1. Introduction
Members of a generational cohort have distinct beliefs, values, and attitudes [1] that shape their behavior. Diprose et al. [2] stated that each generation possesses unique values and characteristics regarding consumption behavior. Understanding these disparities among cohorts could be helpful for marketers in effectively positioning products and services in their respective segments [3]. Individual consumption patterns have significantly changed in recent years due to a greater emphasis on environmental concerns, leading to green consumerism [4]. Surprisingly, extant research [5,6,7] has focused largely on the green consumption patterns of Generation Z (born between 1996 and 2007). Our literature search has found that there is a dearth of research studies linking the Generation X (Gen X born between 1956 and 1980) and Generation Y (Gen Y born between 1981 and 1995) cohorts on Green Buying Behavior (GBB). Our study aims to fill this void in the literature. Further, our research purposively excludes the Generation Z cohort (hereafter, Gen Z) as this cohort group consists of mainly students [8], who possess marginal buying power due to inadequate financial capacity. Therefore, we focus on Gen X and Gen Y.
Prior studies largely focused on generational cohorts of Western countries (from the USA and Europe), and the present study is performed in the Indian context to examine any pertinent differences caused by diverse and complex cultures with a multitude of languages, customs, religions, and practices [9]. Also, India is now the world’s most populous country, the fifth-largest economy [10], and has a strong consumer base with purchasing power that is on par with the United States and China [11]. Therefore, performing research on the green consumption patterns of Gen X and Gen Y cohorts in the Indian context could be of paramount importance to academia and practitioners, and our research aims to do the same.
Moslehpour et al. [12] found that Gen Y consumers have favorable attitudes toward green packaging, and awareness of green marketing exerts the most substantial influence on purchasing intentions. Interestingly, studies reported that the conversion of such purchase intentions into actual purchases is not always evident in the green purchase context [13]. Therefore, employing “purchase behavior” rather than “purchase intention” looks more logical [14], and thus our study employed GBB. There are only a few studies to our knowledge that tested the relationship between generational cohorts and GBB for the Gen Y and Gen Z cohorts. Dilotsotlhe [15] reported that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control positively influence GBB for Gen Y consumers. Osarodion Ogiemwonyi [16] found that green environmental awareness, green product trust, green product value, green price sensitivity, and green behavioral control positively influence the GBB of Gen Y cohorts. Casalegno et al. [17] found in their recent study that age influences green product choices, whereas perceived communication effectiveness and environmental concerns determine GBB. While this study bears some similarities to ours, there are notable distinctions. We examine a direct correlation between Gen X and Y and GBB. Additionally, we consider Social Media Information Sharing (SMIS) and Perceived Environmental Responsibility (PER) as moderators and mediators between generational cohorts and GBB. Moreover, this study was performed in India.
Social media plays a key role in creating green awareness. Consumers may tend to visit social media platforms to share their personal experiences, opinions, and knowledge with potential audiences, thereby influencing eco-friendly behaviors [18]. Panopoulos et al. [19] suggest that individuals’ concerns about the environment, along with user-generated content on social media platforms and eco-labeling, can significantly influence the green purchase intentions of Gen Z consumers. Further, Agrawal [20] revealed that Gen Y cohorts consider the shopping experiences shared on social media by their peer group to help their buying decisions, and Gen Z gives importance to the reviews and ratings available on social media before making a purchase. Furthermore, Sun and Xing [21] demonstrated that sharing information on social media positively influences Gen Z’s purchase intention. The growing importance of individuals’ perceived responsibility to protect the environment has led to a significant rise in environmentally friendly consumer attitudes and behaviors among consumers [22]. Čapienė et al. [23] found that perceived responsibility is the most important internal factor that positively influences consumers’ sustainable consumption. Similarly, Zhao and An [24] empirically found that Gen Z cohorts in China have stronger sustainable purchase intentions in light of corporate environmental responsibility behaviors. Surprisingly, the direct relationship between PER and GBB reveals inconsistent results in the literature, with positive [23] and non-significant [25] findings and our study can validate them.
Although studies have tested the direct effect between generational cohorts and buying behavior [9,26,27], it will be interesting to examine the moderating influence of SMIS between Gen X and Gen Y cohorts and GBB. Social media exposure among cohorts can vary its influence on purchase behavior; thus, there is evidence that social media enhances GBB. Nevertheless, no study to date has tested the moderating role of SMIS between generational cohorts and GBB. This is an important contribution to our study. Similarly, PER can also moderate the link between generational cohorts and GBB as the environmental responsibility of individuals can alter the relationship between generational cohorts and GBB. To our knowledge, our study is the first to examine PER as a moderator on the link between generational cohorts and GBB, marking another significant contribution. Therefore, we pose the following as our first research question (RQ).
RQ1: Can the level of SMIS and PER vary across cohorts and alter the Gen X– and Gen Y–GBB relationship?
If social media exposure boosts green product sales, then it is a viable option for firms to focus exclusively on social media. Therefore, social media has the potential to impact the GBB, making it a crucial tool for both marketers and academics. Examining the mediating effect of SMIS will be intriguing, as it exposes cohorts who log into social media to content about green products, potentially motivating them to buy them. This is another contribution to our study. Likewise, PER can mediate the link between generational cohorts and GBB. The cohort members, when exposed to content associated with green products, can trigger the purchase of green products due to PER. Therefore, our study introduces a second research question.
RQ2: Do the generational cohorts develop GBB through social media exposure and perceived environmental responsibilities?
The level of social media exposure varies among cohorts, and thus it will be intriguing to understand the mediating role of SMIS. Further, there is a call for such studies; Ivanova et al. [28] pointed out the need for further investigation into the role of social media in promoting responsible consumption behaviors among cohorts. The results reveal that Gen X influences the GBB and SMIS to moderate (and mediate) the link between X and Y. To our surprise, the results showed that PER was neither a mediator nor a moderator. To probe further into these non-significant relationships, we conducted qualitative research.
2. Theoretical Underpinning and Hypotheses’ Development
The Generational Cohort Theory categorizes customers into segments known as cohorts, and each cohort has similar experiences with social, economic, political, and cultural phenomena due to factors such as economic shifts, technological advancements, and societal disruptions [29]. These factors affect the cohort’s values, attitudes, and beliefs distinctly, thus separating one cohort from the other [30]. Consumers in cohorts develop congruent behaviors acquired collectively during their formative (or early) developmental stages [31], which persist throughout their lifetimes and influence their decision-making processes [32]. In an emerging postmodern society, an increasing cohort of consumers shows a willingness to attribute their consumption practices to environmental concerns, concurrently expressing environmental concerns in their consumption choices [28]. Because sustainable consumption choices are discretionary [33], a comprehensive exploration of the underlying factors that influence consumer behavior in this domain is required.
A combination of internal and external factors shapes the multifaceted process of behavioral change [34], with both dimensions deeply influencing consumer behavior [35]. Intrinsic cues, driven by an individual’s inner needs, often play a more substantial role than external stimuli in shaping purchase decisions [35]. Schiffman [36] argued that external factors, also known as environmental influences, are equally important because they have an impact on consumer behavior. The Social Cognitive Theory [37] understands the complex interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic factors of sustainable consumption. It stresses the importance of both intrinsic stimuli, comprising of personal factors like a sense of responsibility towards the environment, and external factors, which include environmental elements like social media, in shaping choices of sustainable consumption [38,39]. The intrinsic motivational factor in our study is PER, which reflects a sense of duty or obligation towards environment and also serves as a predictor of ecological behaviors [40]. Similarly, SMIS has the potential to promote sustainability and environmentally friendly behaviors, and is considered an extrinsic motivational factor in our study [41]. Consequently, the proposed model (refer to Figure 1) explores the relationship between generational cohorts and GBB, with PER and SMIS mediating and moderating this relationship.
2.1. Generational Cohorts and Green Buying Behavior (GBB)
Individuals of identical age form generational cohorts, which share a consistent set of cultural characteristics and perceive themselves as interconnected [42]. In behavioral studies, the use of generational cohorts extends to the examination of group behavior, encompassing both their roles as producers in the public sphere and consumers in the private sphere [43]. While extant research has predominantly concentrated on generational cohorts within the purview of their professional domains, exploring facets like work engagement, leadership behavior, and work ethics [44,45,46], it is crucial to acknowledge the equally consequential dimension of their role as consumers. Recognition of this dimension becomes imperative, given that consumption habits exert a direct influence on production processes [47]. Consumer studies research scholars are increasingly emphasizing the investigation of green consumption in generational studies, underscoring the significance of environmentally conscious consumer habits in preserving and sustaining ecological balance for future generations [48]. Thus, the concept of green buying behavior came into existence, defined as a consumer’s preference to buy products that do not harm the environment [49]. Drawing from the literature, it is evident that each generational cohort has distinct consumer perceptions toward green products [50]. Thus, conducting generational studies becomes crucial in comprehending their GBB in the context of the contemporary landscape.
Gen X, often denoted as the post-boomers or shadow generation [51], tends to value thrifty consumer behavior, demonstrating caution with limited resources, and prioritizing purchasing options aimed at ensuring a better life for the future generation [52]. Conversely, Gen Y, also known as Millennials [53], may exhibit less conservative consumer tendencies but display a greater inclination towards sustainable consumption. They prioritize aspects that directly concern themselves over considerations for children or families [2]. This dichotomy underscores the potential for mixed motives and inherent contradictions in the perception of sustainable consumption across these two generations [54]. Furthermore, Lim et al. [55] emphasized the importance of analyzing the transitional generational perspective of Gen X and Gen Y, given that Gen X is now part of the aging population and Gen Y is no longer a young consumer, as their evolving needs and preferences are bound to influence their consumption behaviors. Thus, based on the above arguments, we propose the hypothesis that:
Gen X and Gen Y consumers have a positive influence on green buying behavior.
2.2. Perceived Environmental Responsibility (PER)
Perceived environmental responsibility refers to “a state in which a person expresses an intention to take action directed toward remediation of environmental problems—acting not as an individual consumer with his or her economic interests but through the lens of a citizen-consumer concept for societal and environmental well-being” [7] (p.601). Environmental responsibility can reflect individuals’ spiritual qualities (courage, perseverance, self-restraint, and public spirit) leading to an orientation towards nature [56] and act as an intrinsic motivator, influencing individuals’ behaviors regarding ecological problems [57].
Prior studies primarily concentrated on the influence of corporate environmental responsibility on green consumerism rather than PER. For example, Vu et al. [58] found that environmental corporate social responsibility initiatives were strongly and positively correlated with attitudes towards green products. Similarly, a study by Chuah et al. [59] found that a positive corporate social responsibility brand fit will enhance sustainable customer engagement behavior. Moisescu and Gică [59] found that corporate environmental responsibility impacts customer loyalty more for Gen Y, whereas the social facet of corporate responsibility is more pertinent for customers who belong to the Gen X cohort. Thus, research sporadically discusses whether consumers’ responsibility towards the environment can be a motivational factor for their purchasing behavior towards environmentally friendly products. Individuals with a higher PER can involve in activities that minimize environmental harm [60], and their environmental concerns may prompt them to purchase environmentally friendly products [61]. Gen X individuals are more concerned about the environment, and thus they are inclined to participate in pro-environmental activities [62]. Similarly, Gen Y individuals understand the seriousness of climate change and feel responsible for environmental protection [63]. Consequently, the shared environmental responsibility and concern of Gen X and Gen Y individuals may significantly influence their adoption of green purchasing habits. Thus, we propose the hypothesis:
Perceived environmental responsibility positively mediates the relationship between Gen X and Gen Y and their green buying behavior.
Individuals who demonstrate environmental responsibility are more inclined to engage in pro-environmental behavior than others [64]. Also, when individuals act responsibly in safeguarding the environment, they are more aware of the green attributes of the products [65]. Thus, Gen X and Gen Y individuals with a high level of environmental responsibility are more likely to show a favorable attitude toward green purchases [66,67], on the other hand Gen X and Gen Y individuals with a lower level of environmental responsibility may reduce the strength of this relationship. Thus, we propose our third hypothesis:
Perceived environmental responsibility moderates the relationship between Gen X and Gen Y and their green buying behavior, such that a higher or lower perceived environmental responsibility results in a positive or negative relationship between Gen X and Gen Y and their green buying behavior.
2.3. Social Media Information Sharing (SMIS)
The ability of environmentally responsible consumers to engage in green consumption is contingent upon access to pertinent information [68], and notably, social media technologies (e.g., social networking sites, blogs, forums, wikis, and microblogging tools) have emerged as a dependable and acceptable medium for the dissemination of information [69]. Social media platforms act as an important extrinsic environmental factor as per the tenets of social cognitive theory, they can be used to understand how people’s behavior changes when these communications affect their thinking process [34,70]. While the concept of social media information sharing is still evolving within academia [71], these platforms have become essential for disseminating information on events like disasters or public health crises such as COVID-19 and thereby become instrumental in creating awareness and facilitating support [72,73]. Additionally, individuals also indulge in information sharing on these social networking sites to influence their consumption patterns. In the realm of consumption decisions, research has confirmed that sharing information on social media platforms facilitates the acquisition of skills, knowledge, and attitudes essential for consumer participation in the marketplace [74]. E-word of mouth dominates in the context of green purchasing decisions [75], facilitated by social media platforms that share sustainable information and messages [76]. Social media’s influence on GBB is particularly significant among different generational cohorts. Gen X is known as “digital immigrants”, as they had to adapt to technology later in their lives, while Gen Y is known as “digital natives”, as they grew up in a digital environment [77]. Analysis of social media usage trends revealed that Gen X users primarily obtain information from online websites and blogs, leading to sustainable buying behavior, while Gen Y users devote more time to social media platforms, allowing their online peer group to influence their sustainable consumption [78,79,80]. Therefore, their familiarity with social media can mediate green buying decisions for Gen X and Gen Y. We thus frame the fourth hypothesis as follows:
Social media information sharing positively mediates the relationship between Gen X and Gen Y and their green buying behavior.
The time consumers spend on these social media platforms influences their buying behavior [81]. Social media offers a digital space for individuals to discuss and share their ideas [82], and the way people engage on these platforms may vary and can influence their attitudes and behaviors toward the consumption of green products [83]. Thus, Gen X and Y individuals who engage in higher levels of information sharing on these social media platforms may have a favorable impact on green purchases [84], on the other hand Gen X and Y individuals with low levels of social media interaction and information sharing may otherwise impact the strength of this relationship. Based on the aforementioned observations, we propose the following hypothesis:
Social media information sharing moderates the relationship between Gen X and Gen Y and their green buying behavior, such that a higher or lower level of social media information sharing results in a positive or negative relationship.
3. Methodology
3.1. Study 1: Quantitative
Our research performed quantitative research followed by qualitative research, hence using a mixed-method approach as was employed in [85]. This quantitative study aims to estimate the hypothesized model using structural equation modeling. A cross-sectional research design was used and the sample comprised cohorts of Generations X and Y of India. Quantitative analysis was initially carried out using SPSS 26 software.
3.1.1. Data Collection
The respondents of this study are Gen X and Y and this study borrowed reflective scales from the existing literature. Green buying behavior (GBB) was measured using a five-item scale taken from the research of Paço et al. [86]. The study by Lee [87] provided the items for measuring the perceived environmental responsibility (PER) construct, which Mark and Law [88] also used. We adopted three items from Sun and Xing’s [21] study to measure social media information sharing (SMIS). We measured all the scales using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).
The questionnaire consists of twelve items measuring three constructs, namely, GBB, PER, and SMIS. Income was used as a control variable, aligning with prior studies [89,90]. The data collection was carried out from February to May 2023. A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed to potential respondents via popular social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The participants were selected based on their age because it was aimed to collect a representative sample. To maximize the respondents’ participation, periodic reminders were sent, as suggested by Harindranath and Sivakumaran [91]. A total of 427 filled-in questionnaires were collected, with a response rate of 85%. The representativeness of our chosen sample was ensured by performing a nonparametric chi-square test (χ2) between generational cohorts and gender (p-value = 0.815), education (p-value = 0.769), and occupation (p-value = 0.360). These results suggest that the selected sample shows representativeness. Also, we looked at the percentage of Gen X and Gen Y in the population (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016) and compared it to the samples we chose. The results showed that the samples were mostly made up of the same people, which suggests that the samples were representative.
3.1.2. Results of the Quantitative Study
The descriptive statistics were computed using SPSS 26 and are presented below in Table 1.
Table 1 contains information about the gender, age, education, occupation, and monthly income of the respondents. The data were analyzed in sequence, based on the recommendation of Anderson and Gerbing [92], which states that the analysis should commence with the measurement model, followed by structural model estimation. The measurement model is estimated using confirmatory factor analysis and it is followed by structural model estimation, and these analyses are performed using AMOS software. The predictor variable (generational cohorts) is categorical, and coded in the following manner: Gen X (coded as 1) and Gen Y (coded as 0—reference category) [93,94].
3.1.3. Common Method Bias
When independent variables (IV) and dependent variables (DV) come from the same source, common method bias (CMB) becomes a problem. We used both pre hoc and post hoc approaches. We carry out pre hoc tasks during the questionnaire development process, such as eliminating ambiguity in the questions and verifying the absence of duplicate questions, among other things. We employ statistical control approaches in the post hoc phase. This study performed Harman’s single-factor test using exploratory factor analysis in SPSS, and the results show that the variance in the first factor (44%) is less than the threshold value of 50% [95]. Additionally, this study conducted a common latent factor model test using AMOS, revealing nearly identical model fit parameters with and without the method factor [96,97]. The results of these two statistical techniques suggest that the CMB may not be an issue.
3.1.4. Measurement Model
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the reliability and validity of the measurement model. The model fit for the measurement model is as follows. The χ2/df = 1.472 (p > 0.05) and the value of χ2/df is lower than the cut-off value of 3 [98]. The Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.995, the Incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.995 exceeds the threshold value of 0.95 [99], and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.993 exceeds the threshold value of 0.90 [100]. The standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) = 0.0212 (cut-off value is 0.08) and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) score = 0.033 and its cut-off value is <0.06 [99], suggesting that the measurement model has an excellent fit.
The results of the convergent and discriminant validity, standardized factor loadings, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR), along with mean and standard deviation, are given in Table 2.
The standardized factor loadings (λ) for all the items in this study were found to be greater than 0.60, and all the constructs in this study demonstrated satisfactory levels of reliability (CR > 0.7) [94]. The AVE value of all constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.50, as suggested by Fornell and Larcker [101], confirming this study constructs’ convergent validity. According to Fornell and Larcker [101], the AVE values for each factor exceeded the squared intercorrelations with other factors, indicating discriminant validity. Therefore, the measurement model’s reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity support its adequacy.
3.1.5. Structural Model Results
After the measurement model assessment, the analysis moved on to the estimation of the structural model. The χ2/df = 1.328 (p > 0.05) and the value of χ2/df is less than the cut-off value of 3 [98]. The Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.996, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.966, and Incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.995 exceeding the threshold value of 0.95. The standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) = 0.025 (cut-off value is <0.08) and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) score = 0.028 and its cut-off value is <0.06. [99], suggest that the structural model has an excellent fit. Controlling for Income, the coefficient for GBB was not statistically significant (β = −0.088, p > 0.1).
3.1.6. Moderation, Direct and Indirect Effect Results
The structural model analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses using maximum likelihood estimation (refer to Table 3). The results show a positive relationship between GC and GBB (β = 0.311, p < 0.001), supporting H1. This suggests that Gen X consumers have a higher association towards the purchase of environmentally friendly products compared to Gen Y consumers. Though not hypothesized, we report the results of direct effects. The relation between GC and PER is not significant (β = −0.047; p > 0.1); there is a significant relationship between GC and SMIS (β = 0.311; p < 0.001); a non-significant relationship exists between PER and GBB (β = −0.027; p > 0.1); and the relationship between SMIS and GBB is significant (β = 0.331; p < 0.001).
The mediation is performed using 5000 bootstrap samples. PER does not mediate the relationship between GC and GBB (β = 0.000; p > 0.1; 95% CI = −0.007 to 0.009), thus not supporting hypothesis H2. The moderation of PER on GC and GBB is also not significant (B = −0.010; p = 0.9); hence, hypothesis H3 is not supported. The relationship between generational cohorts and GBB is mediated by SMIS (β = 0.103; p < 0.001; 95% CI = 0.072 to 0.142), which signifies a partial mediation [102] (H4 is supported). SMIS negatively moderates the relationship between GC and GBB (B = −1.209; p < 0.001), supporting H5; thus, Gen Y demonstrates a profound moderating effect compared with Gen X, whereas Gen X shows marginal moderation, as shown in Figure 2.
To further probe the interaction effect, we performed a flood light analysis using the Johnson–Neyman method presented in Table 4 in line with the study by Harindranath and Sivakumaran [91]. For a smaller level of SMIS, the interaction effect is stronger and diminishes as the value of SMIS increases. The positive value of the interaction term favors Gen X and the negative interaction value favors Gen Y, suggesting that the two cohorts do not possess the same level of motivation towards environmentally friendly products.
3.2. Study 2: Qualitative Study
The follow-up qualitative study aimed to elaborate on the results of the quantitative study and gain a deeper understanding of how perceived environmental responsibility and social media information sharing influence green buying behavior among Gen X and Gen Y cohorts. Some unexpected findings in our quantitative study prompted exploration through qualitative research.
3.2.1. Data Collection
We gathered qualitative data via semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 60 respondents using a purposive sampling approach [103]. We propose a screening question to identify suitable respondents. We asked screening questions to determine whether respondents belong to Gen X or Y, and we did not entertain any respondents not belonging to these cohorts. A few experts developed and vetted open-ended questions to elicit information during in-depth interviews. This study conducted interviews between June and July 2023, a period of two months, with 60 respondents (30 each from Gen X and Y). Two bilingual experts, well-versed in both English and local languages, conducted interviews in vernacular languages and converted the interview transcripts to English using back-to-back translation [104]. The questionnaire for in-depth interviews is presented in Table 5.
We informed the participants about this study’s purpose and goals, and we explained what green products are. The NVIVO software systematized, condensed, and sorted the interview transcripts into preliminary categories, and then coded them using content analysis. We employed content analysis to examine and describe the interview data [105]. We identified the interview transcripts with participant identification numbers and redacted other identifiable information [106]. We derived a coding framework based on our prior research questions. Each transcript was encoded by the primary coder. Fellow researchers reviewed and analyzed the interview transcripts to ensure the material’s confirmability [107]. We then used an iterative process of decontextualization and recontextualization to analyze the coded dataset and extract its meaning [108]. The questionnaire for the in-depth interview is available in the appendix.
3.2.2. Results of Qualitative Study
We conducted interviews with both Gen X and Gen Y consumers to understand their green purchasing habits and the motivations behind these choices. Initially, we analyzed the transcripts from Gen X consumers. It was clear that they prioritized purchasing green products, largely driven by health concerns related to aging. Many experienced health issues due to environmental degradation, prompting them to purchase green products, particularly organic food. Interviewee 47 echoes this sentiment as she shares her health motivations:
“I strive for a healthy lifestyle, and eating organic food products has improved my health”. Additionally, I drive an electric car because I suffered from asthma for the past 15 years, and my doctor attributed it to pollution. “By using green products, I am making a small contribution to reducing pollution”.
Furthermore, Gen X consumers expressed a strong sense of responsibility towards future generations. They are acutely aware of the environmental challenges and feel compelled to make sustainable choices to ensure a better world for their future generations. Interviewee 23 expressed this concern, saying,
“We’ve been abusing our environment for quite some time, knowingly or unknowingly. I’m worried about whether we’ll leave a clean and sustainable world for our children. While I cannot halt environmental degradation completely, I believe we can at least try to preserve the environment for a better future by consuming green products. I’m hopeful for positive change in the coming years”.
In similar lines, Interviewee 11 also expressed, “For the past two to three years, I have switched from using conventional cooking oil to marasekku oil (cold-pressed oil from natural nuts, vegetables, or seeds, using an age-old mill called “chekku” in local language). The chekku or oil mill is close to my house… I prefer to buy such green products because I always believe in protecting nature, which will protect our family’s health and future generations…
Furthermore, among Gen X consumers, there is a discernible trend toward green products, apart from organic food. This includes adopting eco-friendly household items, such as biodegradable cleaning supplies and recycled paper products. This holistic approach reflects their commitment to minimizing impact on the environment in various ways, aiming for a sustainable lifestyle that aligns with their values of conservation and responsible consumption. For instance, Interviewee 58 remarked:
“I’ve noticed that my priorities have shifted over the years. It’s not just organic food; I’m trying to use green products in every aspect of my life. For instance, I’ve switched to using eco-friendly household products like biodegradable cleaning supplies, garbage, and recycled paper products. I believe that every little bit helps when it comes to reducing our environmental footprint”.
Examining the transcripts from the Gen Y cohort reveals that these consumers gravitate towards green products that provide uniqueness and style. Interviewee 6 highlighted their inclination towards innovative and eco-friendly products.
“……I have a 6-month baby. Recently, when I visited a shop, I found a bamboo diaper that is both healthy for the baby and the environment. Such unique and innovative products are very attractive to buy, and I also recommend them to my friends……”
Likewise, Interviewee 13 echoed a similar sentiment, stating, “I always prefer to buy unique products. One such product I came across is the vetiver (perennial grass of India) slippers. I have been using it for the past two months. It feels very good for my heel and also good for the environment to use such eco-friendly products…”.
In exploring the perspectives of Gen Y consumers, it becomes clear that many feel dissatisfied with the limited assortments of green products available to them. A majority of respondents voiced concerns about the inadequate variety when it comes to environmentally friendly options. For instance, there is frustration over the sparse availability of brands manufacturing electric vehicles, which restricts choices for consumers interested in reducing their environmental impact. Furthermore, many people perceive some green products, like solar panels and organic items, as expensive and not widely commercialized, rendering them inaccessible. This scarcity poses a significant challenge for Gen Y consumers striving to make sustainable purchasing decisions amidst the current market landscape. Interviewee 29 echoed these concerns, highlighting the dissatisfaction among Gen Y consumers with the limited availability of green products:
“… My friends, the majority of them, feel that they don’t have enough green brand choices to choose from. For example, if I want to buy an electric vehicle, there are only a few brands available, so making a choice becomes difficult. Additionally, certain environmentally friendly products are not readily available. For instance, solar panels come at a high cost and are not widely commercialized. There are only a few brands available for green products, which makes it difficult for us to choose or purchase them if their availability is limited”.
In terms of perceived environmental responsibility, both Gen X and Gen Y individuals confirm their concerns about the environment and take steps to mitigate environmental impact. However, this commitment to environmental consciousness often does not translate into consistent purchasing behaviors for green products. For instance, Gen X Interviewee 34 (a housewife) highlighted her effort to support the environment:
“I am a housewife, so I don’t get out much to contribute to the environment beyond my home. That’s why I started doing home gardening and using organic manure from my vegetable waste…… Yes, I acknowledge there are organic products available in stores. But when it comes to buying them, I’m unsure if they’re truly organic…… We are unaware of their natural growth methods or their source. At home, our gardening practices are environment-friendly, because we use vegetable waste for producing organic manure”.
This quote illustrates the skepticism surrounding commercial organic products. The preference is given to homemade organic foods over those commercially available in the shop.
Similarly, Interviewee 57, who is currently serving as the president of an apartment complex, reflected:
“I’ve taken the initiative to plant trees in our vicinity to contribute positively to the environment. ……… I have doubts about the organic brands available on the market. Products packaged in stores don’t instill confidence in their organic claims. Instead, I prefer purchasing from vendors who grow vegetables in their backyards. This way, I can ensure the authenticity of the products I buy”.
Similarly, Gen Y individuals also express skepticism about the authenticity and reliability of green products. For example, Interviewee 4 stated:
“…if I find any plastics on the ground or seashore, I don’t shy away from picking them up and putting them in the proper dust bin, and I contribute this way to the environment rather than buying green products, of which I don’t know whether they are organic and chemical-friendly……”.
Additionally, Interviewee 19 reflected on the environmental impact of their purchasing decisions.
“You could say I’m purchasing and charging an electric car, which increases my electricity consumption. However, in India, electricity primarily comes from thermal or nuclear power, which still pollutes the environment. Unless there’s a widespread shift to renewable energy sources, purchasing these items doesn’t make much of a difference”.
These perspectives from both Gen X and Gen Y individuals show that they prefer to act in a responsible way to protect the environment rather than purchasing organic or green products.
Social media has significantly influenced the purchasing behavior of Gen X and Y consumers for green products.
For Gen X, platforms like Facebook have become beneficial sources of information and trust-building regarding organic and environmentally friendly products. Many Gen X consumers rely on social media to learn about and verify the authenticity of green products before making a purchase. For example, one Gen X interviewee (Interviewee 51) stated,
“…through these social media platforms, especially Facebook, we got to know more information about organic soaps and washing powders. The Facebook page provides comprehensive information about these organic products, ensuring our trustworthiness. Additionally, my family has been using these products for the past five years. (Interviewee 51)”.
Similarly, another interviewee (Interviewee 48) noted, “I became aware of organic food products solely through social media…… I follow a Facebook page called Horticulture, which provides comprehensive information about these organic products. For the past two years, I’ve been purchasing vegetables and pulses from them via Facebook”.
Gen Y consumers actively leverage social media platforms such as Instagram to share and discuss green products within their peer groups, contributing to a collective shift towards sustainable consumption. However, the level of engagement with social media varies among individuals, which can facilitate the purchase of green products. The qualitative analysis underscores the varying degrees of influence and engagement, illustrating the social media role in shaping the purchasing habits of green products among Gen Y.
For instance, one Gen Y respondent (Interviewee 16) highlighted the significant impact of social media on their purchasing behavior:
“I often share these posts about organic products with my friends on Instagram. As a group, we discuss the product’s ingredients through Instagram messages and have recently shifted to sustainable hair and skin care products”.
In contrast, another respondent (Interviewee 35) expressed a different perspective:
“… I don’t buy green products unless they are somewhat branded; otherwise, I stick to conventional products…… I am on Facebook, but I am not very active and rarely browse it”.
4. Discussion
This study addresses a few important research gaps in the sustainable consumption domain. Based on Sharma et al.‘s [109] systematic review, which makes the point that cohort analysis is important for understanding green consumption, this study does the same by examining how different generations affect green buying habits in an emerging market like India. Given the effectiveness of cohort segmentation in targeting consumer markets, we emphasize the pressing need for nuanced insights into the GBB of Gen X and Gen Y cohorts. While the existing literature often compares Gen X and Gen Y cohorts across domains such as ethical dilemmas, work values and beliefs, and online purchase behavior [110,111,112], there remains a dearth of such comparative studies concerning GBB. Therefore, our study addresses this gap by providing insights into the green consumption habits of these cohorts, offering valuable implications for marketers seeking to target environmentally conscious consumers effectively.
This study examines the influence of generational cohorts (here, Gen X and Gen Y) on their GBB. Except for two, all our hypotheses received support. The first hypothesis’ results indicate that Indian Gen X consumers exhibit higher levels of green buying compared to their Gen Y counterparts, a finding that aligns with similar studies [113,114]. The probable reason would be that Gen X, being at a stage of life where health concerns become more important, may develop more sustainable consumption habits than Gen Y consumers [115]. The study of Syropoulos and Markowitz [116], which reported that responsibility to the future generation was found to be a strong predictor of engagement in pro-environmental behavior, supports Gen X’s prioritization of the future generation’s well-being, and a qualitative study echoes these findings. The qualitative results also suggest that Gen Y individuals prioritize uniqueness and style when it comes to their consumption of green products. The study by Soh et al. [117], which found that the need for uniqueness influences Gen Y purchase intention, supports this. The qualitative findings reveal that challenges with product availability and costs associated with green products impede their green consumption, potentially causing them to consume fewer green products than Gen X customers. Numerous studies provide support for these statements. Wijekoon and Sabri, for example, state that limited product availability widens the gap between positive intention and actual behavior toward green purchase behavior [118]. Also, a study by Moslehpour et al. found that consumers feel that green products are costlier than conventional products, which may also affect their green purchase behavior [119].
The outcomes of the second and third hypotheses indicate that PER does not serve as a mediator or moderator for Indian Gen X and Gen Y consumers in influencing their GBB. The findings of previous studies [88,120] suggest that PER has a mediation effect on green buying, while Duan et al. [121] underscore the moderating role of PER. While Gen X and Y’s environmental concerns may not directly lead to GBB due to inherent skepticism about green products [122,123], they could manifest in other sustainable actions. Although consumers are responsible for their environment, they do not show this responsibility in consumption. While they engage in environmental activities, their understanding of environmental responsibility is not comprehensive [25]. Qualitative findings also reflect this, revealing that both generations frequently doubt the authenticity of green products. This skepticism prompts them to prioritize environmental protection, such as collecting litter and placing it in the appropriate basket, over buying organic or green products. Gen X consumers express skepticism about the authenticity of commercially available organic products, preferring those with verifiable sources. Gen Y consumers also express their skepticism differently. Though electric vehicles are sustainable, the energy consumed by such vehicles comes from a non-renewable source (i.e., Thermal energy).
The fourth hypothesis findings reveal that SMIS mediates the relationship between the Gen X cohort and their GBB. The findings may indicate that Indian Gen X consumers share more green information on social media, resulting in an improved GBB. This finding is supported by the studies of Peralta [124] and Sun and Wang [114], who found that Gen X individuals are likely to engage in social media platforms to enhance their product knowledge before making their purchase decisions. This fifth hypothesis shows that SMIS moderates Gen Y and GBB (refer to Figure 2), indicating that Gen Y consumers show high engagement when exposed to environmental information on social media and are inclined to purchase green products.
The blue line (in Figure 2) indicates the profound moderating effect of SMIS on the relationship between Generation Y and green buying behavior. The green line indicates a marginal level of SMIS’s moderating effect on the relationship between Generation X and green buying behavior.
Conversely, reduced engagement with or exposure to such environmental information may result in lower levels of GBB. Studies by Zhao et al. [125] and Strähle and Gräff [126] support this result, stating that social media networks, where sustainability discussions often occur within green communities, highly influence young consumers (Gen Y). Our study found that Gen X influences GBB positively, SMIS moderates the relationship between Gen Y and GBB positively, and, to our surprise, PER neither mediates nor moderates the relationship between generational cohorts and GBB. We triangulated these results with qualitative findings, revealing that social media has a crucial role for both generations. Gen X uses social media platforms like Facebook to verify product authenticity, while Gen Y uses Instagram for peer discussions and recommendations. The qualitative narratives complement the quantitative findings, illustrating the nuanced motivations, challenges, and social media influences that shape green purchasing behaviors across generations.
5. Theoretical Contribution
Our research used “social media information sharing” as a moderator between generational cohorts and GBB, thus expanding the information-sharing literature. This research is in line with the prior studies that have used “information sharing” as a moderator. For example, Dang [127] used SMIS as a moderator between two relationships: social networking site involvement and relationship quality (moderate positively), and social networking site involvement and social life satisfaction (moderate negatively). A study by Pandey et al. [128] also discovered that “cross-functional information sharing” weakens the connection between “asymmetric investments by a sourcing firm and its strategic supplier base” and the “perceived tendency of the strategic supplier base to shirk”. Further, Wei et al. [129] reported that marketing information sharing moderates positively the relationship between “Innovative culture perception” and job satisfaction.
Our paper discovered that SMIS positively mediates the relationship between Gen X and GBB and this is our second contribution. Our findings add to the existing literature that uses “information sharing” as a mediator. Wu [130] reported that IS mediates positively social capital and firm competitiveness, and similarly, Obadă and Dabija [131] reported that “fake news sharing” mediates positively the path between Perceived Control (PC), Concentration (CON), and Time distortion (TD). Surprisingly, our results for the relationship between PER and GBB are not significant for our samples for both cohorts, i.e., Gen X and Gen Y. Our results contradict the findings of existing studies, which reported significant relations between PER and GBB. Attaran et al. [66] found that environmental responsibility strongly predicts “willingness to pay” for green buildings. Also, Klöckner [132] found in his meta-analysis that individuals’ PER is likely to affect their environmentally significant behavior. However, our qualitative investigation reveals that respondents engage in pro-environmental behaviors and do not purchase green products due to skepticism [133]. Though not a noticeable contribution, our study used the Johnson–Neyman algorithm or flood light analysis to probe the interaction of SMIS on the relationship between cohorts and GBB.
6. Conclusions
Our study examines the relationship between Gen X and Y and green purchase behavior in an emerging market. This study establishes a significant generational difference (between Gen X and Gen Y), as Gen X has a higher green buying behavior than Gen Y. Thus, marketers must focus on Gen X due to their higher buying power compared to Gen Y. Furthermore, our study revealed that SMIS mediates the relationship between Gen X (and not Gen Y) and green buying behavior, indicating that individuals exposed to social media exhibit higher levels of GBB. Gen X social media users could be critical for purchasing green products. The results show that for Gen Y with a lower level of SMIS, the GBB is low, and for those with a higher level of SMIS, it is high. On the other hand, for Gen X with a lower level of SMIS, the GBB is moderate; for those with a higher level of SMIS, it has a small effect (see Figure 2). SMIS influences the GBB to be higher for Gen Y and moderate for Gen X. As a result, green product marketers target Gen Y individuals, who spend more time on social media than Gen X. Conversely, Gen X individuals require more social media advertisements to increase their awareness of green products.
7. Managerial Implication
Our research suggests that social media is an important product promotion tool, and marketing managers should demand a higher budget for social media promotion among top management. The firms design and post regular advertisements about green products on prominent social media platforms, especially during festivals (e.g., Diwali, Christmas, and Ramadan) and holidays. The firms must focus on social media like Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. The advertisement message should have environmental protection cues to draw the attention of Gen X and Y [134]. Delivering environmental protection messages packed with benefits, such as quantifying power savings, highlighting the advantages of sustainable foods, and emphasizing sustainable packaging, can significantly influence consumers’ consumption decisions. Wherever possible, marketing communication should be targeted separately for Gen X and Y. For instance, one may provide more price-conscious information to Gen X than to Gen Y. Similarly, educating Gen X customers about eco-benefit products can elevate the GBB level. Websites and blogs can stimulate discussions and debates among Gen Y individuals. It is not just about promoting products on social media; potential customers can also benefit from information about a product’s availability on these platforms. The results indicate that SMIS moderates and mediates the relationship between generational cohorts and GBB, making it a valuable variable for practitioners. Therefore, firms can develop online quizzes on SMIS and encourage individuals to participate, thereby evaluating the SMIS scores of Gen X and Y individuals. Designing a marketing campaign for individuals with SMIS scores above the mean allows for targeting potential customers. Influencer marketing is another effective and proven method to promote green products through social media. Our study’s important finding is that PER does not influence GBB. The generational cohorts have PER but are not converting to a purchase decision. The latent stage of PER necessitates a trigger to transition into a behavior, and this trigger can manifest in various ways. We can design an effective advertisement to transform the latent stage into action. For example, a low-carbon-emitting computer advertisement can trigger a purchase.
8. Limitations and Future Research Directions
The current study has some significant limitations. Self-reported surveys may show social desirability bias regarding green product purchases [135]; so, future research can plan for experimental design. Since social media plays a predominant role in green consumerism, there is an opportunity to explore additional dimensions of social media. Future research could extensively investigate influencer marketing, user reviews, and testimonials available on social media, as well as their impact on green purchases. Given that onsumers’ environmental responsibility does not significantly predict green purchases, we could test a potential mediation effect between factors such as perceived sacrifice, post-materialistic values, and their green purchase attitude. We conducted this research in India, and future studies can explore cultural variations in other countries.
Consumer product firms’ role in promoting pollution reduction will be a key future research agenda, and it can help increase product adoption among cohorts. We present a few examples below, and future research can conduct similar studies. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) activism influences exploratory green innovation in family-owned firms, and the influence is greater for second-generation family firms [136]. The effect of digital transformation on city decarbonization varies depending on the heterogeneity of companies, regions, and sectors [137], and digital transformation significantly promotes firm pollution reduction [138].
Conceptualization, R.M.H.; Methodology, R.M.H.; Validation, R.M.H.; Writing—original draft, U.B.A.; Writing—review & editing, R.M.H. and P.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.
The authors declare no conflict 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.
Demographic details.
| Group | Frequency and Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 215 (50.4) |
| Female | 212 (49.6) | |
| Age | Generation X (44 to 58 years) | 201 (47.1) |
| Generation Y (26 to 43 years) | 226 (52.9) | |
| Education | Diploma | 40 (9.4) |
| Graduate | 112 (26.2) | |
| Postgraduate | 187 (43.8) | |
| Doctoral | 88 (20.6) | |
| Occupation | Working Professional | 192 (45.0) |
| Government Employee | 59 (13.8) | |
| Business | 56 (13.1) | |
| Homemaker | 120 (28.1) | |
| Monthly Income | Less than INR 40,000 | 143 (33.5) |
| INR 40,000 to INR 80,000 | 149 (34.9) | |
| Greater than INR 80,000 | 135 (31.6) | |
| Note: INR 100 = USD 1.20 in January 2024 | ||
Measurement model.
| Constructs | Standardized Loadings | t-Stat | CR | AVE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green Buying Behavior (GC) | 0.947 | 0.78 | ||||
| GBB1: I changed products/brands for environmental concerns | 0.918 *** | |||||
| GBB2: I refrained from purchasing a product due to its potential adverse environmental impact | 0.888 *** | 29.28 | ||||
| GBB3: I plan to purchase items in reusable containers or bags | 0.878 *** | 28.41 | ||||
| GBB4: When faced with the option between two equivalent products, I opt for the one that poses lesser harm to both individuals and the environment | 0.85 *** | 26.27 | ||||
| GBB5: I make an effort to purchase energy-efficient devices and appliances | 0.892 *** | 29.56 | ||||
| Perceived Environmental Responsibility (PER) | 0.903 | 0.75 | ||||
| PER1: I should be responsible for protecting our environment. | 0.886 *** | |||||
| PER2: Environmental protection starts with me. | 0.828 *** | 21.65 | ||||
| PER3: Environmental protection is the responsibility of both the government and the mine | 0.897 *** | 23.78 | ||||
| Social Media Information Sharing (SMIS) | 0.921 | 0.79 | ||||
| SMIS1: My engagement with environmental topics on social media sharing has influenced my green product purchases | 0.839 *** | |||||
| SMIS2: The eco-friendly information shared in social media messages gave me more accessible access to information or feedback on green products | 0.922 *** | 24.56 | ||||
| SMIS3: Information-sharing content about green products is worthwhile and trusted on social media | 0.916 *** | 24.38 | ||||
| Discriminant Validity (Fornell–Larcker Criterion) | ||||||
| Constructs | Mean | Standard deviation | GBB | PER | SMIS | |
| GBB | 3.184 | 1.027 | 0.885 | |||
| PER | 3.871 | 0.983 | 0.427 | 0.893 | ||
| SMIS | 2.158 | 1.037 | −0.022 ** | 0.042 | 0.870 | |
Note: GBB is green buying behavior; PER is Perceived Environmental Responsibility; SMIS is Social Media Information Sharing; CR is Composite Reliability; AVE is Average Variance Extracted; *** p < 0.001 and ** p < 0.01.
Structural model results.
| Path | Unstandardized | Standard Error | t-Stat | Hypothesis | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderating analysis | |||||
| SMIS * GC → GBB | −1.299 *** | 0.1160 | −11.218 | H5 supported | |
| PER * GC → GBB | −0.010 NS | 0.0930 | −0.1056 | H3 not supported | |
| Mediation analysis | |||||
| Indirect path | Standardized | Standard error | 95% bias-corrected confidence interval | Hypothesis | |
| LLCI | ULCI | ||||
| GC → PER → GBB | 0.072 NS | 0.004 | −0.007 | 0.009 | H2 not supported |
| GC → SMIS → GBB | 0.103 *** | 0.018 | 0.072 | 0.142 | H4 supported |
Note: *** is significant at < 0.001 level; NS is Not Supported; * is multiplication; GC is Generational Cohorts; PER is Perceived Environmental Responsibility; SIMS is Social Media Information Sharing; GBB is green buying behavior. LLCI: Lower limit confidence interval; ULCI: Upper limit confidence interval.
Conditional effect using Johnson–Neyman Technique.
| SMIS | Effect | SE | p-Value | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0000 | 1.7516 | 0.1258 | 0.0000 | 1.5043 | 1.9989 |
| 1.2820 | 1.4970 | 0.1094 | 0.0000 | 1.2105 | 1.7120 |
| 1.4211 | 1.2424 | 0.0954 | 0.0000 | 1.0549 | 1.4300 |
| 1.6316 | 0.9879 | 0.0850 | 0.0000 | 0.8207 | 1.1551 |
| 1.8421 | 0.7333 | 0.0798 | 0.0000 | 0.5765 | 0.8901 |
| 2.0526 | 0.4788 | 0.0805 | 0.0000 | 0.3205 | 0.6371 |
| 2.2632 | 0.2242 | 0.0872 | 0.0105 | 0.0528 | 0.3956 |
| 2.3037 | 0.1751 | 0.0891 | 0.0500 | 0.0000 | 0.3503 |
| 2.4737 | −0.0304 | 0.0986 | 0.7583 | −0.2242 | 0.1635 |
| 2.6257 | −0.2142 | 0.1090 | 0.0500 | −0.4284 | 0.0000 |
| 2.6842 | −0.2849 | 0.1133 | 0.0123 | −0.5077 | −0.0622 |
| 2.8947 | −0.5395 | 0.1302 | 0.0000 | −0.7954 | −0.2835 |
| 3.1053 | −0.7940 | 0.1485 | 0.0000 | −1.0860 | −0.5021 |
| 3.3158 | −1.0486 | 0.1678 | 0.0000 | −1.3785 | −0.7187 |
| 3.5263 | −1.3032 | 0.1878 | 0.0000 | −1.6723 | −0.9340 |
| 3.7368 | −1.5577 | 0.2083 | 0.0000 | −1.9671 | −1.1484 |
| 3.9474 | −1.8123 | 0.2291 | 0.0000 | −2.2625 | −1.3621 |
| 4.1579 | −2.0669 | 0.2501 | 0.0000 | −2.5585 | −1.5752 |
| 4.3684 | −2.3214 | 0.2714 | 0.0000 | −2.8548 | −1.7880 |
| 4.5789 | −2.5760 | 0.2928 | 0.0000 | −3.1515 | −2.0004 |
| 4.7895 | −2.8305 | 0.3144 | 0.0000 | −3.4484 | −2.2126 |
| 5.0000 | −3.0851 | 0.3360 | 0.0000 | −3.7455 | −2.4246 |
Note: SMIS is social media information sharing; SE is standard error; LLCI is lower limit confidence interval; ULCI is upper limit confidence interval; To evaluate the interaction of SMIS on GBB, our research uses the Johnson–Neyman algorithm in PROCESS macro that employ different moderator values. The table shows the ranges of moderator values (SMIS) in which the predictor (GC) is significant to the outcome (here GBB).
In-depth interview questions about green products (the interviewer gave a brief description of green products at the beginning of the interview).
| Interview Questions | Corresponding Probes |
|---|---|
| 1. Please introduce yourself. | How old are you? |
| 2. Your belief about green products? | Do you buy green products? And types? |
| 3. Please describe how your sense of responsibility towards the environment in purchasing green products. | Are you concerned about the environment? |
| 4. The role of social media in buying green products. | What social media platforms do you prefer? |
References
1. Norum, P.S. Examination of Generational Differences in Household Apparel Expenditures. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J.; 2003; 32, pp. 52-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077727X03255901]
2. Diprose, K.; Valentine, G.; Vanderbeck, R.M.; Liu, C.; McQuaid, K. Building Common Cause towards Sustainable Consumption: A Cross-Generational Perspective. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space; 2019; 2, pp. 203-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2514848619834845]
3. Gürbüz, S. Generational Differences: A Myth or Reality?. J. Hum. Work; 2015; pp. 39-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18394/iid.80342]
4. Peattie, K. Green Consumption: Beahavior and Norms. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.; 2010; 35, pp. 195-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-032609-094328]
5. Irfany, M.I.; Khairunnisa, Y.; Tieman, M. Factors Influencing Muslim Generation Z Consumers’ Purchase Intention of Environmentally Friendly Halal Cosmetic Products. J. Islam. Mark.; 2024; 15, pp. 221-243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-07-2022-0202]
6. Confetto, M.G.; Covucci, C.; Addeo, F.; Normando, M. Sustainability Advocacy Antecedents: How Social Media Content Influences Sustainable Behaviours among Generation Z. J. Consum. Mark.; 2023; 40, pp. 758-774. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-11-2021-5038]
7. Ling, P.-S.; Chin, C.-H.; Yi, J.; Wong, W.P.M. Green Consumption Behaviour among Generation Z College Students in China: The Moderating Role of Government Support. Young Consum.; 2023; 25, pp. 507-527. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/YC-01-2022-1443]
8. Chan, C.K.Y.; Lee, K.K.W. The AI Generation Gap: Are Gen Z Students More Interested in Adopting Generative AI Such as ChatGPT in Teaching and Learning than Their Gen X and Millennial Generation Teachers?. Smart Learn. Environ.; 2023; 10, 60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3]
9. Thangavel, P.; Pathak, P.; Chandra, B. Millennials and Generation Z: A Generational Cohort Analysis of Indian Consumers. Benchmarking; 2021; 28, pp. 2157-2177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2020-0050]
10. Ranjan, A. South Asia in and After the 1980s. Stud. Indian Politics; 2024; 12, pp. 48-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23210230241235357]
11. Jasrotia, S.S.; Darda, P.; Pandey, S. Changing Values of Millennials and Centennials towards Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Society. Soc. Bus. Rev.; 2023; 18, pp. 244-263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SBR-01-2022-0013]
12. 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]
13. Ahmad, F.S.; Rosli, N.T.; Quoquab, F. Environmental Quality Awareness, Green Trust, Green Self-Efficacy and Environmental Attitude in Influencing Green Purchase Behaviour. Int. J. Ethics Syst.; 2022; 38, pp. 68-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-05-2020-0072]
14. Kaur, J.; Gupta, S.; Singh, L.B. Role of Justification of Unethical Behaviour in Sustainable Fashion Consumption among Indian Consumers: A Parallel Mediation Approach. J. Consum. Mark.; 2023; 40, pp. 842-853. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-12-2020-4305]
15. Dilotsotlhe, N. Factors Influencing the Green Purchase Behaviour of Millennials: An Emerging Country Perspective. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2021; 8, 1908745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1908745]
16. Ogiemwonyi, O. Factors Influencing Generation Y Green Behaviour on Green Products in Nigeria: An Application of Theory of Planned Behaviour. Environ. Sustain. Indic.; 2022; 13, 100164. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100164]
17. Casalegno, C.; Candelo, E.; Santoro, G. Exploring the Antecedents of Green and Sustainable Purchase Behaviour: A Comparison among Different Generations. Psychol. Mark.; 2022; 39, pp. 1007-1021. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.21637]
18. Caputo, A.; Marzi, G.; Pellegrini, M.M.; Rialti, R. Conflict Management in Family Businesses: A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Confl. Manag.; 2018; 29, pp. 519-542. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-02-2018-0027]
19. Panopoulos, A.; Poulis, A.; Theodoridis, P.; Kalampakas, A. Influencing Green Purchase Intention through Eco Labels and User-Generated Content. Sustainability; 2022; 15, 764. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15010764]
20. Agrawal, D.K. Determining Behavioural Differences of Y and Z Generational Cohorts in Online Shopping. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.; 2022; 50, pp. 880-895. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-12-2020-0527]
21. Sun, Y.; Xing, J. The Impact of Social Media Information Sharing on the Green Purchase Intention among Generation Z. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 6879. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14116879]
22. Shahrin, R.; Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J.; Jamil, R. Factors Affecting Consumers’ pro-Environmental Behaviour in Nutricosmetics Consumption: The Role of Perceived Environmental Responsibility as a Mediator. J. Asia Bus. Stud.; 2020; 14, pp. 671-689. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JABS-02-2019-0035]
23. Čapienė, A.; Rūtelionė, A.; Krukowski, K. Engaging in Sustainable Consumption: Exploring the Influence of Environmental Attitudes, Values, Personal Norms, and Perceived Responsibility. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 10290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su141610290]
24. Zhao, X.; An, H. Research on the Mechanism of Heterogeneous Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Z-Generation Consumers ’ Sustainable Purchase Intention. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 10318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151310318]
25. Zheng, G.W.; Siddik, A.B.; Masukujjaman, M.; Alam, S.S.; Akter, A. Perceived Environmental Responsibilities and Green Buying Behavior: The Mediating Effect of Attitude. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010035]
26. Rahulan, M.; Troynikov, O.; Watson, C.; Janta, M.; Senner, V. Consumer Behavior of Generational Cohorts for Compression Sportswear. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.; 2015; 19, pp. 87-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-05-2013-0072]
27. Parment, A. Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping Behavior, Buyer Involvement and Implications for Retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2013; 20, pp. 189-199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001]
28. Ivanova, O.; Flores-Zamora, J.; Khelladi, I.; Ivanaj, S. The Generational Cohort Effect in the Context of Responsible Consumption. Manag. Decis.; 2019; 57, pp. 1162-1183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2016-0915]
29. Mannheim, K. The Problem of Generations. Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge; Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, UK, 1927.
30. Reisenwitz, T.; Iyer, R. A Comparison of Younger and Older Baby Boomers: Investigating the Viability of Cohort Segmentation. J. Consum. Mark.; 2007; 24, pp. 202-213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760710755995]
31. Jain, N.; Raman, T.V. The Interplay of Perceived Risk, Perceive Benefit and Generation Cohort in Digital Finance Adoption. EuroMed J. Bus.; 2023; 18, pp. 359-379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-09-2021-0132]
32. Fernández-Durán, J.J. Defining Generational Cohorts for Marketing in Mexico. J. Bus. Res.; 2016; 69, pp. 435-444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.049]
33. Paavola, J. Towards Sustainable Consumption: Economics and Ethical Concerns for the Environment in Consumer Choices. Rev. Soc. Econ.; 2001; 59, pp. 227-248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00346760110036175]
34. Yoon, H.J.; Tourassi, G. Analysis of Online Social Networks to Understand Information Sharing Behaviors through Social Cognitive Theory. Proceedings of the 2014 Biomedical Sciences and Engineering Conference; Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 31 July 2014; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/BSEC.2014.6867744]
35. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to pro- Environmental Behavior?. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2002; 8, pp. 239-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401]
36. Schiffman, L.G. Consumer Behavior; Prentice Hall International: London, UK, 1993; ISBN 9353943809
37. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. The Health Psychology Reader; Marks, D. Sage Publications: London, UK, 1986; pp. 94-106.
38. Goldsmith, E.B. Social Influence and Sustainable Consumption; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; ISBN 3319207385
39. Wang, P.; Liu, Q.; Qi, Y. Factors Influencing Sustainable Consumption Behaviors: A Survey of the Rural Residents in China. J. Clean. Prod.; 2014; 63, pp. 152-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.007]
40. Kaiser, F.G.; Shimoda, T.A. Responsibility as a Predictor of Ecological Behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol.; 1999; 19, pp. 243-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.9123]
41. Shields, D.; Verga, F.; Blengini, G.A. Social Media for Environmental Sustainability Awareness in Higher Education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.; 2014; 15, pp. 390-403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2013-0014]
42. Maan, P.; Srivastava, D.K. Examining the Role of Team Climate, Transactive Memory System, and Team Leader Humility in Teams: An Empirical Study of Indian Generational Cohorts. Benchmarking; 2023; 30, pp. 3302-3327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2021-0658]
43. Qian, Y.; Li, J. Separating Spheres. China Rev.; 2020; 20, pp. 19-52.
44. Meriac, J.P.; Woehr, D.J.; Banister, C. Generational Differences in Work Ethic: An Examination of Measurement Equivalence across Three Cohorts. J. Bus. Psychol.; 2010; 25, pp. 315-324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9164-7]
45. Sessa, V.I.; Kabacoff, R.I.; Deal, J.; Brown, H. Generational Differences in Leader Values and Leadership Behaviors. Psychol. J.; 2007; 10, pp. 47-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10887150709336612]
46. Hisel, M.E. Measuring Work Engagement in a Multigenerational Nursing Workforce. J. Nurs. Manag.; 2020; 28, pp. 294-305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12921]
47. McMeekin, A.; Southerton, D. Sustainability Transitions and Final Consumption: Practices and Socio-Technical Systems. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag.; 2012; 24, pp. 345-361. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.663960]
48. Thangam, D.; Chavadi, C. Impact of Digital Marketing Practices on Energy Consumption, Climate Change, and Sustainability. Clim. Energy; 2023; 39, pp. 11-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gas.22329]
49. Barbu, A.; Catană, Ș.A.; Deselnicu, D.C.; Cioca, L.I.; Ioanid, A. Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior toward Green Products: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 16568. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416568] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36554445]
50. Kashif, M.; Rehman, M.A. Expected Service Quality of Utility Stores in Pakistan Qualitative Investigation of Older and Younger Generational Cohorts. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci.; 2014; 6, pp. 309-325. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-04-2013-0023]
51. Wolburg, J.M.; Pokrywczynski, J. A Psychographic Analysis of Generation Y College Students. J. Advert. Res.; 2001; 41, pp. 33-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2501/JAR-41-5-33-52]
52. Taylor, P.; Gao, G. Generation X: America’s Neglected ‘Middle Child’; Pew Res. Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
53. Kennedy, G.E.; Judd, T.S.; Churchward, A.; Gray, K.; Krause, K.L. First Year Students’ Experiences with Technology: Are They Really Digital Natives?. Australas. J. Educ. Technol.; 2008; 24, pp. 108-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1233]
54. Jackson, P.; Ward, N.; Russell, P. Moral Economies of Food and Geographies of Responsibility. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr.; 2009; 34, pp. 12-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2008.00330.x]
55. Lim, W.M.; Kumar, S.; Pandey, N.; Verma, D.; Kumar, D. Evolution and Trends in Consumer Behaviour: Insights from Journal of Consumer Behaviour. J. Consum. Behav.; 2023; 22, pp. 217-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.2118]
56. Yue, B.; Sheng, G.; She, S.; Xu, J. Impact of Consumer Environmental Responsibility on Green Consumption Behavior in China: The Role of Environmental Concern and Price Sensitivity. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2074. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12052074]
57. Borah, P.; Austin, E.W.; Lee, D.K.L. COVID-19 Vaccine Intention and Social Cognitive Theory: The Role of Individual Responsibility and Partisan Media Use in a Moderated Moderated Mediation Model. Health Commun.; 2023; 38, pp. 2765-2773. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2022.2114766] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36002351]
58. Vu, D.M.; Ha, N.T.; Ngo, T.V.N.; Pham, H.T.; Duong, C.D. Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives and Green Purchase Intention: An Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Soc. Responsib. J.; 2022; 18, pp. 1627-1645. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2021-0220]
59. Chuah, S.H.W.; El-Manstrly, D.; Tseng, M.L.; Ramayah, T. Sustaining Customer Engagement Behavior through Corporate Social Responsibility: The Roles of Environmental Concern and Green Trust. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 262, 121348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121348]
60. Costa, T.; Ramos, H.; Vils, L.; Cunha, J. Are Altruists Environmentally Responsible and Materialists Environmentally Irresponsible? An Analysis on the Moderation of Social Desirability and Mediation of Environmental Awareness. Braz. Bus. Rev.; 2021; 18, pp. 585-604. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2021.18.5.6]
61. Cheah, I.; Phau, I. Attitudes towards Environmentally Friendly Products: The Influence of Ecoliteracy, Interpersonal Influence and Value Orientation. Mark. Intell. Plan.; 2011; 29, pp. 452-472. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634501111153674]
62. Gray, S.G.; Raimi, K.T.; Wilson, R.; Árvai, J. Will Millennials Save the World? The Effect of Age and Generational Differences on Environmental Concern. J. Environ. Manag.; 2019; 242, pp. 394-402. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.071] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31059952]
63. Skeirytė, A.; Krikštolaitis, R.; Liobikienė, G. The Differences of Climate Change Perception, Responsibility and Climate-Friendly Behavior among Generations and the Main Determinants of Youth’s Climate-Friendly Actions in the EU. J. Environ. Manag.; 2022; 323, 116277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116277]
64. Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. J. Environ. Educ.; 1987; 18, pp. 1-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482]
65. Oliver, J.D.; Lee, S. Hybrid Car Purchase Intentions: A Cross-cultural Analysis. J. Consum. Mark.; 2010; 27, pp. 96-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761011027204]
66. Attaran, S.; Celik, B.G. Students’ Environmental Responsibility and Their Willingness to Pay for Green Buildings. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.; 2015; 16, pp. 327-340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2013-0029]
67. Hoang, H.C.; Hoang, T.Q.H.; Chovancová, M.; Jibril, A.B. The Theory of Planned Behavior toward Organic Food in Vietnam: The Moderation of Environmental Concern. Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Bata Conference for Ph. D. Students and Young Researchers (DOKBAT); Zlin, Czech Republic, 6–11 November 2019.
68. Williams, A. Consumer Social Responsibility. Consum. Policy Rev.; 2005; 15, pp. 34-35.
69. Osatuyi, B. Information Sharing on Social Media Sites. Comput. Human Behav.; 2013; 29, pp. 2622-2631. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.001]
70. Fu, S.; Li, H. Understanding Social Media Discontinuance from Social Cognitive Perspective: Evidence from Facebook Users. J. Inf. Sci.; 2022; 48, pp. 544-560. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551520968688]
71. Boyd, D.M.; Ellison, N.B. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. J. Comput. Commun.; 2007; 13, pp. 210-230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x]
72. Abbas, A.F.; Jusoh, A.; Mas’od, A.; Alsharif, A.H.; Ali, J. Bibliometrix Analysis of Information Sharing in Social Media. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2022; 9, 2016556. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.2016556]
73. Dong, Z.S.; Meng, L.; Christenson, L.; Fulton, L. Social Media Information Sharing for Natural Disaster Response. Nat. Hazards; 2021; 107, pp. 2077-2104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04528-9]
74. Wang, X.; Yu, C.; Wei, Y. Social Media Peer Communication and Impacts on Purchase Intentions: A Consumer Socialization Framework. J. Interact. Mark.; 2012; 26, pp. 198-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2011.11.004]
75. Jaini, A.; Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J.; Hussin, N. “I Buy Green Products, Do You…?”: The Moderating Effect of EWOM on Green Purchase Behavior in Malaysian Cosmetics Industry. Int. J. Pharm. Healthc. Mark.; 2020; 14, pp. 89-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPHM-02-2019-0017]
76. Aravindan, K.L.; Ramayah, T.; Thavanethen, M.; Raman, M.; Ilhavenil, N.; Annamalah, S.; Choong, Y.V. Modeling Positive Electronic Word of Mouth and Purchase Intention Using Theory of Consumption Value. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 3009. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15043009]
77. Taylor, P.; Keeter, S. Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to Change. 2010; Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/02/24/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change/ (accessed on 19 January 2024).
78. Bowe, B.J.; Wohn, D.Y. Are There Generational Differences? Social Media Use and Perceived Shared Reality. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Toronto, ON, Canada, 27–29 July 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2789187.2789200]
79. Chakraborty, T.; Balakrishnan, J. Exploratory Tendencies in Consumer Behaviour in Online Buying across Gen X, Gen y and Baby Boomers. Int. J. Value Chain Manag.; 2017; 8, pp. 135-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJVCM.2017.085483]
80. Yanto, H.; Ismail, N.; Kiswanto, K.; Rahim, N.M.; Baroroh, N. The Roles of Peers and Social Media in Building Financial Literacy among the Millennial Generation: A Case of Indonesian Economics and Business Students. Cogent Soc. Sci.; 2021; 7, 1947579. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2021.1947579]
81. Zahoor, S.Z.; Shah, A.M. Impact of Social Media on Users’ Complex Buying Behaviour: Analysing the Mediating Effect of Perception and Moderating Effect of Extended Social Media Usage. Manag. Labour Stud.; 2023; 49, pp. 119-148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0258042X231167315]
82. Gupta, M.; Syed, A.A. Impact of Online Social Media Activities on Marketing of Green Products. Int. J. Organ. Anal.; 2022; 30, pp. 679-698. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2020-2037]
83. Xie, S.; Madni, G.R. Impact of Social Media on Young Generation’s Green Consumption Behavior through Subjective Norms and Perceived Green Value. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 3739. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15043739]
84. Alam, M.N.; Ogiemwonyi, O.; Alshareef, R.; Alsolamy, M.; Mat, N.; Azizan, N.A. Do Social Media Influence Altruistic and Egoistic Motivation and Green Purchase Intention towards Green Products? An Experimental Investigation. Clean. Eng. Technol.; 2023; 15, 100669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2023.100669]
85. Rippé, C.B.; Cummins, S.; DeGeorge, O.J. So, You Want to Start a Sales Center? An Organizational Learning Approach to Sales Center Formation and Growth. J. Glob. Sch. Mark. Sci. Bridg. Asia World; 2023; 33, pp. 402-428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2022.2048959]
86. do Paço, A.; Shiel, C.; Alves, H. A New Model for Testing Green Consumer Behaviour. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 207, pp. 998-1006. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.105]
87. Lee, K. Gender Differences in Hong Kong Adolescent Consumers’ Green Purchasing Behavior. J. Consum. Mark.; 2009; 26, pp. 87-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760910940456]
88. Mark, N.; Law, M. Encouraging Green Purchase Behaviours of Hong Kong Consumers. Asian J. Bus. Res.; 2015; 5, pp. 1-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14707/ajbr.150013]
89. Talwar, S.; Jabeen, F.; Tandon, A.; Sakashita, M.; Dhir, A. What Drives Willingness to Purchase and Stated Buying Behavior toward Organic Food? A Stimulus–Organism–Behavior–Consequence (SOBC) Perspective. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 293, 125882. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125882]
90. Nguyen, M.T.T.; Nguyen, L.H.; Nguyen, H.V. Materialistic Values and Green Apparel Purchase Intention among Young Vietnamese Consumers. Young Consum.; 2019; 20, pp. 246-263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/YC-10-2018-0859]
91. Harindranath, R.M.; Sivakumaran, B. Promotional Inputs and Selling: Evidence from India. J. Bus. Ind. Mark.; 2023; 38, pp. 1000-1014. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-01-2021-0040]
92. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull.; 1988; 103, 411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411]
93. Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 0805822232
94. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson New International Edition; Pearson Prentice Hall Publishing Upper: Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 9781292021904
95. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol.; 2003; 88, pp. 879-903. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516251]
96. Afthanorhan, A.; Awang, Z.; Abd Majid, N.; Foziah, H.; Ismail, I.; Al Halbusi, H.; Tehseen, S. Gain More Insight from Common Latent Factor in Structural Equation Modeling; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 1793.
97. Uddin, S.M.F.; Khan, M.N.; Faisal, M.N.; Kirmani, M.D. Demystifying the Green Purchasing Behavior of Young Consumers: Moderating Role of Green Skepticism. J. Glob. Sch. Mark. Sci. Bridg. Asia World; 2023; 33, pp. 264-284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2022.2163415]
98. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; 4th ed. The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998.
99. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.; 1999; 6, pp. 1-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118]
100. Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychol. Bull.; 1980; 88, pp. 588-606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588]
101. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res.; 1981; 18, pp. 39-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104]
102. Harindranath, R.M.; Sivakumaran, B. Perceived Impact of Promotional Support: Issues and Scale. J. Promot. Manag.; 2021; 27, pp. 77-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1809592]
103. Black, L.L.; Jensen, G.M.; Mostrom, E.; Perkins, J.; Ritzline, P.D.; Hayward, L.; Blackmer, B. The First Year of Practice: An Investigation of the Professional Learning and Development of Promising Novice Physical Therapists. Phys. Ther.; 2010; 90, pp. 1758-1773. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100078]
104. 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]
105. Prior, L. Content analysis. The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 359-379.
106. Grayson, S.; Doerr, M.; Yu, J.H. Developing Pathways for Community-Led Research with Big Data: A Content Analysis of Stakeholder Interviews. Health Res. Policy Syst.; 2020; 18, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00589-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32641140]
107. André, B.; Grønning, K.; Jacobsen, F.F.; Haugan, G. Correction to: “Joy of Life” in Nursing Homes. Healthcare Personnel Experiences of the Implementation of the National Strategy. A Qualitative Study with Content Analysis of Interviews (BMC Health Services Research. BMC Health Serv. Res.; 2021; 21, pp. 1-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06875-6]
108. Ayres, L.; Kavanaugh, K.; Knafl, K.A. Within-Case and across-Case Approaches to Qualitative Data Analysis. Qual. Health Res.; 2003; 13, pp. 871-883. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732303013006008] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12891720]
109. Sharma, K.; Aswal, C.; Paul, J. Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review. Bus. Strateg. Environ.; 2023; 32, pp. 2078-2092. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.3237]
110. Lissitsa, S.; Kol, O. Generation X vs. Generation Y—A Decade of Online Shopping. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2016; 31, pp. 304-312. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.04.015]
111. Boyd, D. Ethical Determinants for Generations X and Y. J. Bus. Ethics; 2010; 93, pp. 465-469. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0233-7]
112. Krahn, H.J.; Galambos, N.L. Work Values and Beliefs of “Generation X” and “Generation Y”. J. Youth Stud.; 2014; 17, pp. 92-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2013.815701]
113. Bulut, Z.A.; Kökalan Çımrin, F.; Doğan, O. Gender, Generation and Sustainable Consumption: Exploring the Behaviour of Consumers from Izmir, Turkey. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2017; 41, pp. 597-604. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12371]
114. Sun, Y.; Wang, S. Understanding Consumers’ Intentions to Purchase Green Products in the Social Media Marketing Context. Asia Pacific J. Mark. Logist.; 2020; 32, pp. 860-878. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2019-0178]
115. Kalmus, V.; Keller, M.; Kiisel, M. Emerging Consumer Types in a Transition Culture: Consumption Patterns of Generational and Ethnic Groups in Estonia. J. Balt. Stud.; 2009; 40, pp. 53-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01629770902722252]
116. Syropoulos, S.; Markowitz, E. Responsibility towards Future Generations Is a Strong Predictor of Proenvironmental Engagement. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2024; 93, 102218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102218]
117. Soh, C.Q.Y.; Rezaei, S.; Gu, M.L. A Structural Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Generation Y Luxury Fashion Goods Purchase Decisions. Young Consum.; 2017; 18, pp. 180-204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/YC-12-2016-00654]
118. Wijekoon, R.; Sabri, M.F. Determinants That Influence Green Product Purchase Intention and Behavior: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 6219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13116219]
119. Moslehpour, M.; Chau, K.Y.; Du, L.; Qiu, R.; Lin, C.Y.; Batbayar, B. Predictors of Green Purchase Intention toward Eco-Innovation and Green Products: Evidence from Taiwan. Econ. Res. Istraz.; 2023; 36, 2121934. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2121934]
120. Bihari, S.; Jaiswal, J. Role of Connectedness to Nature and Perceived Environmental Responsibility on Green Purchase Behaviour. Asian J. Bus. Res.; 2020; 10, pp. 65-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14707/ajbr.200091]
121. Duan, Y.; Liu, H.; Yang, M.; Chin, T.; Peng, L.; Russo, G.; Dezi, L. The Moderating Effect of Corporate Environmental Responsibility on Relational Capital and Green Innovation: Evidence from a Knowledge-Driven Context. J. Intellect. Cap.; 2023; 24, pp. 1002-1024. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-04-2022-0101]
122. Zarei, A.; Maleki, F. From Decision to Run: The Moderating Role of Green Skepticism. J. Food Prod. Mark.; 2018; 24, pp. 96-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2017.1266548]
123. Goh, S.K.; Balaji, M.S. Linking Green Skepticism to Green Purchase Behavior. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 131, pp. 629-638. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.122]
124. Peralta, E. Generation X: The Small but Financially Powerful Generation. Centro; 2015; Available online: http://www.centro.net/blog/generation-x-the-small-but-mighty-generation/ (accessed on 24 January 2024).
125. Zhao, L.; Sun, J.; Zhang, L.; Ma, B. Traditional Media or Social Media? Corporate Green Media Communication and Consumer Intention to Cocreate Green Value in Post-COVID-19 China. Asia Pacific J. Mark. Logist.; 2023; 35, pp. 745-774. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-09-2021-0663]
126. Strähle, J.; Gräff, C. The Role of Social Media for a Sustainable Consumption. Green Fash. Retail; 2017; pp. 225-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2440-5_12]
127. Dang, V.T. Social Networking Site Involvement and Social Life Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Information Sharing. Internet Res.; 2021; 31, pp. 80-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/INTR-04-2019-0167]
128. Pandey, R.; Rungtusanatham, M.; Oppong-Tawiah, D. Asymmetric Investments in Exchange Relationships, Perceived Supplier Shirking and Cross-Functional Information Sharing as a Moderator. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 2023; 43, pp. 849-878. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-05-2022-0312]
129. Wei, Y.; O’Neill, H.; Lee, R.P.; Zhou, N. The Impact of Innovative Culture on Individual Employees: The Moderating Role of Market Information Sharing. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.; 2013; 30, pp. 1027-1041. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.01000.x]
130. Wu, W.P. Dimensions of Social Capital and Firm Competitiveness Improvement: The Mediating Role of Information Sharing. J. Manag. Stud.; 2008; 45, pp. 122-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00741.x]
131. Obadă, D.R.; Dabija, D.C. The Mediation Effects of Social Media Usage and Sharing Fake News about Companies. Behav. Sci.; 2022; 12, 372. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bs12100372] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36285941]
132. Klöckner, C.A. A Comprehensive Model of the Psychology of Environmental Behaviour—A Meta- Analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang.; 2013; 23, pp. 1028-1038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014]
133. Sinha, R.; Annamdevula, S. Is Scepticism a Barrier to Green Purchase Behaviour? Testing a Comprehensive Model in the Indian Context. Soc. Bus. Rev.; 2023; 18, pp. 668-690. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SBR-09-2022-0251]
134. Feng, X.; Xiong, J.; Tang, Z. To Be Rational or Sensitive? The Gender Difference in How Textual Environment Cue and Personal Characteristics Influence the Sentiment Expression on Social Media. Telemat. Inform.; 2023; 80, 101971. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.101971]
135. Liu, Y.; Segev, S.; Villar, M.E. Comparing Two Mechanisms for Green Consumption: Cognitive-Affect Behavior vs Theory of Reasoned Action. J. Consum. Mark.; 2017; 34, pp. 442-454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2016-1688]
136. Wu, B.; Chen, F.; Li, L.; Xu, L.; Liu, Z.; Wu, Y. Institutional Investor ESG Activism and Exploratory Green Innovation: Unpacking the Heterogeneous Responses of Family Firms across Intergenerational Contexts. Br. Account. Rev.; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2024.101324]
137. Zhao, S.; Zhang, L.; An, H.; Peng, L.; Zhou, H.; Hu, F. Has China’s Low-Carbon Strategy Pushed Forward the Digital Transformation of Manufacturing Enterprises? Evidence from the Low-Carbon City Pilot Policy. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.; 2023; 102, 107184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107184]
138. Zhao, S.; Zhang, L.; Peng, L.; Zhou, H.; Hu, F. Enterprise Pollution Reduction through Digital Transformation? Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises. Technol. Soc.; 2024; 77, 102520. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102520]
© 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
; Harindranath, R M
; Challapalli, Praseeda