The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Purchase Intention toward Environmentally Friendly Sneakers

Abstract

In recent years, climate change and global warming have been exacerbated by human over-development, and consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of environmental protection. Therefore, many companies are now implementing green production approaches, taking environmental protection as an integral aspect of corporate social responsibility (CSR). This study aims to explore the influence of green perceived value (GPV), CSR, and consumer conformity on consumer purchase intention toward environmentally friendly Nike sneakers. The data were collected by employing an online survey of 18–24-year-old Taiwanese consumers. A total of 660 consumers were randomly selected and 480 valid responses were acquired. The data were analyzed using SPSS25.0 (IBM Corp, New York, NY, USA).and a partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) is used to test the hypotheses. The results of the study are as follows: (1) GPV and brand image had a significant effect on consumers’ attitude toward purchasing environmentally friendly sneakers; (2) GPV and CSR had a significant effect on brand image; (3) the attitude toward purchasing environmentally friendly sneakers had a significant effect on consumers’ purchase intention; (4) CSR and consumer conformity had no significant effect on consumers’ attitude toward purchasing environmentally friendly sneakers; (5) brand image had no significant effect on consumers’ purchase intention; (6) consumers’ environmental awareness had no significant moderating relationship between their attitude toward purchasing environmentally friendly sneakers and consumer purchase intention. The research results suggest that Nike can hold events to recycle old shoes, so that consumers can directly participate in advancing green initiatives and understand all the efforts the company has made for society. Moreover, through news media coverage of such events, the company’s intentions to promote its CSR commitment can be more fully understood by people, while simultaneously publicizing its CSR performance.

1. Introduction

In recent years, global climate change has stimulated environmental awareness, gradually changing consumers’ purchase decisions [1,2]. Consumers no longer choose products based solely on price and brand loyalty, but also seek products that match their values from environmental, ethical, and social perspectives, to outwardly express their preferences for sustainable products [3]. In response to the catastrophic environmental pollution caused by global industrial manufacturing activities, many private companies have become more environmentally friendly. An increasing number of enterprises are taking environmental protection as a core matter of social responsibility [4] to maintain or even enhance their brand image [5]. Some companies consider corporate social responsibility (CSR) to be a strategy for developing a competitive advantage [6].

The footwear industry is one of the major industries in the world, and the pollution emitted in production processes can be a substantial burden on the environment. The carbon footprint in the life cycle of a pair of sneakers is estimated at 14 ± 2.7 kg [7]. According to Statista [8] international data, global footwear production totaled 20.5 billion new pairs of shoes in 2020. If the pollution is not properly managed and alleviated, the footwear industry will inevitably continue to have a negative impact on the environment. Among the world’s top 100 most valuable brands listed by the global brand consultancy Interbrand in 2021 [9], Nike ranked 11th and was the only sports brand among the world’s top 20. In recent years, Nike has committed to sustainable product innovation, investing heavily in the research and development of sustainable materials. As a result, it is regarded as one of the most sustainable companies in the world [10,11]. It is clear that Nike not only supports athletes, but also shows determination to protect the environment as corporate responsibility and to fulfill CSR in a pragmatic manner.

Previous studies have found that people’s consumption behavior is often influenced by different social relations, such as family, friends, neighbors, and peers [12]. To conform to social expectations or align with trends, people may choose to buy the same type or brand of goods to demonstrate that they fit into the group. Researchers have called the phenomenon of individuals conforming to group norms, being easily influenced by a group, and changing their consumption behavior in reference to the group as consumer conformity [13,14].

With expanding environmental awareness, those with high environmental awareness usually pay more attention to environmental protection and strive to implement environmentally friendly behaviors in their daily lives. In contrast, those with lower environmental awareness may be less active in environmental protection actions [15]. Sharma and Foropon [16] indicates that although traditional product attributes of price, quality, and brand remain the primary factors influencing sustainable purchase decisions, consumers with environmental awareness are more likely to purchase green products.

In summary, this study focuses on consumers’ behavior regarding environmentally friendly sneakers, while investigating whether individuals’ level of environmental awareness interacts with consumer purchase intention toward environmentally friendly sneakers. There has been limited research on the relationship between green perceived value (GPV), brand image, and consumer attitude [17,18,19,20]. Most studies have focused on the direct relationship between conformity and behavioral intention or the factors that lead to conformity, but have seldom examined the influence of conformity on attitude [21,22,23]. Considering the growing trends in sustainable fashion and sustainable sneakers in recent years, this study aims to investigate the relationships between the GPV of sustainable sneakers and CSR with brand image and consumer attitude, the influence of conformity on attitude, and finally whether the above relationships indirectly influence consumer purchase intention. To do so, this study constructed a new research framework based on the above-related literature. The research results have both theoretical and practical implications for academics and practitioners.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Green Perceived Value

Chen and Chang [4] defines GPV as consumers’ overall appraisal of services or products based on environmental desires, sustainability expectations, green needs, and the provision of these products’ ultimate value. Woo and Kim [18] and Tahir [20] apply a multidimensional GPV construct to explore the relationship between consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green foods. Lin and Zhou [19] explored how green brand positioning connects with nature through utilitarian environmental benefits and builds brand image through GPV and green brand innovation. Trang et al. [24] demonstrates that once consumers perceive that products with green attributes have high value, they will generate positive attitudes toward them. Chen [25] asserts that if consumers perceive a brand to be successful in meeting their green value needs, the brand has fulfilled its commitment to the environment.

2.2. Brand Image

Fan [26] defines brand image as consumers’ overall perception of a brand, which not only enhances customers’ memory of a brand, but also influences their purchase behavior [27]. According to Yeo et al. [28], brand image can create real and virtual associations in consumers’ minds, which can be used as an evaluation for purchasing products.

The relationship between GPV and brand image is based on the human associative memory theory proposed by Anderson and Bower [29], which suggests that functional and emotional benefits may be important in shaping brand image by brand association [30]. According to Keller [30], brand image represents perceptions regarding a brand and is stored in consumers’ memory through different brand associations. Since consumers regard GPV as an important feature of green brands, it can help increase the relevance of associations and even further influence brand image. Lin and Zhou [19] found that green brand innovation positively influences green brand image through GPV, concluding that GPV is positively correlated with green brand image.

Based on the above, we infer that when consumers have higher GPV, their perceptions of Nike’s brand image will be more positive. In this regard, Hypothesis 1 is proposed.

H1: 

Consumers’ green perceived value positively influences Nike’s brand image.

2.3. Attitude

Attitude refers to consumers’ favorable or unfavorable perceptions or evaluations regarding a product [18,31]. According to Dilotsotlhe and Inseng [32], attitude consists of affective (likes/dislikes), cognitive (belief and knowledge), and behavioral (wanting to act in a particular way) elements. Individuals with positive or negative attitudes toward a particular object may ultimately take action depending on their attitude [33,34].

Kumar et al. [31] found GPV to exert a significant influence on consumers’ green attitudes. In addition, researchers such as Tahir [20], Tsekouropoulos et al. [35], and Woo and Kim [18] demonstrate that GPV positively influences consumer attitudes.

Hence, we hypothesize that when consumers perceive more value in Nike sustainable sneakers, they will have a more positive attitude toward purchasing them. In this regard, Hypothesis 2 is proposed.

H2: 

Green perceived value positively influences consumer attitude toward purchasing Nike sustainable sneakers.

Fan [26] asserts that building a brand image through CSR can influence consumer attitude, and consumers are more likely to remember a brand image than product attributes. Salehzadeh et al. [36] contends that green brand image influences green brand attitude and consumer perceptions. Yeo et al. [28] states that the more positive the perceived brand image, the more positive the consumer’s attitude regarding brand products and their attributes. Lee and Lin [37] argue that consumer perception of CSR image positively influences their attitude toward the brand.

Based on the foregoing, we infer that consumers’ attitude to purchase Nike sustainable sneakers will be influenced by Nike’s own brand image. In this regard, Hypothesis 3 is proposed.

H3: 

Consumer perceptions of Nike’s brand image positively influence consumer attitude toward purchasing Nike sustainable sneakers.

2.4. Corporate Social Responsibility

The voluntary initiatives that a company undertakes to champion social and environmental causes and outwardly communicate to stakeholders to garner their support by adopting transparent and ethical processes is defined as CSR [6,38]. Liu et al. [39] states that CSR is the kind of behavior that demonstrates—through caring for customers or employees—a company’s agency in social responsibility.

Rew and Cha [40] assert that companies can use CSR to demonstrate their commitment toward society to consumers, which can improve the recognition and trust in a brand’s image [26,39]. Consumer CSR perceptions can improve brand image [39].

Based on the foregoing, we infer that if consumers perceive that Nike has good CSR performance, they will have a positive impression regarding Nike’s brand image. In this regard, Hypothesis 4 is proposed.

H4: 

Nike’s CSR performance positively influences its brand image.

As for the studies on the correlation between CSR and consumer attitude, Ramesh et al. [41] found that after people learn about CSR-related activities, their perceptions change and they form positive brand identification, which leads to positive attitudes and impressions of the brand. This indicates that consumers will identify with, and develop positive attitudes toward companies that fulfill their commitment to CSR, and will actively support socially responsible brands [40,42,43,44].

Based on the above, we deduce that if Nike is perceived as fulfilling its corporate social responsibilities on a regular basis, consumers will have positive attitudes toward purchasing sustainable sneakers of Nike. In this regard, Hypothesis 5 is proposed.

H5: 

Consumer perceptions of Nike CSR positively influence consumer attitude toward purchasing Nike sustainable sneakers.

2.5. Consumer Conformity

According to Martinelli and De Canio [45], conformity is considered a personality trait pertaining to the willingness or tendency to follow the ideas, values, and behaviors of others. Conformity causes consumers to likely follow or refer to the values, ideas, and behaviors of others; such social influence will shape individual awareness, views, and attitudes.

According to Ou et al. [22], online consumers are influenced by the professional information, knowledge, or social norms of others to form their own views and behaviors. Le et al. [46] indicates that consumers have their own preferences and trust, and their surrounding friends and family will influence their attitudes and decisions. Khandelwa and Bajpai [47] also demonstrate that consumers’ conformity positively influences consumer attitude.

Based on the above, we infer that when consumers are influenced by conformity, their attitude toward purchasing Nike sustainable sneakers should be positively influenced. In this regard, Hypothesis 6 is proposed.

H6: 

Consumer conformity positively influences consumer attitude toward purchasing Nike sustainable sneakers.

2.6. Purchase Intention

Ahmed et al. [48] defines purchase intention as “the likelihood that a consumer will buy the products or contract the services. Consumers with a higher purchase intention have stronger urge to pay for products or services”. To apply the concept of purchase intention regarding green products, Chen and Chang [4] defines green purchase intention as the possibility that consumers would be motivated to purchase environmentally friendly products.

Ramesh et al. [41] and He and Li [49] also point out that when consumers perceive a brand to be socially responsible, they will make meaningful brand associations and ultimately support the company’s products. Previous studies have shown that brand image positively influences purchase intention [50,51,52]. Therefore, a unique brand image can be used to differentiate a company and occupy a place in the minds of customers, thereby guiding consumers’ future consumption decisions [38]. Based on this, we deduce that Nike’s brand image should increase consumers’ intention to purchase its sustainable sneakers. In this regard, Hypothesis 7 is proposed.

H7: 

Nike’s brand image positively influences consumers’ intention to purchase Nike sustainable sneakers.

Ramesh et al. [41] contends that attitude is the main determinant of behavioral intention. Tahir [20] asserts that GPV directly influences consumer attitude to purchase green products, and further indirectly influences green purchase intention. According to Kursan Milaković et al. [53], when consumers have positive attitudes toward social media advertisements, they may respond positively to these advertisements and are more inclined to purchase the advertised products. Furthermore, studies such as Woo and Kim [18] and Guping et al. [42] also indicate that consumer attitude positively influences purchase intention.

Based on the above descriptions, we infer that consumer attitudes toward purchasing sustainable sneakers from Nike should influence purchase intention toward these sneakers. Thus, Hypothesis 8 is proposed in this paper.

H8: 

Consumer attitude to purchase the sustainable sneakers of Nike positively influences purchase intention.

2.7. Environmental Awareness

Ahmed et al. [48] defines environmental awareness as sharing knowledge and raising awareness regarding environmental challenges and solutions. Kusumawati et al. [54] defines environmental awareness as understanding the importance of the environment and an attitude toward engaging in attempts to conserve the environment.

Wasaya et al. [15] asserts that when consumers have high environmental awareness, it increases their trust in green products and their intention to buy them. The research results of Skallerud et al. [55] differed from those of previous studies, and found that a high level of environmental awareness may exert a negative influence on consumer attitude toward consuming sustainably produced fish. Kusumawati et al. [54] indicates that environmental awareness strengthens attitudes and interest in environmental behavior and high environmental awareness increases individuals’ revisit intention for sustainable tourism. Ahmed et al. [48] confirms that consumers with high environmental awareness are more likely to purchase organic food.

Based on the foregoing contents, some researchers regard environmental awareness as a factor affecting purchase intention; however, the purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the influence of consumer attitude on intention to purchase Nike sustainable sneakers is mediated by environmental awareness. In other words, in this study environmental awareness is used as an intervening variable affecting the relationship between consumer attitude and purchase intention. In this regard, Hypothesis 9 is proposed.

H9: 

Environmental awareness has a mediating effect on consumer attitude and purchase intention.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Framework

The research framework of the study, which was established based on the above literature review and hypotheses, is shown in Figure 1. The framework consists of seven dimensions, including GPV, CSR, conformity, brand image, attitude, environmental awareness, and purchase intention.

3.2. Research Questionnaire Design

The research tool used in this study was self-reported questionnaires. In addition to the basic data, actual purchasing experience, and behavior toward Nike products, the questions on sustainable sneakers were developed based on the literature review. After the questions were developed, content validation was conducted with experts to ensure that the questionnaire included clear and complete descriptions to avoid misunderstandings among participants which may lead to them being unable to reflect on the true circumstances and submit answers that are inconsistent with the facts. In this study, we invited nine experts and researchers—including educators, sportswear manufacturers, and management consultants—all of whom had more than 10 years of working experience to assess the questionnaire. After obtaining the experts’ consent, we distributed the questionnaire for them to complete, review, and revise each question in terms of correctness, appropriateness, and wording. After the collection of all the experts’ opinions, we integrated their suggestions to revise semantics and add/delete questions, compiling a pre-test questionnaire. A total of 70 questionnaires were distributed in the pre-test, and 62 valid responses were returned. Item and reliability analyses were immediately conducted to confirm the items and reliability of each dimension. The formal questionnaire design for this study was finalized according to this procedure.

This questionnaire was designed to cover eight parts. The first part of the questionnaire was regarding purchase intention, and was primarily developed referring to the literature of Darlius and Keni [50] and Nosi et al. [56], with a total of five questions. The second part examined respondents’ environmental awareness, and was developed referring to Ermolaeva [57] and Skallerud et al. [55] with a total of four questions. The third part covered attitude, and was developed referring to Woo and Kim [18], Dilotsotlhe and Inseng [32], and Chen et al. [58], with a total of four questions. The fourth part explored brand image, and referred to Tseng and Lee [21] and Lin et al. [17], with a total of seven questions. The fifth part discussed conformity, and was developed referring to Bearden et al. [59] and Kang et al. [60], with a total of six questions. The sixth part examined CSR, and was developed referencing Achabou [10], Ho [61], and Zhang and Ahmad [38], with a total of seven questions. The seventh part covered GPV, and was primarily developed referring to Chen and Chang [4] and Lin and Zhou [19], with a total of four questions. The eighth part presented respondents’ basic information, including gender, age, education level, and average monthly income. Excluding the demographic variables, all questions incorporated a 7-point Likert scale based on respondents’ perceptions or actual situations. A score of 1 represents the weakest feeling of “strongly disagree” and a score of 7 represented the strongest feeling of “strongly agree”.

3.3. Sample and Data Collection

This study focuses on Taiwanese consumers’ attitudes and intentions to purchase the sustainable sneakers of Nike, using the domestic population as the study population. According to Průša and Sadíle [62], Generation Y (1980–2000) consumers are willing to pay more for green products. Therefore, the research was conducted on an appropriate sample of young people aged 18 and above and under 30 years old in Taiwan to investigate the opinions of the national population on the issues of this study.

This study chooses Taiwanese people of 18-24-year-old as the population. After considering time and cost factors, this study finally adopts convenience sampling, and employs the online survey to collect the required questionnaire data. There are about 1.9 million people between the ages of 18 and 24 in Taiwan. At the confidence level of 95% and standard error of 0.05, the required number of samples is 385. Considering the problems caused by invalid questionnaires, this study decided to increase the number of required questionnaires to 1.5 times.

A convenience sampling method was chosen among non-probability sampling methods. A total of 660 questionnaires were distributed through the internet (Google Forms). After screening and sorting invalid responses, 480 valid and 180 invalid responses were obtained. The majority of respondents were female (54.4%)—aged 18–24 (51.0%) and 25–30 (28.1%)—and university graduates (66.9%). As most respondents were young people, their monthly income was less than NTD 33,000 (60.2%).

Furthermore, according to the survey on the actual behavior of purchasing Nike sneakers, 301 respondents (62.7%) were aware of Nike’s use of recycled materials to produce sustainable sneakers, among which 237 (49.4%) had heard about it through social media. This indicates that online media has become the main channel for consumers to obtain information. Among the 301 respondents who had heard of Nike using recycled materials to produce sustainable sneakers, only 64 (13.3%) had purchased Nike sustainable sneakers, of which 40 (8.3%) primarily based their purchase decision on satisfactory appearance and function. This indicates that appearance and function remain to be the primary purchase consideration. Among the 480 respondents, 408 (85%) had purchased Nike sneakers. The price range of the sneakers purchased was NTD 1,501–3500, for 282 (58.8%) respondents. Finally, in terms of purchase channels, 309 respondents chose to purchase sustainable sneakers at one of Nike’s direct-sale stores, constituting 64.4%. This indicates that most consumers will choose Nike’s direct-sale stores to buy environmentally friendly sneakers in the future.

3.4. Methods of Data Analysis

In this study, we used SPSS25.0 and Smart-PLS 3.3.9 software to examine the relationship between demographic variables and the dimensions investigated, applying structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the linear relationship between the variables and test the overall model, and partial least squares (PLS) to perform the calculation test. Partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) has been actively used in various fields in recent years, including strategic management, international management, marketing, and tourism [63]. The approach is not only suitable for testing theoretical frameworks from a forecasting perspective [64], but also for measuring the hypothesized relationships in structural models [65]. According to Tran [66], PLS-SEM is more suitable if the phenomenon under study is relatively new, and the measurement model is newly developed and has not been previously validated. Based on the above characteristics, PLS-SEM was chosen for the model measurement and structural model evaluation since this study focused on predicting consumer purchase intention toward Nike sustainable sneakers, the model included mediating and intervening variables, and the combination of environmental protection and sneakers is a relatively new topic that has emerged recently.

4. Results

4.1. Test Results of Measurement Model Evaluation

A two-stage analysis was adopted for this study. The first stage applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for scale measurement, and the second stage conducted structural model analysis for the overall model. After examining the normality of the data, CFA was performed to test the relationship between the observed variables and latent factors [67]. In general, CFA can be used to assess the validity and reliability of unobserved latent factors [68,69]. Since this study adopted questionnaire items developed by other researchers, we used CFA to test the appropriateness of our measurement tool for the population of this study. The Cronbach’s a, factor loading, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and discriminant validity values were evaluated referencing Hair et al. [70].

According to Table 1, the factor loadings calculated for each dimension ranged from 0.539 to 0.914, which was in line with the standard of more than 0.5 suggested by previous studies [70]; the Cronbach’s a values ranged from 0.767 to 0.956, and the CR ranged from 0.846 to 0.964, which were all greater than the standard of 0.7 suggested by Hair et al. [70], indicating that the model had good internal consistency. The AVE values of each dimension ranged from 0.544 to 0.791, all exceeding the recommended value of 0.5 [70], indicating that all the dimensions of the study had good convergent validity. According to the above, the content in Table 1 indicates that all the dimensions of the questionnaire met the requirements of convergent validity and combined reliability; therefore, the intrinsic quality of the measurement model is good.

To examine the difference between the latent variables in this study, we applied the Fornell–Larcker [71] test and the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT), referencing Henseler et al. [72], to measure the discriminant validity of latent variables. As suggested by Hair et al. [70], the correlation coefficient between two different constructs in the Fornell–Larcker test should be less than the square root of the AVE by a construct. Table 2 compares the correlation coefficients of all the variables in this study with the square root of the AVE. The square root of the AVE for each variable is greater than the correlation coefficient between every two variables, in accordance with the criteria suggested by Hair et al. [70].

In addition, the HTMT introduced by Henseler et al. [72] was used to test discriminant validity. The HTMT test is considered the most stringent measure and is highly recommended for the PLS-SEM analysis [73]. Table 3 compares the HTMT values in this study, revealing values that are all less than the recommended value of 0.85 [72], which indicates good discriminant validity among the latent variables in this study. Based on the above test results of the measurement model, we concluded that the measurement model had good intrinsic and extrinsic qualities.

4.2. Structural Model Analysis

The analysis results of the measurement model demonstrated that the model has good reliability and validity. We next conducted structural model analysis using the PLS algorithm to obtain the path coefficient and coefficient of determination (R²) of each dimension in the model, also analyzing the significance of the structural model using 5000 bootstrap resamples [70]. Bootstrapping was applied to measure the structural model through factor loadings to analyze the significance of the variables and parameter estimates and confidence intervals to measure the model [70] to determine whether the causal relationships between the variables hold. The path coefficients and hypothesis validation are shown in Table 4.

According to Table 4, GPV positively influences brand image and consumer attitude with coefficient values of 0.277 and 0.452 and t-statistics of 4.544 and 6.969, respectively; thus, H1 and H2 are supported. Brand image positively influences consumer attitude (β = 0.333; t = 6.480); thus, H3 is supported. CSR positively influences brand image (β = 0.34; t = 5.925); thus, H4 is supported. The coefficient value of CSR influencing consumer attitude is 0.023 (t = 0.409), and the coefficient value of conformity influencing consumer attitude is 0.037 (t = 0.931). Both hypotheses failed the test, indicating that H5 and H6 are not supported, and that respondents’ CSR perceptions of Nike and conformity do not significantly influence their intention to purchase Nike sustainable sneakers. The coefficient value of brand image influencing purchase intention is –0.017 (t = 0.366), implying that brand image does not significantly influence purchase intention; thus, H7 is not supported. Consumer attitude positively influences purchase intention (β = 0.436; t = 2.461); thus, H8 is supported. Finally, the t-statistic of environmental awareness on consumer attitude and purchase intention is 0.267, indicating that respondents’ level of environmental awareness did not affect their intention to purchase Nike sustainable sneakers; thus, H9 is not supported.

The coefficient of determination R² is a measure of the predictive accuracy of the model, and indicates the proportion of variance in the dependent variables that is explained by one or more predictor variables [65]. Considering the reduction of bias when more variables are added to the model, Hair et al. [70] suggested that using an adjusted R² value can be more consistent with the explanatory power of the model. According to Table 5, the R² value of brand image is 0.324 and 0.321 after adjustment, indicating that the effective prediction accuracy of GPV and CSR on brand image is 32.1–32.4%. The R² value of attitude is 0.523 and 0.519 after adjustment, revealing that the effective prediction accuracy of GPV, CSR, conformity, and brand image on consumer attitude is 51.9–52.3%; the R² value of purchase intention is 0.488 and 0.484 after adjustment, indicating that the effective prediction accuracy of brand image and consumer attitude on purchase intention is 48.4–48.8%. The above results demonstrate that the prediction ability of attitude and purchase intention is moderate to high. Regarding the prediction ability of GPV and CSR on brand image of only 32.5%, we speculate that in addition to the above two variables, other important factors that influence Nike’s brand image were not included in the model. This line of inquiry is worthy of future investigation.

PLS-SEM uses goodness-of-fit (GoF) values to measure the overall quality of the model. The main purpose is to evaluate whether the theoretical model of this study can adequately explain the data obtained from the actual observations, and if there is a good fit, it means that the model is more usable and the estimated parameters are more representative. In general, GoFsmall = 0.1, GoFmedium = 0.25, and GoFlarge = 0.36 [74]. Since no GoF value was established in PLS-SEM, we performed a self-calculation, revealing that the GoF value of the model was 0.535, as shown in Table 6, indicating that the model has a good fit and is appropriate to use as a measurement of people’s purchase intention toward Nike sustainable sneakers.

In this study, the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and Bentler–Bonett normed fit index (NFI) values were also used to measure the fitness of the model. An SRMR value less than 0.08 is generally considered a good fit [75]. The NFI value is between 0 and 1 and a larger NFI value represents a better model fit. According to Table 6, the SRMR and NFI values were 0.078 and 0.804, respectively; both meet the above criteria and confirm that the model had a good fit. This means that it is appropriate to use this model to measure people’s purchase intention toward Nike sustainable sneakers.

4.3. Test of Mediation and Interference Effects

In this study, the variance accounted for (VAF) value was used to test the mediating effect. VAF value > 80% indicates a full mediating effect, 80% > VAF value > 20% indicates a partial mediating effect, and VAF value < 20% indicates an indirect mediating effect. Table 7 presents the mediating effect test for this study, revealing that GPV and CSR indirectly influence consumer attitude through brand image, with VAF values of 30% and 83%, respectively, indicating partial and full mediating effects. Brand image indirectly influences purchase intention through consumer attitude with a VAF value of 113%, indicating a full mediating effect.

In addition, this study examined environmental awareness as an intervening variable that affects the relationship between attitude and purchase intention. Table 4 reveals a t-statistic of environmental awareness on consumer attitude and purchase intention of 0.267, failing the test and indicating that the level of environmental awareness does not affect purchase intention toward Nike sustainable sneakers.

5. Discussion

5.1. Relationships of Green Perceived Value and Corporate Social Responsibility with Brand Image

The results of the study indicate that GPV and CSR positively influence brand image significantly, which is consistent with the findings of Trang et al. [24] and Chen [25]. In other words, when people perceive more green value of Nike sustainable sneakers—such as environmental protection benefits and symbols—they will more readily recognize Nike’s performance in environmental CSR and regard it as a conscientious company that makes efforts for the environment and fulfills its commitment to CSR.

5.2. Relationships of Green Perceived Value, Corporate Social Responsibility, Conformity, and Brand Image with Consumer Attitude

The results of the study demonstrate that consumers’ attitudes are enhanced when sustainable sneakers meet their needs for functionality and environmental protection along with good perceptions and impressions regarding Nike. Additionally, CSR and conformity do not appear to significantly influence consumer attitude. This paper theorized that CSR is not a major factor influencing consumer attitude, as the majority of respondents were young people, and, as previous studies have determined, this group places less importance on CSR than older groups [76]. Moreover, some consumers associate CSR-related products with low quality [77]. The result of conformity not significantly influencing consumer attitude is consistent with Tak’s [78] study. The reason may be that young people have their own ideas and preferences regarding sustainable sneakers, and there is minimal information on the market through word-of-mouth or social and environmental norms to influence their attitudes.

5.3. Relationships of Consumer Attitude and Brand Image with Purchase Intention

The results of the study indicate that consumer attitude positively influences purchase intention in a significant manner and brand image does not significantly influence purchase intention, consistent with the results of Febriyantoro [79]. Although Nike is a premium image brand in consumers’ minds, positive perceptions of the brand do not influence the intention to purchase Nike sustainable sneakers. According to the previous explanation, GPV and brand image can be leveraged to increase consumers’ positive perceptions of environmentally friendly sneakers, and thus, their intention to purchase them.

5.4. Effect of Environmental Awareness on the Relationship between Consumer Attitude and Purchase Intention

The research results indicate that individuals’ level of environmental awareness does not significantly interfere with their purchase intention. Currently, when consumers purchase environmentally friendly sneakers, they primarily focus on function, appearance, and color. It has also been demonstrated that consumers will have less interest in green consumption if they perceive the green products to be too expensive [80] Based on the foregoing explanation, environmental awareness does not appear to produce a significant interference effect in this study.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Management Implications

From the results of the study, it is clear that GPV significantly influences brand image and consumer attitude. In this regard, Nike needs to foster a clear understanding of the environmental benefits and connotations of sustainable sneakers among consumers. In contemporary times, as the internet has become the primary source of individuals’ information acquisition, Nike can enhance the concept and awareness of sustainable sneakers by broadly sharing information on the internet (video and audio) platforms. In addition, the brand can also be combined with the road running events favored by Taiwanese people and even provide sustainable sneakers to those who participate in the activities to experience the function of sustainable sneakers. To make people internalize green benefits more deeply, in addition to offering various discounts, the company can also collaborate with environmental organizations to support public welfare. For example, those who donate a certain amount to a collaborative social cause can get Nike sustainable sneakers as a donation gift.

Second, young people are very keen on the fashion value of sneakers. In this regard, popular fashion elements should be integrated into the color and design appearance of sustainable sneakers with easy-to-match colors as the basis. Colors that are most preferred by young people can also be incorporated into the design to create classic, replica, commemorative, or even co-branded styles to become a trending purchase. Furthermore, because young people do not have high disposable income, price settings should align with their consumption capabilities, so that they will be more willing to accept sustainable sneakers.

Nike can also hold events to recycle old shoes, so that consumers can directly participate in advancing green initiatives and understand all the efforts the company has made for society. Moreover, through news media coverage of such events, the company’s intentions to promote its CSR commitment can be more fully understood by people, while simultaneously publicizing its CSR performance.

6.2. Research Limitations and Future Research Directions

In addition to the factors investigated in this paper, many other factors may also influence people’s intention to purchase Nike sustainable sneakers, such as product knowledge, product involvement, and brand loyalty. In this regard, future researchers could consider a more expansive array of possible factors to obtain more comprehensive and accurate research results. Since environmentally friendly sneakers represent a relatively new phenomenon and product for many consumers, they are still in the nascent stage of development and consumers lack enough information about them. Therefore, future studies could analyze the perceptions and viewpoints of consumers from different cultural and country backgrounds on environmentally friendly sneakers.

Author Contributions

Three co-authors together contributed to the completion of this article. Formal analysis, investigation, data curation, and writing—original draft preparation, W.-S.H.; investigation, data curation, review, and editing, C.-J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, H.-S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, H.-S.C., upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to all the experts who have taken the time to review this article and provide valuable comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figure and Tables

Figure 1. Conceptual framework and hypotheses of the study.

Table 1

Overview of the measurements for reliability test.

Dimensions	Item	Factor Loadings	Cronbach’s a	CR	AVE	Sources of Adoption
Purchaseintention	1. I would like to buy Nike sustainable sneakers.	0.843	0.902	0.927	0.718	Darlius & Keni [50]; Nosi et al. [56]
	2. I would like to buy Nike sustainable sneakers in the future.	0.849
	3. I would prefer to buy Nike sustainable sneakers.	0.837
	4. I will recommend Nike sustainable sneakers to my friends and relatives.	0.855
	5. Compared with ordinary sneakers, I prefer to buy Nike sustainable sneakers.	0.851
Environmental awareness	1. When buying a variety of products, I choose the most environmentally friendly products.	0.848	0.767	0.846	0.586	Ermolaeva [57]; Skallerud et al. [55]
	2. I avoid buying over-packaged products.	0.744
	3. I prefer products with environmental certification labels.	0.884
	4. I care about the environmental quality of the area where I live.	0.539
Attitude	1. I think Nike sustainable sneakers are reliable.	0.791	0.872	0.913	0.724	Woo & Kim [18]; Dilotsotlhe & Inseng [32];Chen et al. [58]
	2. I think it is the right choice to buy Nike sustainable sneakers.	0.864
	3. I have a positive attitude toward buying Nike sustainable sneakers.	0.880
	4. I think it is a good idea to buy Nike sustainable sneakers.	0.866
Brandimage	1. I think Nike products are of high quality.	0.820	0.923	0.938	0.685	Tseng & Lee [21];Lin et al. [17]
	2. I think Nike products are trustworthy.	0.865
	3. I think Nike products offer great features.	0.845
	4. I think Nike has been improving its product features over the years.	0.829
	5. I think Nike products have good design.	0.813
	6. I feel comfortable with Nike products.	0.865
	7. I think Nike has a good reputation.	0.750
Conformity	1. When buying products, I buy products/brands that others endorse.	0.803	0.831	0.877	0.544	Bearden et al. [59]; Kang et al. [60]
	2. Before buying a product, I would like to know what kind of product/brand will make a good impression on others.	0.744
	3. I gain a sense of belonging by buying the same products/brands as others.	0.676
	4. To make sure I am buying the right product/brand, I observe what others buy and use.	0.802
	5. If I have no experience with a product/brand, I often ask friends and family for information regarding the product/brand.	0.655
	6. I often ask friends and family around to help me choose the most suitable product/brand.	0.733
Corporate social responsibility	1. I think Nike’s performance in environmental CSR is excellent.	0.849	0.956	0.964	0.791	Achabou [10]; Ho [61]; Zhang & Ahmad[38]
	2. I think Nike is a company that fulfills its social responsibility regarding environmental protection.	0.904
	3. Nike tries hard to promote environmental protection.	0.897
	4. Nike devotes its efforts to the preservation of the natural environment.	0.914
	5. Nike has made considerable efforts to undertake environmental social responsibility.	0.898
	6. Nike attaches importance to the recycling and reuse of production materials.	0.870
	7. Nike devotes considerable effort to the research and development of environmentally friendly materials for the production process.	0.891
Green perceived value	1. The eco-friendly features of Nike sneakers provide good value.	0.860	0.873	0.913	0.723	Chen & Chang [4];Lin & Zhou [19]
	2. If given the opportunity, I would gladly buy Nike sustainable sneakers because they are environmentally friendly.	0.823
	3. Nike sneakers have more environmental benefits than other brands.	0.867
	4. Nike sneakers attach more importance to the natural environment than other brands.	0.851

Table 2

Discriminant validity.

	Purchase Intention	Environmental Awareness	Consumer Attitude	Brand Image	Conformity	Corporate Social Responsibility	Green Perceived Value
Purchase intention	0.847
Environmental awareness	0.564	0.766
Consumer attitude	0.637	0.526	0.851
Brand image	0.374	0.329	0.596	0.828
Conformity	0.225	0.237	0.385	0.458	0.738
Corporate social responsibility	0.46	0.397	0.54	0.536	0.434	0.889
Green perceivedvalue	0.624	0.494	0.656	0.516	0.408	0.711	0.85

Note: Values in gray present the square root of the AVE; non-diagonal values present the correlation of each dimension with others.

Table 3

Discriminant validity (HTMT).

	PurchaseIntention	EnvironmentalAwareness	ConsumerAttitude	BrandImage	Conformity	Corporate Social Responsibility	GreenPerceived Value
Purchase intention
Environmental awareness	0.629
Consumer attitude	0.718	0.157
Brand image	0.404	0.118	0.663
Conformity	0.261	0.133	0.448	0.512
Corporate social responsibility	0.495	0.091	0.590	0.566	0.490
Green perceived value	0.700	0.094	0.747	0.568	0.483	0.779

Table 4

Coefficients for the structural model.

Hypothesis		StandardizedCoefficient	Standard Deviation	t-Tatistics	p-Values	Result
H1	Green perceived value→brand image	0.277	0.060	4.544 ***	0.000	Supported
H2	Green perceived value→consumer attitude	0.452	0.065	6.969 ***	0.000	Supported
H3	Brand image→consumer attitude	0.333	0.051	6.480 ***	0.000	Supported
H4	Corporate social responsibility→brand image	0.340	0.057	5.925 ***	0.000	Supported
H5	Corporate social responsibility→attitude	0.023	0.056	0.409	0.683	Unsupported
H6	Conformity→consumer attitude	0.037	0.040	0.931	0.352	Unsupported
H7	Brand image→purchase intention	−0.017	0.047	0.366	0.714	Unsupported
H8	Consumer attitude→purchase intention	0.436	0.177	2.461 *	0.014	Supported
H9	Attitude × environmental awareness→purchase intention	0.004	0.015	0.267	0.789	Unsupported

Note: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.

Table 5

Coefficient of determination for the model.

	R2	Adjusted R2
Brand image	0.324	0.321
Attitude	0.523	0.519
Purchase intention	0.488	0.484

Table 6

Goodness-of-fit measurement of the research model.

	Model Fit	Measurement Standards
GoF	0.535	GoFsmall = 0.1GoFmedium = 0.25GoFlarge = 0.36
SRMR	0.078	<0.08
NFI	0.804	>0.8

Table 7

Mediating effect test.

Latent Variable	Mediating Variable	Dependent Variable	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect	Total Effect	VAF
Green perceived value	Brand image	Consumer attitude	0.452	0.197	0.649	30%
Corporate social responsibility	Brand image	Consumer attitude	0.023	0.114	0.137	83%
Brand image	Consumer attitude	Purchase intention	−0.017	0.146	0.129	113%

References

1. Kautish, P.; Paul, J.; Sharma, R. The moderating influence of environmental consciousness and recycling intentions on green purchase behavior. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 228, pp. 1425-1436.

2. Chen, Y.S.; Lai, P.Y.; Chang, T.W.; Yen, T.T. The positive impact of environmental friendliness on green purchase intentions. Proceedings of the 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET); Honolulu, HI, USA, 4–8 September 2016; pp. 1778-1786.

3. Testa, F.; Pretner, G.; Iovino, R.; Bianchi, G.; Tessitore, S.; Iraldo, F. Drivers to green consumption: A systematic review. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2021; 23, pp. 4826-4880.

4. Chen, F.-Y.; Chang, Y.-H.; Lin, Y.-H. Customer perceptions of airline social responsibility and its effect on loyalty. J. Air Transp. Manag.; 2012; 20, pp. 49-51.

5. Widyastuti, S.; Said, M.; Siswono, S. Dian Customer Trust through Green Corporate Image, Green Marketing Strategy, and Social Responsibility: A Case Study. Eur. Res. Stud. J.; 2019; 22, pp. 83-99.

6. Bianchi, E.; Bruno, J.M.; Sarabia-Sanchez, F.J. The impact of perceived CSR on corporate reputation and purchase intention. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ.; 2019; 28, pp. 206-221.

7. Chandavimol, C.; Taiphapoon, T.; Ekgasit, S. Framework for development of recycled sneakers from footwear industrial waste. Int. J. Entrep.; 2021; 25, pp. 1-7.

8. STATISTA. Quantity of Footwear Produced Worldwide from 2015 to 2020. 2022; Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1044823/global-footwear-production-quantity/ (accessed on 28 March 2022).

9. Interbrand. Best Global Brands 2021. 2021; Available online: https://interbrand.com/best-global-brands (accessed on 25 March 2022).

10. Achabou, M.A. The effect of perceived CSR effort on consumer brand preference in the clothing and footwear sector. Eur. Bus. Rev.; 2020; 32, pp. 317-347.

11. Plannthin, D.K. Animal ethics and welfare in the fashion and lifestyle industries. Green Fashion; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 49-122.

12. Khandelwal, U.; Yadav, S.K.; Tripathi, V.; Agrawal, V. E-consumer conformity and its impact on consumer attitude. J. Asia Bus. Stud.; 2019; 12, pp. 455-468.

13. Burnkrant, R.E.; Cousineau, A. Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior. J. Consum. Res.; 1975; 2, pp. 206-215.

14. Lascu, D.N.; Zinkhan, G. Consumer conformity: Review and applications for marketing theory and practice. J. Mark. Theory Pract.; 1999; 7, pp. 1-12.

15. Wasaya, A.; Saleem, M.A.; Ahmad, J.; Nazam, M.; Khan, M.; Ishfaq, M. Impact of green trust and green perceived quality on green purchase intentions: A moderation study. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2021; 23, pp. 13418-13435.

16. Sharma, A.; Foropon, C. Green product attributes and green purchase behavior: A theory of planned behavior perspective with implications for circular economy. Management; 2019; 157, pp. 1018-1042.

17. Lin, J.; Lobo, A.; Leckie, C. Green brand benefits and their influence on brand loyalty. Mark. Intell. Plan.; 2017; 35, pp. 425-440.

18. Woo, E.; Kim, Y.G. Consumer attitudes and buying behavior for green food products from the aspect of green. Br. Food J.; 2019; 121, pp. 320-332.

19. Lin, J.; Zhou, Z. The positioning of green brands in enhancing their image: The mediating roles of green brand innovativeness and green perceived value. Int. J. Emerg. Mark.; 2020; 17, pp. 1404-1424.

20. Tahir, M. The Impact of Green Perceived Value and Its Additional Multidimensional Expanded Variables Effect on Customer Attitude and Purchasing Intention for Buying Green Food Products: A Case of Pakistan. J. Organ. Bus.; 2020; 2, pp. 188-212.

21. Tseng, L.Y.; Lee, T.S. Investigating the factors influence tweens’ purchase intention through peer conformity in Taiwan. Adv. Manag. Appl. Econ.; 2013; 3, 259.

22. Ou, C.C.; Chen, K.L.; Tseng, W.K.; Lin, Y.Y. A Study on the Influence of Conformity Behaviors, Perceived Risks, and Customer Engagement on Group Buying Intention: A Case Study of Community E-Commerce Platforms. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 1941.

23. Zhang, Z. How Does Conformity Psychology Affect Online Consumption Behaviors in China?. Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Social Development and Media Communication (SDMC 2021); Sanya, China, 26–28 November 2022; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, pp. 266-274.

24. Trang, H.L.T.; Lee, J.-S.; Han, H. How do green attributes elicit pro-environmental behaviors in guests? The case of green hotels in Vietnam. J. Travel Tour. Mark.; 2019; 36, pp. 14-28.

25. Chen, Y.S. Towards green loyalty: Driving from green perceived value, green satisfaction, and green trust. Sustain. Dev.; 2013; 21, pp. 294-308.

26. Fan, Q. Relationship among China’s country image, corporate image and brand image: A Korean consumer perspective. J. Contemp. Mark. Sci.; 2019; 2, pp. 34-49.

27. Errajaaa, K.; Daucéb, B.; Legohérelc, P. Consumer reactions to olfactory congruence with brand image. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2020; 52, 101898.

28. Yeo, S.F.; Tan, C.L.; Lim, K.B.; Leong, J.Y.; Leong, Y.C.I. Effects of Social Media Advertising on Consumers’ Online Purchase Intentions. Glob. Bus. Manag. Res.; 2020; 12, pp. 89-106.

29. Anderson, J.R.; Bower, G.H. Human Associative Memory; Psychology Press: Abingdon, UK, 2014.

30. Keller, K.L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J. Mark.; 1993; 57, pp. 1-22.

31. Kumar, R.; Saha, R.; Sekar, P.C.; Dahiya, R. Examining the role of external factors in influencing green behaviour among young Indian consumers. Young Consum.; 2019; 20, pp. 380-398.

32. Dilotsotlhe, N.; Inseng, H.D. Examining drivers of green appliance adoption using two theories among middle class consumers. J. Bus. Retail. Manag. Res.; 2020; 14, pp. 62-77.

33. Dhahak, K.; Huseynov, F. The Influence of Gamification on Online Consumers’ Attitude and Intention to Purchase Fast Moving Consumer Goods. Bus. Econ. Res. J.; 2020; 11, pp. 769-791.

34. Yu, S.; Lee, J. The effects of consumers’ perceived values on intention to purchase upcycled products. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 1034.

35. Tsekouropoulos, G.; Koliouska, C.; Theocharis, D.; Andreopoulou, Z. Green products: Digital marketing and consumer behavior for sustainability. Agric. Econ. Rev.; 2018; 19, pp. 12-27.

36. Salehzadeh, R.; Sayedan, M.; Mirmehdi, S.M.; Aqagoli, P.H. Elucidating green branding among Muslim consumers: The nexus of green brand love, image, trust and attitude. J. Islam. Mark.; 2021; pp. 759-833.

37. Lee, Y.; Lin, C.A. The effects of a sustainable vs conventional apparel advertisement on consumer perception of CSR image and attitude toward the brand. Corp. Commun. Int. J.; 2021; 27, pp. 388-403.

38. Zhang, Q.; Ahmad, S. Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility Execution Effects on Purchase Intention with the Moderating Role of Customer Awareness. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 4548.

39. Liu, M.T.; Liu, Y.; Mo, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Zhu, Z. How CSR influences customer behavioural loyalty in the Chinese hotel industry. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist.; 2019; 32, pp. 1-22.

40. Rew, D.; Cha, W. The effects of resilience and familiarity on the relationship between CSR and consumer attitudes. Soc. Responsib. J.; 2020; 17, pp. 897-913.

41. Ramesh, K.; Saha, R.; Goswami, S.; Dahiya, R. Consumer’s response to CSR activities: Mediating role of brand image and brand attitude. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2019; 26, pp. 377-387.

42. Guping, C.; Cherian, J.; Sial, M.S.; Mentel, G.; Wan, P.; Álvarez-Otero, S.; Saleem, U. The relationship between csr communication on social media, purchase intention, and e-wom in the banking sector of an emerging economy. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res.; 2021; 16, pp. 1025-1041.

43. Konstantoulaki, K.; Yigitbas, A.; Giovanis, A.; Rizomyliotis, I. consumer attitudes and behavioural intentions towards corporate social responsibility: Evidence from the airline industry. J. Air Transp. Stud.; 2020; 11, pp. 47-70.

44. Beniulytė, D.; Šeinauskienė, B.; Rūtelionė, A. Perceived influence of corporate social responsibility on consumer loyalty: The role of ethical ideology. Entrep. Sustain. Issues; 2020; 8, pp. 291-300.

45. Martinelli, E.; De Canio, F. Non-vegan consumers buying vegan food: The moderating role of conformity. Br. Food J.; 2021; 124, pp. 14-30.

46. Le, H.T.; Nguyen, P.V.; Dinh, H.P.; Dang, C.N. Effects of country of origin and product features on customer purchase intention: A study of imported powder milk. Acad. Mark. Stud. J.; 2017; 21, pp. 1-19.

47. Khandelwal, U.; Bajpai, N. Measuring consumer attitude through marketing dimensions: A comparative study between metro and non-metro cities. Jindal J. Bus. Res.; 2013; 2, pp. 85-103.

48. Ahmed, N.; Li, C.; Khan, A.; Qalati, S.A.; Naz, S.; Rana, F. Purchase intention toward organic food among young consumers using theory of planned behavior: Role of environmental concerns and environmental awareness. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.; 2021; 64, pp. 796-822.

49. He, H.; Li, Y. CSR and service brand: The mediating effect of brand identification and moderating effect of service quality. J. Bus. Ethics; 2011; 100, pp. 673-688.

50. Darlius, C.; Keni, K. The Effect of Green Brand Image, Green Advertising and Celebrity Endorsement on Purchase Intention of Green Product. Proceedings of the International Conference on Economics, Business, Social, and Humanities (ICEBSH 2021); Jakarta, Indonesia, 17–18 February 2021; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, pp. 32-39.

51. Dewi, L.G.P.S.; Oei, S.J.; Siagian, H. The Effect of Brand Ambassador, Brand Image, and Brand Awareness on Purchase Decision of Pantene Shampoo in Surabaya, Indonesia. Ph.D. Thesis; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2020.

52. Hameed, I.; Hyder, Z.; Imran, M.; Shafiq, K. Greenwash and green purchase behavior: An environmentally sustainable perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2021; 23, pp. 13113-13134.

53. Kursan Milaković, I.; Mihić, M.; Boljat, I. Consumer Attitudes Towards Social Network Advertising: Predictors and Outcomes. Market-Tržište; 2020; 32, pp. 83-97.

54. Kusumawati, A.; Utomo, H.S.; Suharyono, S.; Sunarti, S. Effects of sustainability on WoM intention and revisit intention, with environmental awareness as a moderator. Manag. Environ. Qual. An Int. J.; 2020; 31, pp. 273-288.

55. Skallerud, K.; Armbrecht, J.; Tuu, H.H. Intentions to Consume Sustainably Produced Fish: The Moderator Effects of Involvement and Environmental Awareness. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 946.

56. Nosi, C.; Zollo, L.; Rialti, R.; Ciappei, C. Sustainable consumption in organic food buying behavior: The case of quinoa. Br. Food J.; 2020; 122, pp. 976-994.

57. Ermolaeva, P. College Students’ Green Culture: Reflecting on the Ideal Types of Environmental Awareness and Behavior Practices. Raziskave Razpr.; 2010; 3, 49.

58. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, T.W.; Li, H.X.; Chen, Y.R. The influence of green brand effect on green purchase intentions: The mediation effects of green brand associations and green brand attitude. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 4089.

59. Bearden, W.O.; Netemeyer, R.G.; Teel, J.E. Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. J. Consum. Res.; 1989; 15, pp. 473-481.

60. Kang, I.; Cui, H.; Son, J. Conformity Consumption Behavior and FoMO. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 4734.

61. Ho, C.W. Does practicing CSR makes consumers like your shop more? Consumer-retailer love mediates CSR and behavioral intentions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2017; 14, 1558.

62. Průša, P.; Sadílek, T. Green consumer behavior: The case of Czech consumers of generation Y. Soc. Mark. Q.; 2019; 25, pp. 243-255.

63. Ali, F.; Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Ryu, K. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.; 2018; 30, pp. 514-538.

64. Iizuka, E.S.; de Moraes, G.H.S.M.; de Souza, M.G. College environment and entrepreneurial intention in high school. Rev. Gestão; 2022; ahead of print Available online: https://www.doi.org/10.1108/REGE-10-2021-0189 (accessed on 16 March 2022).

65. Channa, N.A.; Bhutto, M.H.; Bhutto, M.; Bhutto, N.A.; Tariq, B. Capturing customer’s store loyalty through relationship benefits: Moderating effect of retail innovation. Eur. Bus. Rev.; 2020; 34, pp. 20-40.

66. Tran, Q. Using PLS-SEM to analyze challenges hindering success of green building projects in Vietnam. J. Econ. Dev.; 2021; 24, pp. 47-64.

67. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev.; 2014; 26, pp. 106-121.

68. Dash, G.; Paul, J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change; 2021; 173, 121092.

69. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J. Bus. Res.; 2020; 109, pp. 101-110.

70. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); 3rd ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022.

71. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.; 1981; 18, pp. 39-50.

72. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2015; 43, pp. 115-135.

73. Popova, Y.; Fesyuk, A. Factors Affecting the Growth of Demand on Carsharing Services Within Smart City. Transp. Telecommun.; 2022; 23, pp. 252-261.

74. Wetzels, M.; Odekerken-Schröder, G.; Van Oppen, C. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Q.; 2009; 33, pp. 177-195.

75. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods; 1998; 3, 424.

76. Titko, J.; Svirina, A.; Tambovceva, T.; Skvarciany, V. Differences in attitude to corporate social responsibility among generations. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 10944.

77. Green, T.; Peloza, J. How does corporate social responsibility create value for consumers?. J. Consum. Mark.; 2011; 28, pp. 48-56.

78. Tak, P. Antecedents of luxury brand consumption: An emerging market context. Asian J. Bus. Res.; 2020; 10, pp. 23-44.

79. Febriyantoro Mohamad, T. Exploring YouTube Marketing Communication: Brand awareness, brand image and purchase intention in the millennial generation. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2020; 7, pp. 1-17.

80. Sun, Y.; Li, T.; Wang, S. “I buy green products for my benefits or yours”: Understanding consumers’ intention to purchase green products. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist.; 2021; 34, pp. 1721-1739.