| Literature DB >> 27867822 |
Jung-Ah Hwang1, Youkyoung Park2, Yeonbae Kim1.
Abstract
Although eco-labels were introduced with the intention of encouraging eco-friendly purchasing behavior by consumers, they have had little effect on consumers' purchasing decisions, and therefore a significant gap exists between eco-label awareness and actual purchasing behavior. The aim of this study was to analyze consumer preference, in terms of public and private values, for two types of Korean eco-label that have been administered by the Korean government since 1992. Analyses were based on a structural equation model, employing the theory of reasoned action. Data were collected by survey. The results indicate that although general consumers are highly aware of the publicly valuable information that eco-labels provide, privately valuable information exerts far greater power over their purchasing intentions. Therefore, a supplementary policy that converts public value to private value could promote the purchase of eco-labeled products.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27867822 PMCID: PMC5095107 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3550-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1Our proposed model for preferred value of eco-label and purchasing decisions among consumers
Respondents’ demographic characteristics
| Group | Number of respondents (ratio) |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male | 104 (53%) |
| Female | 92 (47%) |
| Age, years | |
| 25–34 | 49 (25%) |
| 35–44 | 64 (33%) |
| 45–54 | 56 (29%) |
| ≥ 55 | 27 (14%) |
| Education level | |
| High school | 36 (18%) |
| College | 160 (82%) |
| Monthly household income | |
| KRW 2–3 million | 89 (45%) |
| KRW 3–4 million | 60 (31%) |
| KRW 4–5 million | 196 (24%) |
Confirmatory factor analysis results for reliability and construct validity
| Latent variables | Cronbach’s alpha | CR | AVE | Std. factor loading | SE | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived social value (SV) | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.87 | |||
| Climate change mitigation (SV1) | 0.93 | 0.00 | ||||
| Reduction in energy consumption (SV2) | 0.96 | 0.026 | 0.00 | |||
| Reduction in environmental pollutants (SV3) (e.g., chemicals harmful to the ozone layer) | 0.90 | 0.032 | 0.00 | |||
| Perceived private value (PV) | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.80 | |||
| Economic benefit (PV1) | 0.90 | 0.00 | ||||
| Usefulness (PV2) (e.g., safety) | 0.93 | 0.037 | 0.00 | |||
| Ease of use (PV3) | 0.86 | 0.044 | 0.00 | |||
| Label Attitude (LA) | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.74 | |||
| Interest of eco-label information (LA1) | 0.88 | 0.00 | ||||
| Usefulness of eco-label information (LA2) | 0.92 | 0.038 | 0.00 | |||
| Reliability of eco-label information (LA3) | 0.78 | 0.047 | 0.00 | |||
| Purchasing intention (PI) | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.78 | |||
| Purchasing (PI1) | 0.92 | 0.00 | ||||
| Replacement (PI2) | 0.84 | 0.040 | 0.00 | |||
| Recommendations (PI3) | 0.88 | 0.038 | 0.00 |
Standardized path loadings for each eco-label among consumers
| Path loading | SE | CR | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived social value (SV) → label attitude (LA) | 0.29 | 0.055 | 6.219 | 0.00 |
| Perceived private value (PV) → label attitude (LA) | 0.57 | 0.056 | 11.671 | 0.00 |
| Perceived social value (SV) → purchasing intention (PI) | 0.06 | 0.062 | 1.287 | 0.156 |
| Perceived private value (PV) → purchasing intention (PI) | 0.37 | 0.053 | 7.742 | 0.00 |
| Label attitude (LA) → purchasing intention (PI) | 0.55 | 0.052 | 17.516 | 0.00 |
Preferred value of each eco-label among consumers
| Energy efficiency grade label | Korea eco-Label (without green card) | Korea eco-label (with green card) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived social value (SV) | 16.15 | 15.34 | 14.77 |
| Perceived private value (PV) | 15.99 | 12.86 | 13.19 |
| Perceived social value (SV) → label attitude (LA) | 4.68 | 4.45 | 4.28 |
| Perceived private value (PV) → label attitude (LA) | 9.11 | 7.33 | 7.52 |
| Label attitude (LA) | 13.80 | 11.78 | 11.80 |
| Perceived private value (PV) → purchasing intention (PI) | 5.92 | 4.76 | 4.88 |
| Label attitude (LA) → purchasing intention (PI) | 7.59 | 6.48 | 6.49 |
| Purchasing intention (PI) | 13.50 | 11.24 | 11.37 |