheses test for Natural product.

Reference group’s (RF’s) Informative influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s green purchase decision (GPD)

RG’s Utilitarian influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s GPD

RG’s Value Expressive influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s GPD

Expectation to Others’ Cooperation positively influences consumers’ GPD

In Group Identity positively influences consumers’ GPD

Altruism value positively influences consumer’s GPD

The higher/lower consumer value the importance of environment issue, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

Altruism consumer would focus on Green attribute of green product

The more/less Green contribute green product has, the higher/lower Altruism consumer forming GPD

Egoistic consumer would focus on Functional attribute of green product

The more/less Functional attribute green product has, the higher/lower Egoistic consumer forming GPD

Novelty Seeking positively influences GPD

The higher/lower desire to seek new product of consumer, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

Environment Knowledge positively influences GPD

The higher/lower environment knowledge level is, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

Perceived Behavior Control positively influences GPD

The higher/lower consumer perceives their capacity to perform GP, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

Perceived Product Efficiency positively influences GPD

The higher/lower consumer perceives green product’s ability to perform as expected, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

The result for Reused Product is shown below:

Table 4.15 Reused product: Interaction between latent variables (Analyzed by AMOS).

According to result of interactions between latents, there are P-values of Reused Product with Egotism 2 and Altruism latent lower than 0.05 Interestingly, with Egotism 2, Reused Product has negative relationship, whereas, with Altruism, Reused Product has positive relationship This result once again proves that value of consumer influences strongly and clearly on their behavior

In terms of Reused product, hypotheses can be evaluated as following:

Table 4.16 Hypotheses test for Reused Product

Reference group’s (RF’s) Informative influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s green purchase decision (GPD)

RG’s Utilitarian influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s GPD

RG’s Value Expressive influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s GPD

Expectation to Others’ Cooperation positively influences consumers’ GPD

In Group Identity positively influences consumers’ GPD

Altruism value positively influences consumer’s GPD

The higher/lower consumer value the importance of environment issue, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

Altruism consumer would focus on Green attribute of green product

The more/less Green contribute green product has, the higher/lower Altruism consumer forming GPD

Egoistic consumer would focus on Functional attribute of green product

The more/less Functional attribute green product has, the higher/lower Egoistic consumer forming GPD

Novelty Seeking positively influences GPD

The higher/lower desire to seek new product of consumer, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

Environment Knowledge positively influence GPD

The higher/lower environment knowledge level is, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

Perceived Behavior Control positively influences GPD

The higher/lower consumer perceives their capacity to perform GP, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

Perceived Product Efficiency positively influence GPD

The higher/lower consumer perceives green product’s ability to perform as expected, the higher/lower consumer forming GPD

In brief there are differences between 2 sorts of products and value has the strongest influence on consumers’ behavior decision

Table 4.17 Differences of hypotheses testing between 2 sorts of green product

1 Reference group’s (RF’s) Informative influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s green purchase decision (GPD)

2 RG’s Utilitarian influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s

3 RG’s Value Expressive influence to consumer positively influences consumer’s GPD Not supported

4 Expectation to Others’ Cooperation positively influences consumers’ GPD Supported Not supported

5 In Group Identity positively influences consumers’ GPD Not supported

6.1 Altruism value positively influences consumer’s GPD Not supported Supported

6.2 Altruism consumer would focus on Green attribute of green product Not supported Supported

7 Egoistic consumer would focus on Functionial attribute of green product Supported Supported

8 Novelty Seeking positively influences GPD Not supported

9 Environment Knowledge positively influences GPD Not supported

10 Perceived Behavior Control positively influences GPD Supported Not supported

11 Perceived Product Efficiency positively influences GPD Supported Supported

CONCLUSION

Discussion on Findings

From data analysis result, all 3 main factor groups (individual, social and situational factors) have effects on consumers’ green purchase decision

Individual factor has the strongest influence on purchase decision of green product that supports prior researches’ result (Cerjak et al., 2010; Choi & Johnson, 2019;

Hughner et al., 2007; Lu & Miller, 2019; Magnusson et al., 2003; Makatouni, 2002;

Besides, after Factor Analysis, the latent Egotism 2 consists of 5 observed variables from all of 3 main factor groups (social, individual and situational factors) This result shows that there might be interaction between 3 main factor groups and that creates a new latent variable which impacts on green purchase decision of consumers In other words, latent Egotism 2 might be an emerged variable

In addition, interestingly, there are clearly different results between each product groups: Reused products and Natural component products Depending on each product groups, hypotheses testing have different results for each factor This state is similar as suggestion written in earlier papers (Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Liobikienė

& Bernatonienė, 2017; Tsakiridou et al., 2008) According to Liobikiene, in green purchase behavior investigation, product categorization is important because each different product groups are determined by distinct determinants, and green consumer preference varies among the product category Thus, it is essential to know the differences in consumer’s behavior across product categories As Gupta recommended (Gupta & Ogden, 2009), interaction between social dilemma variables and product attributes should be examined in future research, due to a product has different aspects (safety, price, ease of replacement e.g.), besides of social feature (energy conservation e.g.) affect distinctly on choice Gupta called this is “product dependent”

Firstly, with Natural component products:

Among 7 factors, Egotism value and Utilitarian influence of reference group have positive impacts on Green Purchase Decision of Natural Product Especially, Egotism has the strongest impact (β = 0.589)

This positive interaction between egotism and green purchase is similar to earlier papers (Aertsens et al., 2011; Cerjak et al., 2010; Makatouni, 2002; Tsakiridou et al.,

The result shows that expected value on Safety and Performance of Natural component product has significant impact on consumer decision, whereas, Altruism reason has no impact on this consumer group Besides, the Availability of natural product and Expectation to others’ Cooperation also influence strongly on GPD as well In addition, Utilitarian influence of reference group has impact on GPD for Natural component product, whereas Value Express influence of reference group has not, even Natural component product category consists of cosmetic and fashion

Thus, it means that, for Natural product consumer group: desire to satisfy others has more influence on purchase decision than to enhance their self-image Safety and better performance are more important than environmental benefits Availability and Expectation to others’ Cooperation has effects also

Secondly, in terms of Reused product:

Value has the most significant effect on purchase decision for Reused product

Interestingly, Egotism factor group (including Perceive Behavior Control and Expectation to Cooperation) has negative impact on reused product purchase decision (β = -0.401) Meanwhile, Altruism value (Environment concern and expectation on Environmental Function) has significant, positive impact for this product category - products have more environmental function (β = 0.366) This result shows that Altruism consumers put much expectation on green functions of Reused product and strongly believe on environmental benefit of Reused product

Thus they buy Reused product for the sake of environment, not for their own private

74 benefit They have tendency to sacrifice their convenience (perceive behavior control) to purchase green product, even they need to put effort to obtain the product while green product does not availability in place they live

This significant effect of Altruism value is similar to Choi and Johnson result (Choi

& Johnson, 2019) They observed that consumers, who have strong environment concern, strongly believe that their purchase has positive effects on ecology, and they also have tendency to buy green product

Besides, in terms of no significant impact from Perceived Behavior Control, another explanation is from sample characteristic as in Choi and Johnson result This might due to research sample, the amount of consumers who “Always buy when possible” and “One / a couple of times a month” takes account for 45% of sample size that means 45% percentage of consumers have confidence in green purchase

In contrast to Natural product’s consumer group, Reference Group Influences and Expectation to others’ Cooperation do not have effects on Reused product consumers’ purchase decision This means Reused product consumers have strong self-determinant on their decision making

Thirdly , there is the same result between Natural and Reused product for In-group

Identity, Environmental Knowledge, Novelty Seeking, Reference group’s Informative influence These factors do not influence on green purchase decision of consumers

- About Environmental Knowledge , it is similar to result of Chan & Lau, and Wolsink (R Y K Chan & Lau, 2000; Wolsink, 2007) and in contrast to research result of Ellen, Kozar and Connell, Aertsen, Young et al (Aertsens et al., 2011; Ellen et al., 1991; Kozar & Connell, 2013; Young et al., 2010)

The explanation might be the difference between objective and subjective knowledge Objective knowledge is respondents’ knowledge which is evaluated objectively, is what respondents truly know, gathered information in their mind Subjective knowledge is knowledge which is evaluated by the respondents on themselves, is what respondents think they know In this

75 research, due to ability of author, objective knowledge is not measured Thus, the result is purely derived from perceived knowledge and self-evaluated by respondents that might not be accurate

- With Expectation to others’ Cooperation and In-group Identity , different from significant positive relationship result of Gupta (Gupta & Ogden, 2009), these two factors do not have effects on green purchase decision This means the belief on whether others do the same or not, and sense of belonging with a group does not impact on consumers’ decision on contribute to collective goal – green purchase

- With Reference group’s Informative influence , although consumers concern on preference of Reference group (acquaintance and close people) on what they buy (Utilitarian influence), not a majority of consumers concern for what expert do, approval seal or information provided by acquaintance This result is in contrast to Gupta and Ogden’s research (Gupta & Ogden, 2009)

- In terms of Novelty Seeking , interestingly, the result is completely in contrast to result from Choi and Johnson, Manning and Shrum et al (Choi & Johnson, 2019; Manning et al., 1995; Shrum et al., 1995) In research of Shrum et al., even persons who make effort for green purchase, have high level of Novelty Seeking: they are into new products, active in information exchange, and shopping carefully (Shrum et al., 1995) One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that: among many question items, Novelty Seeking’s observed items and Ease of purchase (Perceived Behavior Control)’s items might make respondent confusing: spend time for looking for new things is similar to cost of time when seek information for things to buy Besides, especially for low-involvement product – a type of product which consumers usually do not put much effort for, the chance of spending time for looking product information is not high In addition, this might be explained by characteristic of this research sample consists of frequently buying consumer and occasionally buying consumer

Implication

Firstly, due to significant effects of expected value on purchase decision, both for altruism and egotism consumers, green product needs to have attributes satisfy these expectations of consumers Eventually, green product should perform successfully its function as a product – to satisfy consumer However, different from conventional product, it has distinguished features including environmental and health benefit functions Thus, it is necessary to make consumer realize what they can gain via green product consumption, or green service as well

Secondly, Availability, Ease of purchasing is very important to most of consumers, even there are consumers willing to sacrifice their convenience for green purchase

Making green product popular is essential to make it widespread This would increase opportunity for green product to approach a large number of potential consumers Especially, with low-involvement product, ease of purchasing is vital advantage to attract consumers when there is available of conventional product

Besides, in Vietnam, consumers still feel hard to find green product in their local

Thirdly, although knowledge is unrelated to green purchase decision, expected value has significant impact According to Groening, environmental knowledge might not trigger green behavior, until knowledge related to product (Groening et al., 2018) Since product information is provided in friendly way, easy to understand, match with consumers’ value, green product might increase its attraction to consumers Besides of product knowledge, general knowledge related environment should be concerned in order to enhance positive attitude of consumer to collective goal – protect the environment Thus, product knowledge should be connected to general environment knowledge In addition, another group of knowledge is action-related knowledge might provide useful information for consumers, in case green product is new to market, unfamiliar to consumers (Frick et al., 2004) New knowledge might change belief, hence, adjust attitude (Aertsens et al., 2011)

Finally, preference to satisfy others of consumers might be utilized in promotion or product design in order to enhance attraction of green product to consumer, especially life-style product such as fashion, cosmetic, food, etc.

Limitations and future research direction

First of all, with the aim to have a comprehensive approach, this research consists of many variables (11 independent variables, 50 observed variables) Due to the related meaning between observed variables, such as Novelty Seeking (NS1: “Often seek information of new products and brand”) might be confusing with Perceived Behavior Control (PBC5: “I tend to shop when I have time to read for information”), especially when respondents have a long-questionnaire to answer

Thus, for the future research, to have a comprehensive approach with a large number of determinants, a coherent questionnaire should be conducted

Furthermore, a combination of quantitative and qualitative , with deep-interview might be considered for deeper insight of consumer purchase behavior, because green purchase is an ethical action, with complex interactions of determinants

Secondly, this research has not specified differences between frequently-buying and occasionally-buying consumers, or purchased consumer and intended-to-purchase consumer The differences of these consumer groups might contribute a significant knowledge for current literature of green purchase behavior, especially, on the green purchase inconsistency

Thirdly, a larger size of sample should be conducted for the next researches to gain better, more objectively, representatively statistical result

Besides, to simplify, several determinants of Green Purchase Decision variable such as frequency, expense, place to buy or experience, habit have not been evaluated

Thus, future research might consider these indicators Some factors, such as habit and experience , are essential to consider for ethical behavior like green purchase behavior, and they might improve limitation of popular theories like TPB to explain attitude-behavior gap

In addition, future research on green purchase should concern on product categorization Consumers have different preference among product categories

Thus, investigation on separate product group is necessary, especially, the variety of green product and services is increasing

Finally, future research might find out relationship and interaction among 3 main factor groups (social, individual and situational factor) whether this interaction creates any emerged determinant impact on consumers’ green purchase decision.

Conclusion

The above result answers for this research question and objectives For green purchase literature, this research has contributed more empirical evidence for two previous studies by examining their proposed theoretical frameworks, to understand a broad range of determinants on consumers’ green purchase decision, based on two theories – social dilemma theory and self-control theory

The result has proved that all three groups (social, situational and individual factors) have impacts on green purchase decision of consumers

Among various factors, value has the most significant effect on green purchase decision Even consumers have egoism or altruism value orientations, green product can satisfy consumers’ need

Besides, perceived behavior control and perceived product efficiency also influence strongly on green purchase decision of consumers

Contribute to previous studies, this research examined 3 specified influences of reference group (informative, utilitarian and value expressive) Utilitarian influence has effects on green purchase decision

This research shows that green product attribute should match with consumers’ value orientation to satisfy consumers’ needs Besides, green product should be more available to acquire easily Thus, green product might approach to more

79 consumers and might be accepted wider Moreover, categorization while investigating green products is necessary to have an insight of consumers’ behavior

1 Aertsens, J., Mondelaers, K., Verbeke, W., Buysse, J., & van Huylenbroeck, G (2011),

The influence of subjective and objective knowledge on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food, British Food Journal, 113(11), 1353–1378

2 Bhattacherjee, A (2012), Social Science Research: principles, methods, and practices,

In Book 3, University of South Florida

3 Biswas, A., & Roy, M (2015), Green products: An exploratory study on the consumer behaviour in emerging economies of the East Journal of Cleaner Production, 87(1), 463–

4 Bryman, A (2012), Social Research Methods, 4 th Edition, Oxford University Press, 368

5 Cerjak, M., Mesić, Ž., Kopić, M., Kovačić, D., & Markovina, J (2010), What motivates consumers to buy organic food: Comparison of Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, and Slovenia, Journal of Food Products Marketing, 16(3), 278–292

6 Chan, R Y K., & Lau, L B Y (2000), Antecedents of green purchases: A survey in China, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(4), 338–357

7 Chan, T yan, & Wong, C W Y (2012), The consumption side of sustainable fashion supply chain: Understanding fashion consumer eco-fashion consumption decision, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(2), 193–215

8 Chen, Y S., & Chang, C H (2012), Enhance green purchase intentions: The roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust, Management Decision, 50(3),

9.Choi, D., & Johnson, K K P (2019), Influences of environmental and hedonic motivations on intention to purchase green products: An extension of the theory of planned behavior, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 18, 145–155

10 Chryssohoidis, G M., & Krystallis, A (2005), Organic consumers’ personal values research: Testing and validating the list of values (LOV) scale and implementing a value- based segmentation task, Food Quality and Preference, 16(7), 585–599

11 Connell, K Y H (2010), Internal and external barriers to eco-conscious apparel acquisition, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(3), 279–286

12 D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Khosla, R (2007), Examination of environmental beliefs and its impact on the influence of price, quality and demographic characteristics with respect to green purchase intention, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for

13 Davari, A., & Strutton, D (2014), Marketing mix strategies for closing the gap between green consumers’ pro-environmental beliefs and behaviors, Journal of Strategic

14 Dawes, R M., McTavish, J., & Shaklee, H (1977), Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people's behavior in a commons dilemma situation Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–11

15 Do Paỗo, A., Alves, H., Shiel, C., & Filho, W L (2013), Development of a green consumer behaviour model, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(4), 414–421

16 Edgar G.Hertwich, E van der V (2010), Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production, In Profit (Issue 202)

17 Ellen, P S (1994), Do we know what we need to know? Objective and subjective knowledge effects on pro-ecological behaviors, Journal of Business Research, 30(1), 43–

18 Frick, J., Kaiser, F G., & Wilson, M (2004), Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: Exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample,

19 George Monbiot (2013), Let’s stop hiding behind recycling and be honest about consumption, The Guardian, lastest updated on April 12 th , https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/apr/12/escalating- consumption

20 Gleim, M R., Smith, J S., Andrews, D., & Cronin, J J (2013), Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption, Journal of Retailing,

21 Goh, S K., & Balaji, M S (2016), Linking green skepticism to green purchase behavior, Journal of Cleaner Production, 131, 629–638

22 Groening, C., Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q (2018), Green marketing consumer-level theory review: A compendium of applied theories and further research directions, Journal of

23 Gupta, S., & Ogden, D T (2009), To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(6), 378–393

24 Hong, Ho Phuong (2019), The effects of packaging attributes on Vietnamese consumers purchase intention, Master thesis, Vietnam Japan Vietnam, Vietnam National

25 Hughner, R S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C J., & Stanton, J (2007), Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(2–3), 94–110

26 Jahanshahi, A A., & Jia, J (2018), Purchasing green products as a means of expressing consumers’ uniqueness: Empirical evidence from Peru and Bangladesh,

27 Joseph F.Hair, Babin, B J., & Anderson, R E (2014)., Multivariate Data Analysis

28 Josephine Njeri Ngure (2015), Principal Component and Principal Axis Factoring of Factors Associated with High Population in Urban Areas: A Case Study of Juja and Thika, Kenya, http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/html/10.11648.j.ajtas.20150404.15.html

29 Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z (2015), Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behaviour and Future Research Directions, In International Strategic Management Review , Vol 3,

30 Karp, D G (1996), Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior, Environment and Behavior, 28(1), 111–133

31 Kim, J., & Kang, S (2018), How social capital impacts the purchase intention of sustainable fashion products, Journal of Business Research, November 2017, 1–8

32 Kozar, J M., & Connell, K Y H (2013), Socially and environmentally responsible apparel consumption: Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, Social Responsibility Journal,

33 Kumar, B (2014), Theory of Planned Behaviour Approach to Understand the Purchasing Behaviour for Environmentally Sustainable Products, Indian Institute of Management

34 Laroche, M., Tomiuk, M.-A., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G (2009), Cultural Differences in Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviours of Canadian Consumers, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des

35 Lee, K (2008), Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers, Marketing

36 Liang, D., Hou, C., Jo, M S., & Sarigửllỹ, E (2019), Pollution avoidance and green purchase: The role of moral emotions, Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 1301–1310

37 Liobikienė, G., & Bernatonienė, J (2017), Why determinants of green purchase cannot be treated equally? The case of green cosmetics: Literature review, Journal of Cleaner

38 Liobikiene, G., Mandravickaite, J., & Bernatoniene, J (2016), Theory of planned behavior approach to understand the green purchasing behavior in the EU: A cross- cultural study, Ecological Economics, 125, 38–46

39 Liu, X., Wang, C., Shishime, T., & Fujitsuka, T (2012), Sustainable consumption:

Green purchasing behaviours of urban residents in China, Sustainable Development, 20(4),

40 Lu, Q S., & Miller, R (2019), How Social Media Communications Combine with Customer Loyalty Management to Boost Green Retail Sales, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 46, 87–100

41 Magnusson, M K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U K K., Åberg, L., & Sjửdộn, P O (2003),

Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour, Appetite, 40(2), 109–117

42 Makatouni, A (2002), What motivates consumers to buy organic food in the UK?:

Results from a qualitative study., British Food Journal, 104(3), 345–352

43 Manning, K C., Bearden, W O., & Madden, T J (1995), Consumer Innovativeness and the Adoption Proces, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 329–345

44 Marilynn B.Brewer (1991), The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time, University of California, Los Angeles

45 Martin, B., & Simintiras, A C (1995), The impact of green product lines on the environment, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 13(4), 16–23

46 Memery, J., Megicks, P., & Williams, J (2005), Ethical and social responsibility issues in grocery shopping: A preliminary typology Qualitative Market Research, 8(4),

47 Morley, I E (1982), Henri Tajfel’s Human Groups and Social Categories, British

48 Nguyen, H V., Nguyen, C H., & Hoang, T T B (2019), Green consumption: Closing the intention-behavior gap, Sustainable Development, 27(1), 118–129

49 Nicolaisen, J., Dean, A., & Hoeller, P (1991), Economics and the environment: a survey of issues and policy options, OECD Economic Studies, 16, 7–43

50 Niinimọki, K (2010), Eco-Clothing, consumer identity and ideology, Sustainable Development, 18(3), 150–162

51 Oliver, J D., Rosen, D E., (2016), Applying the Environmental Propensity Framework : A Segmented Approach to Hybrid Electric Vehicle Marketing Strategies,

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

52 Park, C W., & Lessig, V P (1977), Students and Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to Reference Group Influence, Journal of Consumer Research, 4(2), 102

53 Philip Kotler, Gary Armstrong (2011), Principles of Marketing, 14 th Edition, Pearson

54 Salazar, H A., Oerlemans, L., & Van Stroe-Biezen, S (2013), Social influence on sustainable consumption: Evidence from a behavioural experiment, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(2), 172–180

55 Schwartz, S H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V

(2001), Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542

56 Shao, J., & ĩnal, E (2019), What do consumers value more in green purchasing?

Assessing the sustainability practices from the demand side of business, Journal of Cleaner

57 Shrum, L J., McCarty, J A., & Lowrey, T M (1995), Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for advertising strategy, Journal of Advertising,

58 Sohn, Y (2005), Opinion Leaders And Seekers in Online Brand Communities : Centered on Korean Digital Camera Brand Communities, Master Thesis, The Florida State

59 Tanner, C., & Kast, S W (2003), Promoting Sustainable Consumption: Determinants of Green Purchases by Swiss Consumers, Psychology and Marketing, 20(10), 883–902

60 Thứgersen, J (2011), Green shopping: For selfish reasons or the common good?,

61 Thứgersen, J., & ệlander, F (2002), Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study, Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 605–630

62 Thứgersen, J., & ệlander, F (2003), Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 225–236

63 Thuy, Ho Thanh (2018), Tac dong cua xu huong tieu dung xanh den doanh nghiep Viet

Nam, latest upated on Nov 2 nd 2018, http://scp.gov.vn/tin-tuc/t10537/tac-dong-cua-xu- huong-tieu-dung-xanh-den-doanh-nghiep-viet-nam.html

64 Tsakiridou, E., Boutsouki, C., Zotos, Y., & Mattas, K (2008), Attitudes and behaviour towards organic products: An exploratory study, International Journal of Retail and

65 United Nation, Sustainable consumption and production, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/

66 Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W (2006), Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude - Behavioral intention” gap, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194

67 Welsch, H., & Kühling, J (2009), Determinants of pro-environmental consumption:

The role of reference groups and routine behavior, Ecological Economics, 69(1), 166–176

68 Wolsink, M (2007), Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes:

Equity and fairness instead of “backyard motives.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy

69 Yadav, R (2016), Altruistic or egoistic: Which value promotes organic food consumption among young consumers? A study in the context of a developing nation, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 33, 92–97

70 Yadav, R., & Pathak, G S (2016), Young consumers’ intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: Extending the theory of planned behavior, Journal of

71 Yadav, R., & Pathak, G S (2017), Determinants of Consumers’ Green Purchase Behavior in a Developing Nation: Applying and Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior,

72 Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., & Oates, C J (2010), Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products, Sustainable

Literature Review of Empirical Researches on Green purchase

Frequency of recycling + X Organic foods

Perceived consequences of buying to environment + X

Perceived consequences of buying to transportation, waste + X

Perceived consequences of buying to health ++ X

Values about human being (human health, well-being, feelings, desires)

Values about animals’ well-being + X

Personal norm Unrelated X Green foods

Attitude towards organic food + X Organic food

Beliefs about characteristics of organic food compared to conventionally produced alternatives (PPE)

Demographics (age, gender, income, household size, employment)

Motives for buying (health care, care for environment) + X Organic food

Satisfaction with organic food offer (quality, assortment, sale services, prices)

Objective knowledge weak X Organic food

Egoistic motivation (healthier, better quality, better taste, safety, presence of children in household)

Altruism motivation (better for environment, animal friendly) + X

Personal ethical value ++ X Sustainable clothing

Product attribute Unrelated X Eco-fashion

Knowledge of Environmentally issues in apparel production + X Apparel, textile goods

Knowledge of Social issues in apparel production + X

Attitude of Socially responsible issues in apparel production + X

Man-nature orientation + X Recycle and reusable packaging products

Herd behavior (imitation) + X Sustainable product

Health post on social media (Egoistic value) ++ X Organic food

Environment post on social media (Altruism value) + X

Price post on social media + X

Time for research and decision making (PBC) + X

Perceived consumer effectiveness + X Green product

Liu et al (2012) Perception of responsibility (degree of agreement on self- responsibility)

Perception of seriousness (environment concern) Unrelated X Perception of information understanding green product information

Perception of effectiveness (PCE) roles of green purchase for better environment

Evaluation of social norm: degree of environmental efforts affected by neighbors

Evaluation of feasibility difficulty for choosing green product (Perceived Behavior Control)

Own past consumption (experience for buying green product)

Behavior of reference persons (friends, neighbors, relatives) concerning the potentials and costs of solar thermal systems

Economic factors (income, cost) related X

Demographic (sex, age, health status, education, marital, household size, employment) related

Gupta and Social value orientation Unrelated X Green product

Ogden (2009) Trust on each other + X

Connell (2010) Knowledge barrier: lack of knowledge and information of environment and product

- X Environmentally preferable apparel (environmentally preferable fibers/processes, secondhand)

Societal norm barrier: social appearance expectation - X

Availability of product barrier: lack of option - X

Economic resources barrier: higher price - X

Liu et al (2012) Perception of responsibility (degree of agreement on self- responsibility)

Perception of seriousness (environment concern) Unrelated X Perception of information understanding green product information

Perception of effectiveness (PCE) roles of green purchase for better environment

Evaluation of social norm: degree of environmental efforts affected by neighbors

Evaluation of feasibility difficulty for choosing green product (Perceived Behavior Control)

Skepticism on brand and product greenness - X

Detailed and greater number of verbal information + X

Online Survey

My name is Do Minh Hanh, a student of Master Business Administration program at Vietnam Japan University I am currently doing my graduation thesis which topic is to understand consumer’s purchase decision on green products

By answering this survey (about 15 minutes), you have supported me to collect information for this research, then, hopefully, we might together contribute efforts for our green planet’s future Please answer as honestly as possible Your provided information is kept confidential and will be used for study purpose only

Sincerely thank you for your valuable contribution

Contact information: Do Minh Hanh – Email: 18110026@st.vju.ac.vn

Under graduated College and Vocational training Graduated

Under 5 million vnd / month 5-10 million vnd / month 10-30 million vnd/ month Above 30 million / month

Reference group is a person or a group that influences your decision, including who you have social interaction with directly, indirectly, in offline and online context

Green product is produced with concern for the physical environment (air, water, and land), is typically durable, non-toxic, made of recycled materials, or minimally packaged: organic/GAP food, natural component product (cosmetic, detergent, clothes, straw, package, etc.), reusable product (shopping bag, secondhand clothes, etc.), energy saving appliances, recycled product, etc

Please choose the ones that best describe your shopping habits as regards green products:

1 My Frequency of buying green products

1.1 I have never bought, nor considered buying green products 1.2 I have not yet bought, but I have considered buying green products 1.3 I buy green products few times a year

1.4 I buy green products one or a couple of times a month 1.5 I buy green products always when possible

2 My monthly share of expenses for green product (%)

3 Place where I usually buy green products at

Statements Multiple options 3.1 Specialized shops

3.2 Direct selling 3.3 Super markets 3.4 Local markets 3.5 Online shopping 3.6 Never buy green products

From the following alternatives, please choose the level of your agreement based on the following scale from 1 to 5

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

4 Green products I usually buy are:

4.1 Organic/ GAP Food and Beverage: fruit, vegetable, milk, drink, meat, medical herb, baking product

4.2 Natural component: clothes, cosmetic (soap, shampoo)

4.3 Natural component: home appliance, bamboo/rice powder straw, package, green detergents/ cleaning product

4.4 Performance: energy saving, water consumption

4.5 Product not tested on animals: cosmetic, etc

4.6 Reused electronic appliance, home appliances, etc

4.7 Reused, recycled clothes 4.8 Recycled material content: paper, etc

From the following alternatives, please choose the level of your agreement based on the following scale from 1 to 5

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

1 I am concerned about the environment

2 The condition of the environment affects the quality of my life

3 Compared to my friends and acquaintances, I know about environmental issues better than them

4 Compared to an environmental expert, I know about environmental issues better than them

5 I can understand and identify the environmental symbols on product packaging or in advertising

6 I am willing to make sacrifices to protect the environment

7 I am emotionally involved in the environmental protection issues

8 I know about environmental issues well

9 Products that are environmentally friendly are less pollutive on the environment

10 Green products are healthier than conventional products (food, drink,…)

11 Green products are tastier than conventional products (food, drink)

12 Green products will positively affect the environment

13 Green products are good products for the price

14 Green products perform better than conventional products (clothes, bag, straw, cosmetic, etc.)

15 Green products are safer than conventional products

16 Green products fit into my lifestyle

17 Green products are economical for the attributes they offer

18 Green products have an expectable standard quality

19 Most people are willing to make sacrifices to help protect environment

20 In this time, most consumers will purchase green products

21 I purchase green product because it is environmental friendly (does not harm the environment, takes animal welfare into account, etc.)

22 I am familiar with the availability of green products in my locality

23 Consuming green products requires commitment and effort

24 I like go to places where I will be exposed to information about new products and brands

25 I purchase green product because it has more environmentally benefit than conventional product

26 Green products are easily acquirable at proximity (being near in space or time

27 When making a decision on what products to buy, the price of the product is important to me

28 I often seek out information about new products and brands

29 Ease of purchasing is important for me when buying green products

30 I tend to shop when I have time to look at the green product information

31 Consuming green products is an inconvenience

I seek green product related knowledge and experience (such as how product A’s performance compares to product B’s) from relatives, friends, neighbors, colleague who have reliable information about the green product

33 I often buy green products with people in my reference group

The green product which I select is influenced by observing a seal of approval of an independent testing agency (such as seal about GAP, organic, saving energy, no test on animal, etc.)

35 I often share information regarding green products with people in my reference group

36 There are many opportunities to represent my opinions in the activities with reference group

37 The purchase or use of a particular green product will enhance the image which others have of me

38 People I interact with in reference group makes me interested in things that happen outside of my daily routine

39 The desire to satisfy the expectations which others have of me has an impact on my green product choice

40 People who purchase or use a particular green product possess the characteristics which I would like to have

41 People who purchase a particular green product are admired or respected by others

This is the end of this survey

Thank you for your valuable contribution!

42 I feel the sense of “us” in the relationship with people in reference group

My decision to purchase a particular is influenced by the preferences of whose

The purchase of a particular green product helps me show others what I am, or would like to be (such as an activist, successful businessman, good mother, etc.)

45 When I feel lonely or have problems, there are several people in my reference group I can talk to

46 My decision to purchase a particular green product is influenced by the preferences of people with whom I have social interaction

My observation of what experts do influences my choice of a green product (such as observing the type of food which animal protect activist, vegetarian has or the clothes a hand-dyed craft man buys) and I seek information about various green products from independent group of those experts

48 I feel a sense of closeness with people in reference group

49 I feel that I and other in reference group of this community share similar needs

50 This reference group satisfies the needs and desires of mine and other members to some degree

Tôi là Đỗ Minh Hạnh, học viên chương trình Quản trị Kinh doanh, Đại học Việt Nhật - Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội Hiện tôi đang làm luận văn tốt nghiệp tìm hiểu về quyết định tiêu dùng sản phẩm xanh của người tiêu dùng

Bằng việc trả lời bảng khảo sát này (khoảng 15 phút), bạn đã giúp tôi thu thập dữ liệu hoàn thiện nghiên cứu này và hi vọng rằng chúng ta có thể cùng đóng góp chút công sức cho tương lai của hành tinh xanh này

Rất mong nhận được những câu trả lời chân thành, xác thực nhất từ bạn Mọi thông tin bạn cung cấp sẽ được bảo mật, và chỉ sử dụng cho mục đích nghiên cứu

Chân thành cảm ơn sự đóng góp quý giá từ bạn!

Thông tin liên hệ: Đỗ Minh Hạnh - Email: 18110026@st.vju.ac.vn

Phần 1 Thông tin chung về bạn

Trình độ học vấn 1 lựa chọn Phổ thông

Cao đẳng, Trường Nghề Đại học

Mức thu nhập 1 lựa chọn

Từ 30 triệu đồng / tháng trở lên

Phần 2 Thông tin về Tiêu dùng xanh

"Nhóm tham khảo": Người (nhóm người) có ảnh hưởng tới quyết định của bạn, gồm những người bạn có tương tác xã hội trực tiếp, gián tiếp, trên hoặc không trên nền tảng trực tuyến

"Sản phẩm xanh": Sản phẩm được sản xuất có quan tâm tới những yếu tố môi trường (không khí, nước và đất), không độc hại, làm từ nguyên liệu tái chế, hoặc giảm thiểu đóng gói Ví dụ: thực phẩm hữu cơ (organic), đạt tiêu chuẩn quy trình nông nghiệp (GAP), sản phẩm chứa thành phần tự nhiên (mỹ phẩm, nước giặt tẩy, trang phục, ống hút, v.v…), đồ tái chế, tái sử dụng, tiết kiệm năng lượng, v.v…

Vui lòng chọn một (hoặc những) lựa chọn phù hợp nhất mô tả việc mua sắm sản phẩm xanh của Anh/Chị

1 Mức độ thường xuyên mua sản phẩm xanh của tôi

STT Nhận định 1 lựa chọn

1.1 Chưa từng mua, hay có ý định mua 1.2 Chưa từng mua, nhưng có cân nhắc tới việc mua 1.3 Mua vài lần 1 năm

1.4 Mua 1 hoặc vài lần 1 tháng 1.5 Luôn mua khi có thể

2 Mức chi tiêu hàng tháng dành cho sản phẩm xanh của tôi (%)

3 Nơi tôi thường mua sản phẩm xanh

STT Nhận định Đa lựa chọn

3.1 Cửa hàng chuyên bán sản phẩm xanh 3.2 Mua trực tiếp từ người sản xuất 3.3 Siêu thị

3.4 Chợ, cửa hàng địa phương 3.5 Mua trực tuyến

3.6 Chưa từng mua sản phẩm xanh

STT Nhận định 1 lựa chọn

Vui lòng cho biết mức độ đồng ý của bạn theo thang đo từ 1 đến 5 dưới đây với những nhận định phía dưới:

Rất không đồng ý Không đồng ý Trung lập Đồng ý Rất đồng ý 4.Tôi thường mua loại sản phẩm xanh là

STT Nhận định Mức độ đánh giá

4.1 Thực phẩm, đồ uống hữu cơ/GAP (rau quả, đồ uống, thịt sữa, thảo dược, đồ đã qua chế biến như bánh,…)

4.2 Chứa nguyên liệu tự nhiên: trang phục, mỹ phẩm (quần áo nhuộm tự nhiên, xà phòng, dầu gội,…)

4.3 Chứa nguyên liệu tự nhiên: đồ gia dụng, nước tẩy rửa nước giặt rửa bồ hòn, cà chua ống hút tre/bột gạo, túi thực phẩm bột ngô,…

4.4 Hoạt động tiết kiệm năng lượng: tiết kiệm điện, nước,…

4.5 Không kiểm nghiệm trên động vật (mỹ phẩm) 4.6 Đồ tái sử dụng (thiết bị điện secondhand, sách truyện, đồ gia dụng…) 4.7 Trang phục tái sử dụng, tái chế

4.8 Đồ tái chế (giấy tái chế, …)

5 Vui lòng cho biết mức độ đồng ý của bạn theo thang đo từ 1 đến 5 với những nhận định dưới đây

Rất không đồng ý Không đồng ý Trung lập Đồng ý Rất đồng ý

1 Tôi quan tâm tới môi trường

2 Tình trạng môi trường ảnh hưởng tới chất lượng cuộc sống của tôi

3 So với bạn bè và người quen, tôi hiểu biết về các vấn đề môi trường hơn họ

4 So với chuyên gia môi trường, tôi hiểu biết về các vấn đề môi trường hơn họ

5 Tôi có thể hiểu và nhận diện các ký hiệu về môi trường trên bao bì sản phẩm hoặc trong quảng cáo

6 Tôi sẵn sàng hi sinh để bảo vệ môi trường

7 Tôi có liên hệ cảm xúc với những vấn đề bảo vệ môi trường

8 Hiểu biết của tôi về các vấn đề môi trường ở mức tốt

9 Sản phẩm xanh ít gây ô nhiễm môi trường

10 Sản phẩm xanh tốt cho sức khỏe hơn sản phẩm thông thường (đồ ăn, đồ uống,…)

11 Sản phẩm xanh ngon hơn sản phẩm thông thường (đồ ăn, đồ uống)

12 Sản phẩm xanh sẽ có tác động tích cực tới môi trường

13 Sản phẩm xanh là sản phẩm tốt với mức giá mà nó mang

14 Sản phẩm xanh hoạt động tốt hơn sản phẩm thông thường (vd: quần áo, túi xách, ống hút, mỹ phẩm, v.v…)

15 Sản phẩm xanh an toàn hơn sản phẩm thông thường

16 Sản phẩm xanh phù hợp với lối sống của tôi

17 Với những đặc điểm của mình, sản phẩm xanh tiết kiệm về kinh tế

18 Chất lượng của sản phẩm xanh đạt tiêu chuẩn mong đợi

19 Hầu hết mọi người sẵn sàng hi sinh để bảo vệ môi trường

20 Vào lúc này, hầu hết người tiêu dùng sẽ mua sản phẩm xanh

21 Tôi mua sản phẩm xanh vì chúng thân thiện với môi trường (không gây hại môi trường, quan tâm tới bảo vệ động vật, v.v…)

22 Tôi quen với sự có mặt của các sản phẩm xanh tại nơi tôi ở

23 Tiêu dùng sản phẩm xanh cần nỗ lực và cam kết

24 Tôi thích tới những nơi tôi sẽ được tiếp cận với thông tin về sản phẩm và thương hiệu mới

25 Tôi mua sản phẩm xanh vì chúng có nhiều lợi ích môi trường hơn sản phẩm thông thường

26 Sản phẩm xanh dễ dàng nhanh chóng mua được

27 Khi ra quyết định mua sản phẩm gì, giá cả quan trọng với tôi

28 Tôi thường tìm thông tin về sản phẩm và thương hiệu mới

29 Việc dễ dàng mua là yếu tố quan trọng với tôi khi mua sản phẩm xanh

30 Tôi có xu hướng mua khi có thời gian tìm thông tin về sản phẩm xanh

31 Tiêu dùng sản phẩm xanh bất tiện

Tôi tìm kiến thức và trải nghiệm về sản phẩm xanh (vd: so với sản phẩm

B, A hoạt động như thế nào) từ người quen có thông tin đáng tin cậy về món đồ đó

33 Tôi thường mua sản phẩm xanh với nhóm tham khảo

Tôi chọn sản phẩm xanh dựa vào quan sát nhãn chứng nhận của tổ chức kiểm tra độc lập (vd: chứng nhận hữu cơ organic, GAP, tiết kiệm năng lượng, không kiểm nghiệm trên động vật,…)

35 Tôi thường chia sẻ thông tin về sản phẩm xanh với nhóm tham khảo.

Định dạng
Số trang	105
Dung lượng	2,33 MB