1. Introduction
Discussions on sustainable development date from the 1970s and 1980s to today. The 2030 Agenda of the United Nations Organization of 2015 brought the 17 goals for sustainable development (SDGs) [1]. Considering SDG 12, which deals with the pursuit of sustainable consumption, it is mentioned that sustainability is favored when there is a change way of thinking and acting from a more individualistic to a more collective context, which can lead to a change in the consumption patterns until then practiced [2]. Regarding the subjective norm, social influence is one of the factors that influence people’s behaviors involving sustainability [3].
Advancements in science and technology have contributed to socioeconomic development, yet this progress has been accompanied by a surge in environmental pollution [4]. There is a growing recognition that prevailing consumption patterns are unsustainable, given the finite and scarce nature of natural resources [5]. In response to the declining quality of the environment, individuals are increasingly acknowledging this trend of scarcity [6]. In 2021, “Earth Overshoot Day”, signifying the point at which the consumption of natural resources surpasses the planet’s capacity to renew them in a year, was observed on July 29. This marked a deficit in natural resources, highlighting the need for 1.70 Earths to sustain current consumption patterns [7].
The inclusion of the perceived control construct helps explain why intentions alone, in some situations, are not capable of predicting behavior. The reason that the perceived control construct has a direct link to behavior is that, when people feel that they have great control over behavior, behavioral intentions predict behavior. There are indications that, by the year 2050, the world population is expected to grow by a further 2 billion people [8], and, if the current lifestyle of people is maintained, it will take approximately three planet Earths to provide the necessary natural resources [9], indicating the urgency for greater awareness of the population’s consumption patterns.
Promoting the purchase of green products can be a way of helping to minimize environmental impacts [5,6,7,8,9]. A product with sustainable packaging is defined as a product whose packaging is reusable, returnable, recyclable, biodegradable, and/or made from renewable sources. [10]. Products that come with minimal packaging or have more of the product in a single package are also considered sustainable [11]. This reduces packaging waste and optimizes the use of available resources [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Research related to motives behind the purchase of green products and products with sustainable packaging by the public stands out [5,13,14,15,16,17].
The adoption of sustainable lifestyles through practices and actions is leading individuals in a search for higher levels of sustainability, especially in developing countries. Consequently, researchers, companies, and governments have been looking for ways to encourage the necessary changes in behavior [18,19]. Encouraging sustainable consumption, through the intentional purchase of green products (in this case, products with sustainable packaging) can be a way to minimize environmental impacts and help in the search for sustainable development in the current context, as well as contributing to research on the subject in developing countries such as Brazil.
Considering the numerous behavioral theories available, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) stands out as the most widely adopted among researchers [20]. It can elucidate whether a specific behavior is influenced by internal factors, external factors, or both in the individual [21]. The use of the TPB to investigate the motives driving the intentional purchase of green products has been researched in countries such as Indonesia [13], India [15,19,20], Iran [17], Portugal [21], and Türkiye [22]. Some of this research suggests that studies be carried out with other specific green products [9,13,14,15,23], and, in this case, products with sustainable packaging were chosen. Interest in products with sustainable packaging has grown in recent decades in both the public and private sectors.
Buying behavior is shaped by variables that influence purchase decisions, and the individual consumer actively intervenes in choices, having to continually decide between options with complexities that vary by product type or procurement situation [24]. The affective values of consumers also influence the choice of products [25]. In this sense, the theory of planned behavior is used to investigate the motivations behind purchase intention and the behavior of individuals [26,27,28]. This can be used as a guiding framework to understand the purchase intentions behind green products in emerging markets [13]. The research incorporates environmental concerns and environmental knowledge [15] as a way to contribute to the discussion about sustainability, especially the role of individuals, social and information aspects [28], and the relationship between beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control for attitude formation and purchase intention. Other studies also considered differing constructs in an attempt to extend this theory and expand its explanatory power. Trust can affect an individual’s purchase intention. Similarly, a lack of trust in a brand or product negatively influences purchase behavior regarding green products [29]. Altruism is a leading characteristic that influences a consumer’s environmental choices and/or behavior, as shown by contemporary studies [30,31].
Given this backdrop, this study seeks to contribute to the theme of sustainable consumption through an investigation of the intention of Brazilian consumers to purchase products with sustainable packaging from the perspective of the theory of planned behavior. This research also seeks to delineate the respondents’ profiles concerning their intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging, uncover latent connections between variables associated with purchase intention, such as products, and categorize respondents based on similar characteristics or behaviors.
Educational approaches geared towards minimizing packaging and advocating for proper disposal methods play a pivotal role in environmental preservation. They contribute to resource conservation, waste reduction, and the pursuit of enhanced energy efficiency. Additionally, environmental education fosters an increased engagement with environmental issues, encourages sustainable practices, and promotes biodiversity conservation. Environmental training is indispensable in nurturing a sustainable mindset and fostering responsible habits, thereby ensuring long-term benefits for the planet. Reducing packaging and providing adequate disposal are both important criteria to protect the environment for several reasons. However, there remains a need to raise further awareness among the public through environmental education.
When considering the relevance of the study topic and its educational purposes, this work has been divided into five sections, starting with this introduction. The Section 2 presents the theoretical background. In the Section 3, the methodological procedures used to obtain the results, expressed in the Section 4, are presented, and divided into descriptive analyses and discussions. Finally, in the Section 5, final considerations are presented.
2. Literature Review
The theory of planned behavior indicates that the determining factor in the performance of an action is a person’s intention to carry out, or not to carry out, a certain behavior [28]. That is, behavior is performed as a result of intentional thought formation [32]. These intentions and behaviors are based on three basic elements: attitudes, the subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control [26,27,28].
Attitude refers to an interaction in memory between a given object and a summary evaluation of that object [33]. Attitudes of a personal nature are the individual’s evaluation of the expected results of the behavior [26,27,28]. In general, a person will perform a certain behavior if s/he believes that the advantages of success outweigh the disadvantages of failure, being successful if, in addition to the effort, s/he has control of internal and external factors [26].
The subjective norm reflects perceived social influence. It concerns a belief in the approval or disapproval of a particular behavior by other people in a particular reference group [26,27,28]. The individual seeks to recognize the importance of the group in the extent to which s/he is motivated to accept this understanding [13]. Perceived behavioral control can be understood as the individual’s perception of the control, difficulty, or ease s/he has in relation to the performance of the behavior [26,27,28].
Purchase intent is the probability that customers in a given purchase situation will choose a particular brand from a product category [34]. In this sense, it should be noted that green purchase intention concerns the probability and willingness of an individual to prioritize green products over conventional products in their purchase considerations [35].
Deepening studies focused on the TPB prove to be useful in looking for alternatives that improve the predictive capacity and increase the robustness of this model in the context of green products [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. A survey that evaluated the main determinants of green buying behavior in European Union countries, through the TPB, identified that, although the level of green purchasing behavior differs between the evaluated countries, the subjective norm is indeed associated with green purchasing behavior [9]. Perceived control and the intention to perform a specific behavior will be greater, the more favorable the subjective norm and attitude are [37]. In Indonesia, when the TPB was used to assess the purchase intention of products with green packaging, it was identified that the subjective norm and perceived behavioral control positively influence purchase intention [38].
Given this, additional surveys demonstrate a positive correlation between environmental concern and the intention to purchase green products among consumers worldwide. Among the theories addressing the intention–behavior relationship, the theory of reasoned action and its extension, the TPB, have garnered attention from researchers due to their scientific rigor. Validating the theoretical constructs associated with these theories and applying them to assess their predictive capacity concerning individual behavior constitutes a noteworthy scientific contribution. Consequently, this study aims to provide insights into consumer behavior and facilitate discussions on the TPB [36].
Regarding the consideration of new constructs in the TPB, such as environmental concern and environmental knowledge, the results of a survey show that this attempt to relate new variables can increase its explanatory capacity and improve the understanding of the intention to purchase green products [14,15,20]. Environmental concern demonstrates not only how much people are aware of environmental issues but also that they show a willingness to solve them [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
Environmental concerns are cited as the main drivers behind purchasing green products [40]. Consumers are more likely to buy products with sustainable packaging as this reflects their commitment to the environment [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. An individual’s environmental concern is also related to their intention to buy products with sustainable packaging. This shows that young Indians are concerned and ready to protect the environment by opting for pro-environmental behaviors [16]. Other surveys also positively show the relationship between environmental concern and the intention to purchase green products carried out by Brazilian [42], Indian [15,20,43], and Taiwanese consumers [44].
Attitudes toward green products and environmental concerns are identified as the main determinants of the purchase intention of these products, indicating that these consumers are concerned about environmental problems and have a positive attitude toward purchasing green products for future use [20]. Regarding attitude and actual behavior, three variables feature in association: strength of attitude, accessibility of attitude, and the presence of social and environmental influences [45]. A favorable disposition toward sustainable packaging has a positive impact on the intention to purchase products with safe packaging, although it may vary in intensity and from individual to individual, prioritizing personal reasons and/or motivations [45,46].
Sustainable products and sustainable behaviors are attitude objects [47], where attitudes can predict concerns and purchasing behaviors [48]. Environmental concerns can predict the perceived behavioral control in energy conservation behaviors [49]. There are indications that environmental concern is related to perceived behavioral control [14].
Environmental knowledge is defined as knowledge about environmental issues [20], which concerns what people know about the environment, what impacts it, and the collective responsibilities that lead to sustainable development [50]. With an increase in environmental knowledge, consumers become more informed, and this increases the possibility of increasing purchase intent [51]. In Brazil, seeking to verify the influence exerted by the consumer’s level of environmental awareness and by their attitudes toward sustainable consumption based on purchase intentions of sustainably packaged products, it was found that consumers with higher levels of ecological awareness would be more willing to buy these products [11].
Trust is a psychological state that encompasses a willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the other’s intentions and behaviors [52]. Consumer trust includes a belief, feeling, or expectation about the reliability of an exchange partner, resulting from experience of that partner’s reliability or intentionality involving vulnerability and uncertainty on the part of the trustee [53]. Consumer trust is an essential prerequisite for establishing a market for credible goods, such as sustainable products, especially when you pay a premium price for them [29]. Studies have shown that institutions make use of this trust and that consumers tend to believe in what companies present [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54].
Studies show that trust in green products significantly impacts consumer purchase intention [54,55]. Therefore, consumers’ purchase intention decreases when they realize that companies display unreliable environmental claims on their packaging [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. Thus, it can be said that the lack of consumer confidence in sustainable products acts as a barrier to purchasing behavior [40]. In studies carried out in European Union countries [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56], Taiwan [57], and Thailand [29], it has been shown that trust in green products determines purchase intention.
3. Materials and Methods
Considering the objectives, this research is characterized as a descriptive and quantitative [58] cross-section (survey), which included the application of a structured questionnaire online.
From the literature related to products with sustainable packaging, validated scales were selected [9,14,16,20] (Table 1). Items referring to the attitude towards the purchase of products with sustainable packaging, the subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, environmental concern, environmental knowledge, willingness to pay, and purchase intention were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). Items related to trust were measured using a five-point scale ranging from one (not at all confident) to five (totally confident). Table 1 shows the sources used for each construct and the statements used to measure responses.
The questionnaire was translated from English to Portuguese and given to consumers residing in Brazil. In addition, a reverse translation was sought to ensure an equivalence of meaning for a better understanding of the statements by the respondents [59,60]. Subsequently, the statements were evaluated by seven researchers/specialists in the areas of sustainability and marketing. After receiving expert input, adjustments were made to the questionnaire. The authors proceeded with the pre-test, which consisted of a small group of respondents, to examine the understanding of the questionnaire. Fifteen people were selected to qualitatively evaluate the instrument used. The pre-test was applied in November 2019 through Qualtrics. Participants not only had access to the questionnaire but could also give their opinion on the use of the data collection platform, in addition to evaluating the questions.
We sought to identify and minimize difficulties encountered by respondents and the time required to complete the questionnaire. In general, the respondents had a good understanding of the questions asked, and suggestions for improvements were provided, which were accepted as far as possible. One of the recurring suggestions was the inclusion of the definition of products with sustainable packaging, since the target audience might not understand the concept, which could invalidate the research (the final questionnaire had 39 questions). All of the participants were over 18 years of age [61]. Thus, a non-probability sampling process was taken into account, since the sample was selected for convenience [62]. The minimum number of respondents per variable must be equal to five [58], in terms of sample, which would total, for this research, a minimum of 195 respondents.
Data collection took place by administering a survey [62]. The survey, which included the collection of primary data, had its data collection instrument prepared to be self-administered by the participants. The questionnaire was developed in electronic format and made available on the platform Qualtrics. Participants were sent a link via email and social networks to access the online questionnaire. The authors used descriptive statistics and analysis of principal components and clusters to present the results. Initially, 523 individuals participated in this study. From the process of the purification of data extracted from Qualtrics, 14 answers were invalidated, totaling 509 valid questionnaires. The sociodemographic characterization of the sample is shown in Table 2.
Of the 509 respondents who participated in this study, 69.9% (n = 356) were female. Regarding age, 33.6% (n = 171) were between 35 and 44 years old, with the average age of participants being 37.9 years. The range was 62 years, ranging from 18 to 80 years (Table 1). As for marital status, most respondents (53.4%; n = 272) were married, two to three people lived in the household (62.1%; n = 316), and most were from the southern region of Brazil (80.0%; n = 407). Regarding their work situation, 58.0% (n = 295) were full-time employees, had an individual monthly income of between BRL 5648.00 and BRL 14,120.00 (35.4%; n = 180), and had a monthly family income of between BRL 5648.00 and BRL 14,120.00 (46.2%; n = 235).
As for education, 29.1% (n = 148) had completed some college but had not graduated. A total of 20.2% (n = 103) of respondents were most influenced by the press regarding sustainability, although 18.5% (n = 94) were most influenced by family members. It should be noted that 17.1% (n = 87) of respondents answered “other” regarding what most influences their opinion on sustainability. Some of the responses provided for this category were as follows: by their experience and attitudes in life, by the research and reading they carry out on the subject, by their academic training, as well as by their conscience and perceptions.
As for the respondents’ professional area, there were 237 different responses, all of which were reviewed and grouped into the areas presented in Table 3: 41.8% (n = 213) worked in the area of administration, business, and services and 18.9% (n = 96) in education.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Descriptive Analysis
The descriptive statistics of the questionnaire are provided in Table 4, including means and standard deviation. Attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, environmental concern, environmental knowledge, willingness to pay, trust, and purchase intention were all measured. All variables are related to the purchase of products with sustainable packaging.
When examining Table 4’s averages, the value comes predominantly from environmental concern (M = 4.40), followed by attitude toward purchasing (M = 4.32) and, finally, the intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging (M = 3.78). When comparing this study with its counterparts [14,15,16,17,18,19,20], the results show a similarity in constructed terms but differences related with predominance.
In the studies cited, constructs relating to purchase intention, environmental concern, and attitude toward purchasing predominate. It is worth noting that the measurement items with the highest averages were “Major policy changes are needed to protect the environment” (M = 4.50) and “Major social changes are needed to protect the environment” (M = 4.46).
The results show that the respondents are concerned about the environment and expect political and societal changes, adding to individual actions [63,64]. On the other hand, the lowest average was related to question CF2, which deals with confidence in producers’ information about the performance of their products (M = 2.73). This result may be related to a certain insecurity that interviewees still have information provided by certain companies, which may have been influenced by individual experiences [54]. This issue may also reflect a critical position on the part of consumers towards greenwashing practices, which weakens trust in the information on the packaging [54,64], and can directly interfere with purchase intention.
In descending order, environmental concerns (M = 4.40) are observed, followed by attitudes toward purchasing (M = 4.32) and, finally, the intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging (M = 3.78) [14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Concern for the environment and expectations of political and societal changes also added to individual actions [63,64].
To summarize, the interviewees in this study expressed concern about the environment and the need for political and societal changes. The demand for these changes is aligned with the actions selected by the individuals. Confidence in the information provided by companies about product performance is shaped by personal experiences, which influence the alternative of what is available to the consumer. Given a correct understanding of the environmental virtues of products, there is a significant increase in the willingness to purchase products labeled as “green” [65].
It is noteworthy that the results are in line with previous research, corroborating the importance of environmental concerns, in addition to highlighting the expectation of societal and political change. Furthermore, the need for greater confidence in the information provided by companies is a point that requires them to adapt, so that they bring more security to consumption habits and validity to claims of sustainability.
4.2. Principal Component Analysis
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to reduce the initial variables correlated with each other into a smaller number of common components. Before the PCA, the suitability of the data for analysis was checked using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Barlett sphericity tests (BTS) [66] (KMO value 0.863 and significance of Barlett’s sphericity test at p < 0.01). Kaiser’s draw [66] was used to define the number of factors to be extracted, with each statement having a factorial load greater than 0.4 [67]. Only statements with commonalities greater than 0.4 were used in this analysis, and seven main components were formed, explaining 67.04% of the total variance of the data [68]. Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was performed to verify the internal consistency of the components [69]. Table 5 presents the PCA with respective Cronbach’s alphas, Eigenvalues, and percentages of variance.
Component 1 presents variables with the highest factor loadings, including all the variables of purchase intention, willingness to pay, and an environmental concern variable. With an Eigenvalue of 7.72 and decreasing 27.58% of the total variance, it is considered the most important component. In other studies, environmental concern is related to attitude, jointly explaining purchase intention [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70]. This component presents economic variables in evidence, in which there is a clear link between the obligation to pay and environmental awareness, as indicated by the inclination of respondents to purchase items with ecological packaging [71].
Component 2 is the second most important, presenting an Eigenvalue of 2.59 and 9.25% of the total variance. In this component, the highest factor loadings concern the three attitudinal variables and one perceived behavioral control, and psychological factors that play an important role in purchasing products [21]. As for component 3, the highest factor loadings are related to variations in environmental knowledge, with an Eigenvalue of 2.39 and 8.56% of the variance. With more environmental knowledge, consumers become more informed, and this increases the possibility of increasing purchase intent [51].
For component 4, the PCA presented higher factor loadings on variables related to perceived behavioral control and an environmental knowledge variable. This can be explained when considering that environmental knowledge increases perceived behavioral control, showing correlations with [72] and positively influencing purchase intention [38]. This component explains 7.10% of the variance and has an Eigenvalue of 1.98.
In component 5, the highest factor loadings include variations relative to the subjective norm; it has an Eigenvalue of 1.56 and explains 5.60% of the total variance. As for component 6, the highest factor loadings are related to variables of environmental concern. This component explains 4.77% of the total variance, with an Eigenvalue of 1.33. Finally, component 7, which has an Eigenvalue of 1.17, accounts for 4.18% of the total variance and has the highest factor loadings for trust variables. These components provide insights into purchasing attitudes and reflect the social influence and trust that permeate the business environment and support decisions, given the greater substitution of products [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40].
Regarding the proportion of contribution to the component variance, it is inferred that component 1, which has the highest Eigenvalue and the highest percentage of explained variance, has the greatest weight, providing a direct association between the provision payable and environmental concern, given the interviewees’ intention to buy products with sustainable packaging. When analyzing the environmental concern variable related to this component, it is inferred that respondents would be more interested in reducing their consumption to preserve the environment. The results are similar to those found in other studies that show growing environmental concern and the tendency of consumers to opt for products with ecological packaging [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70]; at the same time, they consider reducing consumption to contribute to environmental preservation [72].
Component 2 allows for a check toward attitude and perceived behavioral control. The results allow us to infer a positive attitude toward sustainable purchasing and decision-making more consciously. The perception of control over purchasing behavior reveals a genuine intention to purchase sustainable products.
4.3. Cluster Analysis
Cluster analysis considers similarities between the objects of investigation, summarizing them into groups, or clusters [73]. The variation within the groups of identified respondents must be as homogeneous as possible, while between groups, as heterogeneous as possible [74]. Different groups of respondents, in the cluster analysis, were identified according to their response behavior regarding their purchase intentions for products with sustainable packaging.
Cluster analysis was performed, factor scores were obtained, and the principal components were used in the analysis, estimating the number of clusters that were specifically sampled. The factor findings were used for a hierarchical cluster analysis using the Ward method for clustering [74].
After the hierarchical cluster analysis, the K-means method was carried out. This method minimizes the distances within each cluster center between all clusters [75]. Based on this, it can be seen how each group differs from each other, demonstrating the characteristics of the sample in each cluster; that is, groups are formed, taking into account similar characteristics among the respondents. Table 6 presents the K-means results for the three groups.
In Figure 1, radar graphs are presented, illustrating the differences between each cluster. For its construction, the demographic characteristics of the respondents were considered (Table 7).
Cluster 1 had 82 participants, which corresponds to 16.11% of the respondents, and has low scores in all components. When comparing, for example, component 6 of this cluster with the others, it can be seen that it has the lowest value, with the same occurring with component 1. These negative scores indicate that variables related to the intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging commented little on the purchase intentions of these interviewees.
It should be noted that this group presents, in percentage terms, the highest number of individuals over 35 years of age, with a monthly family income that exceeds BRL 28,240.00. Furthermore, this is the group with the highest overall education, with a predominance of participants with higher levels of diplomas, since 75.6% have lato sensu master’s and doctorate degrees.
Studies on the topic indicate that individuals with higher incomes would be more willing to buy, and pay more for, products with sustainable packaging, as they would have greater purchasing power [76,77]. Furthermore, older individuals and those with a higher level of education will be more willing to buy products with sustainable packaging [77,78].
Considering the low scores that this group presented for all components, mainly for environmental concern, willingness to pay, and purchase intention, the indications for this group of participants are that they have little environmental concern, and that they would not be willing to buy, and pay more for, products with sustainable packaging. It is possible that consumers require some form of a guarantee or additional information that supports the purchase intention and, more specifically, a greater willingness to pay, in addition to perceiving price as predominant in the purchase decision [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79].
Cluster 2 was made up of 162 interviewees, corresponding to 31.83% of participants. Compared to the other clusters, there are positive scores with the components related to willingness to pay, purchase intention, environmental knowledge, and trust. Even so, the highest scores are related to components 2 and 6, which refer to attitude and environmental concern. Finally, this is the cluster that has negative values for component 5, indicating that the subjective norm, that is, the approval of important people, such as friends and family, is not a factor that impacts their intention to buy products with sustainable packaging.
The characteristic that most stands out in this group is the younger audience. Taking into account the component scores, it should be noted that these results corroborate other studies, which indicate that younger interviewees, with greater environmental awareness, are more concerned about the environment [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16] and tend to buy more green-packaged and sustainable products and pay more for them [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76].
Cluster 3 was composed of 265 interviewees, corresponding to 52.06% of the total, being the largest group. This was the cluster that had the most respondents with only a primary or secondary education and has a high agreement with component 5, which brings variables related to the subjective norm. Therefore, for individuals in this cluster, the opinions of friends, family, and the people close to them are taken into account when intending to buy products with sustainable packaging [80]. This result corroborates other studies that show a positive relationship between the subjective norm and the intention to purchase green products [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81].
This cluster has a positive score for component 4, related to the variables of perceived behavioral control. This result indicates that this group of individuals has greater control over their wishes when making decisions about products with sustainable packaging. It is worth noting that, possibly, attitude, confidence, environmental knowledge, and willingness to pay do not impact the intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging for this group of interviewees. Sustainable packaging is a social and political concern, which may not influence consumer perception [82,83].
Of the clusters identified by the study, the first presents low components, which highlights a lesser influence of variables associated with the intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging. Given the characterization of this cluster, price predominates in the purchasing decision, and additional information or guarantees are required. In the second cluster, environmental awareness among young people is highlighted, with attitudes aligned with environmental concern. The third and most numerous cluster demonstrates social influences on purchase intentions, in addition to greater control over consumption [82,84]. People who care about the environment and the impact of waste tend to opt for more sustainable packaging [82]; in addition, the availability of packaging options and the cost compared to conventional packaging can be important factors [84].
5. Final Considerations
This study sought to contribute to the knowledge base related to sustainable consumption, investigating the intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging among Brazilian survey respondents. To this end, the authors used the theory of planned behavior, which evaluates attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, purchase intention, and four other constructs: environmental concern, environmental knowledge, willingness to pay, and trust.
Analysis of the main components presented the highest explained variance among the statistical techniques, and, in addition, cluster analysis was carried out. Among the academic contributions is the study of products with sustainable packaging. Even so, the traditional theory of planned behavior was considered within constructs related to environmental concern, environmental knowledge, willingness to pay, and trust, and focused on the intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging. Finally, the application of scales validated in other countries were considered in the Brazilian context.
Participants in this study paid attention to environmental concerns and showed a demand for political and societal change, reflecting the convergence between individual attitudes and collective aspirations. Confidence in the information disclosed by companies about the environmental performance of products is strongly linked to personal experiences, influencing the addition of this information to consumers. When consumers understand the environmental benefits of products, their willingness to purchase them increases significantly. These results echo previous research, reinforcing the relevance of environmental awareness and the need for societal and political transformation.
Through the responses of factors obtained in the analysis of the main components, a hierarchical cluster analysis was carried out, in which three groupings with defined characteristics were estimated. The first cluster identified showed drops in components, which highlights a lesser influence of variables associated with the intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging; price predominates in the purchasing decision, and additional information or guarantees are required. In the second cluster, the environmental awareness among young people was highlighted, with attitudes aligned with environmental concerns. The third and most numerous cluster demonstrates social influences on purchase intentions, in addition to greater control over consumption.
This study made important contributions at the managerial level, revealing the connection between individual attitudes, collective concerns, and purchasing behavior relating to products with sustainable packaging. Consumers’ trust in the environmental information disclosed by companies plays an important role in the purchasing decision, along with understanding the environmental benefits of products, impacting consumers’ willingness to purchase these products. These findings offer valuable managerial insights for marketers. By understanding the influence of environmental awareness, trust in information, and understanding environmental benefits on purchase intention, companies can adapt their communication messages and sales strategies to increase the accessibility and demand for sustainable products, providing competitive advantages in the market and superior performance for their companies.
Still, a survey includes different groups of consumers based on their attitudes toward products with sustainable packaging. This segmentation provides managers with an understanding of different consumer profiles, allowing the personalization of marketing strategies and decisions about pricing and the information provided. These findings offer opportunities to improve communication and the offering of sustainable products adapting to the specific needs and motivations of each consumer segment. This allows for a more precise and targeted approach, increasing the probability of purchase and the competitiveness of companies seeking to meet the demand for sustainable products.
As a suggestion for future research, the authors first recommend continuing this study by carrying out structural equation modeling. The sample used in this research can also be expanded and applied to other contexts. Other green products can be considered, to check whether their consumer behavior is similar to that of products with sustainable packaging. Likewise, research can generate subsidies for public policies in favor of sustainable factors, mainly considering the environmental pillar.
It is essential to acknowledge the limitations inherent in this study, particularly the use of an online form as the data collection tool. This choice may have posed a constraint on the research’s inclusivity in terms of age and education. Notably, our findings revealed a scarcity of participants with lower educational attainment and aged over 55 years. The challenges in reaching a more extensive number of individuals with this specific profile could be attributed to potential difficulties in comprehending and navigating both the questionnaire and the selected data collection tool. Furthermore, another limitation stems from the fact that 80% of the sample represents residents from the southern region of the country. This regional skewness may impact the generalizability of the findings, as it might not fully capture the diversity inherent in the broader population.
Another suggestion is a comparative study of conventional products and green products, assigning monetary values to the products, seeking to understand in depth the relationship between willingness to pay and purchase intention. Or, investigating price requirements; that is, how much extra the consumer would be willing to pay for products with sustainable packaging. Situations of the breaching and recovery of trust can be simulated to better understand the influence of greenwashing on the intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging. The contribution that stands out is the better understanding of the intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging, or, more broadly, green products in general, and its impact on studies of sustainable consumption and green marketing.
Conceptualization, A.C.P. and G.d.V.M.; Data curation, A.C.P., A.N. and E.G.A.; Formal analysis, A.C.P. and E.G.A.; Funding acquisition, A.N. and G.d.V.M.; Investigation, A.C.P., T.P., C.D.R. and C.P.S.; Methodology, A.C.P. and G.d.V.M.; Project administration, G.d.V.M.; Resources, L.D.M., A.N. and G.d.V.M.; Software, A.C.P.; Supervision, G.d.V.M.; Validation, C.P.S. and G.d.V.M.; Visualization, B.W.B., L.D.M., A.N., C.P.S. and J.P.; Writing—original draft, A.C.P. and G.d.V.M.; Writing—review and editing, A.C.P., B.W.B., L.D.M., A.N. and G.d.V.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable. This study did not involve any harm to humans or animals. Data collection was anonymous.
Not applicable.
Data is contained within the article.
The authors are grateful to the Markets, Innovation and Sustainability Research Group and the Center for Studies and Research on Urban Mobility, both from the Atitus Educação, Brazil; the Fundação Meridional, Brazil; the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil; and the Atlantic International Research Centre (Air Centre), Portugal.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Constructs and measurement items.
| Constructs and Measurement Items (Abbreviations) | References |
|---|---|
| Attitude towards the purchase of products with sustainable packaging (AT) | [ |
| Subjective norm (SN) | [ |
| Perceived behavioral control (PBC) | [ |
| Environmental concern (EC) | [ |
| Environmental knowledge (EK) | [ |
| Willingness to pay (WP) | [ |
| Confidence (CF) | [ |
| Intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging (IP) | [ |
Source: prepared by authors (2023).
Sociodemographic characterization of sample.
| Characteristic | Frequency of Respondents | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 153 | 30.1 |
| Female | 356 | 69.9 |
| Age group | ||
| 18 to 24 years | 46 | 9.0 |
| 25 to 34 years | 167 | 32.8 |
| 35 to 44 years | 171 | 33.6 |
| 45 to 54 years | 76 | 14.9 |
| 55 to 64 years | 40 | 7.9 |
| 65 years or older | 9 | 1.8 |
| Marital status | ||
| Single | 170 | 33.4 |
| Married | 272 | 53.4 |
| Separated | 29 | 5.7 |
| Another situation | 38 | 7.5 |
| Number of people residing in household | ||
| 1 person | 68 | 13.4 |
| 2 to 3 people | 316 | 62.1 |
| 4 to 5 people | 117 | 23.0 |
| >5 people | 8 | 1.6 |
| Region of the country (Brazil) in which you reside | ||
| South | 407 | 80.0 |
| Southeast | 57 | 11.2 |
| Midwest | 14 | 2.8 |
| North | 10 | 2.0 |
| Northeast | 21 | 4.1 |
| Work situation | ||
| Non-working student | 36 | 7.1 |
| Unemployed | 11 | 2.2 |
| Full-time employee (two shifts) | 295 | 58.0 |
| Part-time employee (one shift) | 40 | 7.9 |
| Self-employed | 73 | 14.3 |
| Another situation | 54 | 10.6 |
| Monthly income (individual) | ||
| I don’t have an income | 42 | 8.3 |
| <BRL 2824.00 | 82 | 16.1 |
| BRL 2824.00 to BRL 5648.00 | 140 | 27.5 |
| BRL 5648.00 to BRL 14,120.00 | 180 | 35.4 |
| BRL 14,120.00 to BRL 28,240.00 | 52 | 10.2 |
| >BRL 28,240.00 | 13 | 2.6 |
| Monthly income (family) | ||
| <BRL 2824.00 | 27 | 5.3 |
| BRL 2824.00 to BRL 5648.00 | 109 | 21.4 |
| BRL 5648.00 to BRL 14,120.00 | 235 | 46.2 |
| BRL 14,120.00 to BRL 28,240.00 | 105 | 20.6 |
| >BRL 28,240.00 | 33 | 6.5 |
| Highest level of education completed | ||
| Elementary School | 13 | 2.6 |
| High school | 50 | 9.8 |
| Some college (no degree) | 148 | 29.1 |
| Specialization (lato sensu) or MBA | 138 | 27.1 |
| Master’s degree | 115 | 22.6 |
| Doctoral degree | 45 | 8.8 |
| Influence on opinion about sustainability | ||
| Educational institution where I study | 41 | 8.1 |
| My workplace | 54 | 10.6 |
| My family’s stance | 94 | 18.5 |
| The posture of my friends | 24 | 4.7 |
| Companies in general | 23 | 4.5 |
| The press in general | 103 | 20.2 |
| The government’s stance | 12 | 2.4 |
| The action of non-governmental organizations | 71 | 13.9 |
| Other | 87 | 17.1 |
Source: prepared by authors (2023).
Characterization of the respondents’ professional area (n = 509).
| Area of Professional Activity | Frequency of Respondents | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Administration, business, and services | 213 | 41.8 |
| Retired, housewife, student, and unemployed | 26 | 5.1 |
| Arts and design | 20 | 3.9 |
| Sciences and informatics | 8 | 1.6 |
| Social sciences and humanities | 14 | 2.8 |
| Communication and information | 7 | 1.4 |
| Education | 96 | 18.9 |
| Engineering and production | 49 | 9.6 |
| Environment and agricultural sciences | 26 | 5.1 |
| Health and wellness | 50 | 9.8 |
| Total | 509 | 100 |
Source: prepared by authors (2023).
Descriptive statistics and measurement items.
| Constructs/Measurement Items | Mean | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|
| Attitude towards the purchase of products with sustainable packaging (AT) | 4.32 | 0.76 |
| AT1. I believe that buying products with sustainable packaging is favorable. | 4.42 | 0.75 |
| AT2. I believe that buying products with sustainable packaging is a good idea. | 4.43 | 0.70 |
| AT3. I believe that buying products with sustainable packaging is safe. | 4.11 | 0.84 |
| Subjective norm (SN) | 3.37 | 0.98 |
| SN1. My family believes I should buy products with sustainable packaging. | 3.36 | 1.02 |
| SN2. My closest friends believe I should buy products with sustainable packaging. | 3.38 | 0.96 |
| SN3. Most people who are important to me believe that I should buy products with sustainable packaging. | 3.36 | 0.96 |
| Perceived behavioral control (PBC) | 3.56 | 1.06 |
| PBC1. I am confident that I can buy products with sustainable packaging whenever I want. | 3.49 | 1.15 |
| PBC12. I see myself prepared to buy products with sustainable packaging in the future. | 4.13 | 0.89 |
| PBC13. I have the resources, time and availability to buy products with sustainable packaging. | 3.33 | 1.01 |
| PBC14. I probably have a lot of chances to buy products with sustainable packaging. | 3.47 | 1.03 |
| PBC15. The decision to buy products with sustainable packaging is entirely up to me. | 3.37 | 1.24 |
| Environmental concern (EC) | 4.40 | 0.78 |
| EC1. I am very concerned about the situation of the environment. | 4.41 | 0.70 |
| EC2. I am willing to reduce my consumption to help protect the environment. | 4.21 | 0.82 |
| EC3. Major social changes are needed to protect the environment. | 4.46 | 0.79 |
| EC4. Major policy changes are needed to protect the environment. | 4.50 | 0.79 |
| Environmental knowledge (EK) | 3.08 | 0.97 |
| EK1. I know I buy products with environmentally safe packaging. | 2.86 | 1.02 |
| EK2. I know more about recycling than other people. | 3.03 | 0.93 |
| EK3. I have a lot of knowledge about environmental issues. | 3.08 | 0.94 |
| EK4. I understand phrases and symbols related to environmental issues on product packaging. | 3.18 | 0.99 |
| EK5. I am confident that I know how to select products with packaging that reduces the amount of waste discarded. | 3.26 | 0.99 |
| Willingness to pay (WP) | 3.31 | 1.01 |
| WP1. I pay more for products packaged in an environmentally friendly way | 3.23 | 1.03 |
| WP2. I feel proud to have products packaged in an environmentally friendly way in my home, even though they are more expensive than other products | 3.29 | 0.97 |
| WP3. I would be willing to pay more for products that are less environmentally destructive | 3.42 | 1.03 |
| Confidence (CF) | 2.91 | 0.85 |
| CF1. How confident are you that when you buy a product with packaging labeled as environmentally friendly, it will cause less harm to the environment than other products? | 3.09 | 0.92 |
| CF2. How much do you trust information from producers about the environmental performance of their own products? | 2.73 | 0.78 |
| Intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging (IP) | 3.78 | 0.82 |
| IP1. I intend to buy products with sustainable packaging next time due to their positive environmental contribution. | 3.71 | 0.82 |
| IP2. I intend to buy more products with sustainable packaging than with conventional packaging. | 3.83 | 0.81 |
| IP3. I will consider substituting my purchases for eco-friendly brands for ecological reasons | 3.79 | 0.82 |
Source: prepared by authors (2023).
Factor loadings from principal component analysis and commonalities.
| Variables | Components | Commonalities | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||
| Q23_WP3 | 0.780 | 0.794 | ||||||
| Q24_IP1 | 0.767 | 0.839 | ||||||
| Q21_WP1 | 0.767 | 0.611 | ||||||
| Q25_IP2 | 0.756 | 0.768 | ||||||
| Q26_IP3 | 0.752 | 0.789 | ||||||
| Q22_WP2 | 0.679 | 0.846 | ||||||
| Q13_EC2 | 0.464 | 0.457 | 0.544 | |||||
| Q2_AT2 | 0.888 | 0.535 | ||||||
| Q1_AT1 | 0.855 | 0.573 | ||||||
| Q3_AT3 | 0.683 | 0.536 | ||||||
| Q8_PBC2 | 0.595 | 0.577 | ||||||
| Q18_EK3 | 0.827 | 0.543 | ||||||
| Q19_EK4 | 0.813 | 0.552 | ||||||
| Q20_EK5 | 0.770 | 0.770 | ||||||
| Q17_EK2 | 0.700 | 0.740 | ||||||
| Q11_PBC5 | 0.738 | 0.536 | ||||||
| Q7_PBC1 | 0.715 | 0.582 | ||||||
| Q10_PBC4 | 0.688 | 0.730 | ||||||
| Q9_PBC3 | 0.635 | 0.699 | ||||||
| Q16_EK1 | 0.606 | 0.666 | ||||||
| Q6_SN3 | 0.885 | 0.666 | ||||||
| Q5_SN2 | 0.836 | 0.578 | ||||||
| Q4_SN1 | 0.817 | 0.646 | ||||||
| Q14_EC3 | 0.870 | 0.689 | ||||||
| Q15_EC4 | 0.841 | 0.675 | ||||||
| Q12_EC1 | 0.437 | 0.503 | 0.643 | |||||
| Q28_CF2 | 0.852 | 0.826 | ||||||
| Q27_CF1 | 0.822 | 0.832 | ||||||
| Cronbach’s alpha | 0.878 | 0.816 | 0.825 | 0.756 | 0.876 | 0.728 | 0.806 | - |
| Eigenvalues | 7.72 | 2.59 | 2.39 | 1.98 | 1.56 | 1.33 | 1.17 | - |
| Explained variance (%) | 27.58 | 9.25 | 8.56 | 7.10 | 5.60 | 4.77 | 4.18 | - |
| Accumulated variance (%) | 27.58 | 36.83 | 45.39 | 52.49 | 58.09 | 62.86 | 67.04 | - |
Source: prepared by authors (2023).
Final cluster centers (K-means method).
| Clusters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster 1 (n = 82) | Cluster 2 (n = 162) | Cluster 3 (n = 265) | |
| Component (1) | −0.33643 | 0.23669 | −0.04059 |
| Component (2) | 0.08095 | 0.59657 | −0.38975 |
| Component (3) | −0.08847 | 0.20338 | −0.09696 |
| Component (4) | −0.21742 | −0.24240 | 0.21546 |
| Component (5) | 0.07240 | −0.80665 | 0.47072 |
| Component (6) | −1.63425 | 0.33879 | 0.29858 |
| Component (7) | −0.18633 | 0.26866 | −0.10658 |
Source: prepared by the authors (2023).
Cluster’s sociodemographic characteristics.
| Variable | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male: 41.5% | Male: 25.3% | Male: 29.4% |
| Female: 58.5% | Female: 74.7% | Female: 70.6% | |
| Age | 18–24 years: 6.1% | 18–24 years: 14.8% | 18–24 years: 8.7% |
| 25–34 years: 25.6% | 25–34 years: 39.5% | 25–34 years: 29.8% | |
| 35–44 years: 42.7% | 35–44 years: 35.2% | 35–44 years: 29.1% | |
| 45–54 years: 13.4% | 45–54 years: 6.2% | 45–54 years: 20.4% | |
| 55–64 years: 11.0% | 55–64 years: 4.3% | 55–64 years: 9.1% | |
| >65 years: 1.2% | >65 years: 0.0% | >65 years: 3.0% | |
| Marital status | Single: 26.8% | Single: 48.1% | Single: 26.4% |
| Married: 62.2% | Married: 40.1% | Married: 58.9% | |
| Divorced: 4.9% | Divorced: 4.3% | Divorced: 6.8% | |
| Other: 6.1% | Other: 7.4% | Other: 7.9% | |
| Number of people living in the house | 1 person: 9.8% | 1 person: 16.7% | 1 person: 12.5% |
| 2 to 3 persons: 67.1% | 2 to 3 persons: 61.1% | 2 to 3 persons: 61.1% | |
| 4 to 5 persons: 20.7% | 4 to 5 persons: 21.0% | 4 to 5 persons: 24.9% | |
| >5 persons: 2.4% | >5 persons: 1.2% | >5 persons: 1.5% | |
| Family monthly income | <BRL 2824.00¹: 1.2% | >BRL 28,240.00: 4.9% | >BRL 28,240.00: 6.8% |
| BRL 2824.00 to BRL 5648.00: 15.9% | BRL 2824.00 to BRL 5648.00: 22.8% | BRL 2824.00 to BRL 5648.00: 22.3% | |
| BRL 5648.00 to BRL 14,120.00: 50.0% | BRL 5648.00 to BRL 14,120.00: 48.8% | BRL 5648.00 to BRL 14,120.00: 43.4% | |
| BRL 14,120.00 to BRL 28,240.00: 18.3% | BRL 14,120.00 to BRL 28,240.00: 19.8% | BRL 14,120.00 to BRL 28,240.00: 21.9% | |
| >BRL 28,240.00: 14.6% | >BRL 28,240.00: 3.7% | >BRL 28,240.00: 5.7% | |
| Education level | Elementary school: 0.0% | Elementary school: 1.9% | Elementary school: 3.8% |
| High school: 6.1% | High school: 6.2% | High school: 13.2% | |
| Some college: 18.3% | Some college: 32.1% | Some college: 30.6% | |
| Lato sensu or MBA: 37.8% | Lato sensu or MBA: 24.7% | Lato sensu or MBA: 25.3% | |
| Master’s degree: 28.0% | Master’s degree: 26.5% | Master’s degree: 18.5% | |
| PhD degree: 9.8% | PhD degree: 8.6% | PhD degree: 8.7% |
Source: prepared by authors (2023). Note: 1 The monthly minimum wage (MW) in Brazil (BRL 1412) corresponds to USD 202.50 (2020).
References
1. United Nations—U.N. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Declaration. 2015, pp. 1–49. Available online: https://nacoesunidas.org/pos2015/agenda2030 (accessed on 10 January 2024).
2. Silva, M.E.; Balbino, D.P.; Gómez, C.P. Sustainable Consumption at the base of the pyramid: Defining roles and obligations for the realization of sustainable development. J. Environ. Manag.; 2011; 5, pp. 18-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v5i2.312]
3. White, K.; Habib, R.; Hardisty, D.J. How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to be More Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework. J. Mark.; 2019; 83, pp. 22-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649]
4. Koenig-Lewis, N.; Palmer, A.; Dermody, J.; Urbye, A. Consumers’ evaluations of ecological packaging—Rational and emotional approaches. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2014; 37, pp. 94-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.009]
5. Moslehpour, M.; Chaiyapruk, P.; Faez, S.; Wong, W.-K. Generation Y’s Sustainable Purchasing Intention of Green Personal Care Products. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 13385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132313385]
6. Global Footprint Network. Earth Overshoot. 2021; Available online: https://www.overshootday.org/ (accessed on 10 January 2024).
7. United Nations Brazil. World Will Have 2 Billion More People by 2050, Indicates UN. 2019; Available online: https://brasil.un.org/pt-br/83427-populacao-mundial-deve-chegar-97-bilhoes-de-pessoas-em-2050-diz-relatorio-da-onu (accessed on 10 January 2024).
8. United Nations Brazil. World Bank: 3 Planets Will Be Needed to Maintain Humanity’s Current Lifestyle. 2016; Available online: https://nacoesunidas.org/banco-mundial-serao-necessarios-3-planetas-para-manter-atual-estilo-de-vida-da-humanidade/ (accessed on 10 January 2024).
9. Liobikiene, G.; Mandravickaite, J.; Bernatoniene, J. Theory of planned behavior approach to understand the green purchasing behavior in the EU: A cross-cultural study. Ecol. Econ.; 2016; 125, pp. 38-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.008]
10. Blair, I. Greener products. Greener Marketing: A Responsible Approach to Business; Routledge: London, UK, 1992.
11. Bedante, G.N. The Influence of Environmental Awareness and Attitudes towards Sustainable Consumption on the Purchase Intention of Ecologically Packaged Products. Master’s Thesis; in Business Administration Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2004; Available online: https://lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/3904 (accessed on 10 January 2024).
12. Schwepker, C.H.; Cornwell, T.B. An Examination of Ecologically Concerned Consumers and Their Intention to Purchase Ecologically Packaged Products. J. Public Policy Mark.; 1991; 10, pp. 77-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074391569101000205]
13. Arli, D.; Tan, L.P.; Tjiptono, F.; Yang, L. Exploring consumers’ purchase intention towards green products in an emerging market: The role of consumers’ perceived readiness. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2018; 42, pp. 389-401. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12432]
14. Maichum, K.; Parichatnon, S.; Peng, K.C. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior model to investigate purchase intention of green products among Thai consumers. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 1077. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8101077]
15. Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2016; 29, pp. 123-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.11.006]
16. Prakash, G.; Pathak, P. Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among young consumers of India: A study on developing nation. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 141, pp. 385-393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.116]
17. Vazifehdoust, H.; Taleghani, M.; Esmaeilpour, F.; Nazari, K.; Khadang, M. Purchasing green to become greener: Factors influence consumers’ green purchasing behavior. Manag. Sci. Lett.; 2013; 3, pp. 2489-2500. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2013.08.013]
18. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Shaping the Future We Want. UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014). Final Report; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2014; 240p.
19. Jaiswal, D.; Kant, R. Green purchasing behaviour: A conceptual framework and empirical investigation of Indian consumers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2018; 41, pp. 60-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.008]
20. Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Young consumers’ intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: Extending the theory of planned behavior. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 135, pp. 732-739. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.120]
21. Oliveira-Brochado, F.; Oliveira-Brochado, A.; Caldeira, T. The psychological determinants of the green consumer. Tour. Manag. Stud.; 2015; 11, pp. 104-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18089/tms.2015.11213]
22. Yarimoglu, E.; Binboga, G. Understanding sustainable consumption in an emerging country: The antecedents and consequences of the ecologically conscious consumer behavior model. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2018; 28, pp. 642-651. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2270]
23. Chen, T.; Chai, L. Attitude towards the environment and green products: Consumers’ perspective. Management Science and Engineering.; 2010; 4, pp. 27-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3968/J.MSE.1913035X20100402.002]
24. Lambin, J.J. Marketin Estratégico; 4th ed. Mc Graw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2000; 180p.
25. Ali, F.; Ashfaq, M.; Begum, S.; Ali, A. How “Green” thinking and altruism translate into purchasing intentions for electronics products: The intrinsic-extrinsic motivation mechanism. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2020; 24, pp. 281-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.013]
26. Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Action Control; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2]
27. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.; 1991; 50, pp. 179-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T]
28. Ajzen, I. Attitudes, Personality and Behavior; 2nd ed. Open University Press: Maidenhead, UK, 2005; 255p.
29. Nuttavuthisit, K.; Thøgersen, J. The Importance of Consumer Trust for the Emergence of a Market for Green Products: The Case of Organic Food. J. Bus. Ethics; 2017; 140, pp. 323-337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2690-5]
30. Bautista, R.; Dui, R.; Jeong, L.S.; Paredes, M.P. Does altruism affect purchase intent of green products? A moderated mediation analysis. Asia-Pac. Soc. Sci. Rev.; 2020; 20, pp. 159-170.
31. Panda, T.K.; Kumar, A.; Jakhar, S.; Luthra, S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kazancoglu, I.; Nayak, S.S. Social and environmental sustainability model on consumers’ altruism, green purchase intention, green brand loyalty and evangelism. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 243, 118575. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118575]
32. Conner, M.; Armitage, C.J. Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: A review and avenues for further research. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.; 1998; 28, pp. 1429-1464. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x]
33. Fazio, R.H. Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Soc. Cogn.; 2007; 25, pp. 603-637. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.603] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19424447]
34. Crosno, J.L.; Freling, T.H.; Skinner, S.J. Does Brand Social Power Mean Market Might? Exploring the Influence of Brand Social Power on Brand. Psychol. Mark.; 2009; 26, pp. 91-121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20263]
35. Rashid, N.R.N.A. Awareness of Eco-label in Malaysia’s Green Marketing Initiative. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Sci.; 2009; 4, pp. 132-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v4n8p132]
36. Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-Analytic Review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol.; 2001; 40, pp. 471-499. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11795063]
37. Martins, E.C.B.; Serralvo, F.A.; João, B.D.N. Theory of Planned Behavior: An Application in the Higher Education Market. Gest. Regi.; 2014; 30, pp. 107-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13037/gr.vol30n88.2292]
38. Auliandri, T.A.; Thoyib, A.; Rohman, F.; Rofiq, A. Does green packaging matter as a business strategy? Exploring young consumers’ consumption in an emerging market. Probl. Perspect. Manag.; 2018; 16, pp. 376-384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.16(2).2018.34]
39. Dunlap, R.E.; Jones, R.E. Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues. Handbook of Environmental Sociology; Dunlap, R.E.; Michelson, W. Greenwood Press: London, UK, 2002; pp. 482-524.
40. Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behaviour and Future Research Directions. Int. Strateg. Manag. Rev.; 2015; 3, pp. 128-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ism.2015.04.001]
41. Magnier, L.; Schoormans, J. Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2015; 44, pp. 53-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.09.005]
42. Braga Junior, S.S.; Silva, D.d. Consumption of green products in retail: Purchase intention versus declared purchase. Agrifood; 2014; 20, pp. 155-170.
43. Kumar, A.; Prakash, G.; Kumar, G. Does environmentally responsible purchase intention matter for consumers? A predictive sustainable model developed through an empirical study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2021; 58, 102270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102270]
44. Chen, M.F.; Tung, P.J. Developing an extended Theory of Planned Behavior model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2014; 36, pp. 221-230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.006]
45. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research. Psychol. Bull.; 1977; 84, pp. 894-896. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888]
46. Limbu, Y.B.; Wolf, M.; Lunsford, D. Perceived ethics of online retailers and consumer behavioral intentions: The mediating roles of trust and attitude. J. Res. Interact. Mark.; 2012; 6, pp. 133-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17505931211265435]
47. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Theory-based behavior change interventions: Comments on Hobbis and Sutton. J. Health Psychol.; 2005; 10, pp. 27-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105305048552] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15576497]
48. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitudes and the attitude–behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol.; 2000; 11, pp. 1-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000116]
49. Bamberg, S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2003; 23, pp. 21-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00078-6]
50. Fryxell, G.E.; Lo, C.W.H. The Influence of Environmental Knowledge and Values on Managerial Behaviours on Behalf of the Environment: An Empirical Examination of Managers in China. J. Bus. Ethics; 2003; 46, pp. 45-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024773012398]
51. Mahesh, D.N. Influence of Consumers’ Socio-Economic Characteristics and Attitude on Purchase Intention of Green Products. IOSR; 2012; 4, pp. 33-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9790/487X-0453337]
52. Rousseau, D.M.; Sitkin, S.B.; Burt, R.S.; Camerer, C. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev.; 1998; 23, pp. 393-404. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617]
53. Moorman, C.; Zaltman, G.; Deshpande, R. Relationships between Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust within and between Organizations. J. Mark. Res.; 1992; 29, pp. 314-328. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224379202900303]
54. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. Greenwash and Green Trust: The Mediation Effects of Green Consumer Confusion and Green Perceived Risk. J. Bus. Ethics; 2012; 114, pp. 489-500. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0]
55. Harris, L.C.; Goode, M.M.H. Online servicescapes, trust, and purchase intentions. J. Serv. Mark.; 2010; 24, pp. 230-243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041011040631]
56. Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol. Econ.; 2008; 64, pp. 542-553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.007]
57. Teng, C.; Wang, Y. Decisional factors driving organic food consumption Generation of consumer purchase intentions. Br. Food J.; 2015; 117, pp. 1066-1081. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2013-0361]
58. Veloso, M.; Pereira, M.; Godinho, L.; Amado-Mendes, P.; Redondo, J. Insertion loss prediction of sonic crystal noise barriers covered by porous concrete using the Method of Fundamental Solutions. Appl. Acoust.; 2023; 211, 109543. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2023.109543]
59. Brislin, R.W. Back Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol.; 1970; 1, pp. 185-216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301]
60. Douglas, S.P.; Craig, C.S. Collaborative and Iterative Translation: An Alternative Approach to Instrument Translation. J. Int. Mark.; 2007; 15, pp. 30-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jimk.15.1.030]
61. Chan, R.Y.K. Determinants of Chinese Consumers’ Green Purchase Behavior. Psychol. Mark.; 2001; 18, pp. 389-413. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.1013]
62. Moro, L.D.; Maculan, L.S.; Pivoto, D.; Cardoso, G.T.; Pinto, D.; Adelodun, B.; Bodah, B.W.; Santosh, M.; Bortoluzzi, M.G.; Branco, E. et al. Geospatial Analysis with Landsat Series and Sentinel-3B OLCI Satellites to Assess Changes in Land Use and Water Quality over Time in Brazil. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 9733. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14159733]
63. Moro, L.D.; Pauli, J.; Maculan, L.S.; Neckel, A.; Pivoto, D.; Laimer, C.G.; Bodah, E.T.; Bodah, B.W.; Dornelles, V.D.C. Sustainability in agribusiness: Analysis of environmental changes in agricultural production using spatial geotechnologies. Environ. Dev.; 2023; 45, 100807. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100807]
64. Keller, M.; Sahakian, M.; Hirt, L.F. Connecting the multi-level-perspective and social practice approach for sustainable transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.; 2022; 44, pp. 14-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.05.004]
65. Pretner, G.; Darnall, N.; Testa, F.; Iraldo, F. Are consumers willing to pay for circular products? The role of recycled and second-hand attributes, messaging, and third-party certification. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2021; 175, 105888. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105888]
66. Aravindhan, C.; Santhoshkumar, R.; Bonny, K.; Vidhya, K.; Manishankar, S.; Dhamodharam, P. Delay analysis in construction project using Primavera & SPSS. Mater. Today Proc.; 2023; 80, pp. 3171-3177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.07.186]
67. Broen, M.P.G.; Moonen, A.J.; Kuijf, M.L.; Dujardin, K.; Marsh, L.; Richard, I.H.; Starkstein, S.E.; Martínez-Martín, P.; Leentjens, A.F. Factor analysis of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in Parkinson’s disease. Park. Relat. Disord.; 2015; 21, pp. 142-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.11.016] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25523963]
68. Berkenkemper, S.; Klinken, S.; Kleinebudde, P. Multivariate data analysis to evaluate commonly used compression descriptors. Int. J. Pharm.; 2023; 637, 122890. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2023.122890] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36990170]
69. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Bao, J. Scale theory and tourism destination development: Towards a new theoretical tool. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.; 2023; 55, pp. 40-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.02.013]
70. Li, G.; Li, W.; Jin, Z.; Wang, Z. Influence of environmental concern and knowledge on households’ willingness to purchase energy-efficient appliances: A case study in Shanxi, China. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 1073. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11041073]
71. Nguyen, A.T.; Yến-Khanh, N.; Thuan, N.H. Consumers’ purchase intention and willingness to pay for eco-friendly packaging in Vietnam. Sustainable Packaging; Muthu, S.S. Environmental Footprints and Eco-Design of Products and Processes Springer: Singapore, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4609-6_11]
72. Kim, Y.; Yun, S.; Lee, J. Can companies induce sustainable consumption? The impact of knowledge and social embeddedness on airline sustainability programs in the U.S. Sustainability; 2014; 6, pp. 3338-3356. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6063338]
73. Richter, B. Knowledge and perception of food waste among German consumers. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 166, pp. 641-648. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.009]
74. Neckel, A.; Oliveira, M.L.; Maculan, L.S.; Adelodun, B.; Toscan, P.C.; Bodah, B.W.; Moro, L.D.; Silva, L. Terrestrial nanoparticle contaminants and geospatial optics using the Sentinel-3B OLCI satellite in the Tinto River estuary region of the Iberian Peninsula. Mar. Pollut. Bull.; 2023; 187, 114525. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114525] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36580843]
75. Hyland, J.J.; Jones, D.L.; Parkhill, K.A.; Barnes, A.P.; Williams, A.P. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change: Identifying types. Agric. Hum. Values; 2016; 33, pp. 323-339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9608-9]
76. Govindasamy, R.; Italia, J. Predicting willingness-to-pay a premium for organically grown fresh produce. J. Ext.; 1999; 30, pp. 44-53. Available online: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/27385/1/30020044.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2024).
77. Kucher, A.; Hełdak, M.; Kucher, L.; Raszka, B. Factors forming the consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium for ecological goods in Ukraine. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 859. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050859] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30857268]
78. Wei, S.; Ang, T.; Jancenelle, V.E. Willingness to pay more for green products: The interplay of consumer characteristics and customer participation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2018; 45, pp. 230-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.08.015]
79. Orzan, G.; Cruceru, A.F.; Bălăceanu, C.T.; Chivu, R.G. Comportamento dos consumidores em relação a embalagens sustentáveis: Um estudo exploratório sobre consumidores romenos. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 1787. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10061787]
80. Parashar, S.; Singh, S.; Sood, G. Examining the role of health consciousness, environmental awareness and intention on purchase of organic food: A moderated model of attitude. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 386, 135553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135553]
81. Scalco, A.; Noventa, S.; Sartori, R.; Ceschi, A. Predicting organic food consumption: A meta-analytic structural equation model based on the theory of planned behavior. Appetite; 2017; 112, pp. 235-248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.007]
82. Cecconello, E.R.F.; Moro, L.D.; Foguesatto, C.R.; Breitenbach, R.; Neckel, A.; Spanhol, C.P.; Filho, J.E.R.V.; Mores, G.de.V. Challenges and Potentialities of Sustainability in the Institutional Food Market of family farming. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 15796. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su152215796]
83. Ketelsen, M.; Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ response to environmentally-friendly food packaging—A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 25, 120123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120123]
84. Roy, S.; Rautela, R.; Kumar, S. Towards a sustainable future: Nexus between the sustainable development goals and waste management in the built environment. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 415, 137865. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137865]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Pelegrini, Tatiane 1 ; Bodah, Brian William 2 ; Rotini, Carlos Daniel 1
; Leila Dal Moro 1 ; Neckel, Alcindo 1
; Caroline Pauletto Spanhol 3 ; Elton Gean Araújo 3 ; Jandir Pauli 1 ; Giana de Vargas Mores 1
1 Atitus Educação, Passo Fundo 99070-220, Brazil;
2 Thaines and Bodah Center for Education and Development, Othello, WA 99344, USA;
3 Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande 79074-460, Brazil;