energies

Article
Voluntary Simplicity and Green Buying Behavior:
An Extended Framework
Elena Druică 1, * , Călin Vâlsan 2 and Andreea-Ionela Puiu 1

1 Department of Applied Economics and Quantitative Analysis, Faculty of Business and Administration,
University of Bucharest, 030018 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected]
2 Williams School of Business, Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke, QC J1M1Z7, Canada; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Green consumption is usually understood in the context of green consumption values and
receptivity to green communication. Voluntary simplicity, a related yet distinct construct that relies
on ecological responsibility, has not been included in the same framework. This paper bridges this
gap and extends the original model to consider green consumption and voluntary simplicity in a
unified structure. Based on a study conducted in Romania, it was found that 70% of the variation in
buying behavior is explained by a combination of direct and mediated influences. The main takeaway
is that any serious attempt to encourage responsible buying has to rely on a reduction in the absolute
level of consumer demand. This result has far-reaching implications because the current paradigm
of economic growth and prosperity is tributary to consumerism. The question is not how to avoid
curtailing consumption and substitute green products for those harming the environment, but rather
how to make voluntary frugality palatable.

Keywords: voluntary simplicity; green buying behavior; ecological responsibility






Citation: Druică, E.; Vâlsan, C.; Puiu,
A.-I. Voluntary Simplicity and Green 1. Introduction
Buying Behavior: An Extended
Climate change and environmental degradation are undoubtedly one of the greatest
Framework. Energies 2022, 15, 1889.
existential threats faced by mankind in recent memory [1]. Fighting back to slow down
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15051889
and even reverse the effects of climate change is a monumental task. One of the more
Academic Editors: Antonio Zuorro, important directions of action aims to change consumer habits by nudging them towards
Sergio Ulgiati, Marco Casazza and sustainability [2].
Pedro L. Lomas Green or responsible consumption represents choices favoring products and services
Received: 7 February 2022
with the lowest possible impact on the environment [3,4]. The aim is to reduce humankind’s
Accepted: 27 February 2022
ecological footprint to a minimum. Until now, green buying behavior has been modeled in
Published: 4 March 2022
connection with green consumption values and receptivity to green communication [5–7].
A related line of research focuses on voluntary simplicity—a programmatic and
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
sophisticated form of frugality in the context of a wholesome lifestyle [8]. Although one
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
of the core values of voluntary simplicity is ecological responsibility [9], to date, green
published maps and institutional affil-
consumption and voluntary simplicity have never been considered as part of the same
iations.
groundwork according to our knowledge.
This paper bridges this gap and extends the scope of the original green consumption
model [5] by including what seems to be a natural fit. One sets out to test the extent
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
to which voluntary simplicity influences green consumption in the context of green con-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. sumption values and green communication. It is hypothesized that the former must be a
This article is an open access article determinant of green buying behavior, either directly or through the mediation of beliefs in
distributed under the terms and material simplicity and ecological responsibility. The originality of this paper consists in
conditions of the Creative Commons providing a broader and more encompassing context than the one developed until now for
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// understanding the dynamics of green consumption.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ The hypotheses outlined above were tested using a Partial Least-Square Path Model
4.0/). (PLS-PM), which was implemented in WarpPLS version 6.0. Not counting control variables

Energies 2022, 15, 1889. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15051889 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 1889 2 of 17

there is a total of six variables, of which four are constructs obtained through dimension-
reduction procedures (Buying Behavior, Voluntary Simplicity, Green Consumption Values,
and Receptivity to Green Communication), and the other two are stand-alone (Beliefs in
Material Simplicity and Ecological Responsibility). The measurement and treatment of
composite variables are based on measurement scales validated by previous research.
The results support the contentions outlined above and show that about 70% of the
variation in green Buying Behavior is explained by the influence of the other variables.
Green Consumption Values have both a direct and mediated effect on Buying Behavior.
Voluntary Simplicity has only an indirect effect. The mediating variables are Ecological
Responsibility and Receptivity to Green Communication in the case of Green Consumption
Values, and Ecological Responsibility and Belief in Material Simplicity in the case of
Voluntary Simplicity. Ecological Responsibility mediates both Green Consumption Values
and Voluntary Simplicity. Together, they reveal a more encompassing and sophisticated
dynamic, and show the explanatory power of the extended model to be substantially higher
than that documented by previous research.
The effect sizes suggest there are opportunities for practical interventions. The most
important takeaway is that green consumption is contingent on voluntary simplicity and
beliefs in material simplicity, among others. A significant shift towards responsible con-
sumption cannot occur without enabling a reduction in the levels of consumption. This
represents a formidable challenge since the level of consumer demand is central to the
current paradigm of economic growth and prosperity. All these issues will be discussed at
greater length in the second part of the paper.
In the next section, we present a brief theoretical background and formulate the
hypotheses. In section three, we introduce the sample, explain the measurement of each
construct, and present the PLS-PM method. The results are shown in section four. Section
five provides an extended discussion of the results and of the implications relating to
practical interventions. Section six concludes the paper.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

Green consumption is a fertile research topic, albeit relatively recent. There is a clear
link between shifts towards a sustainable, green consumption paradigm and environmental
concerns [10]. A lot of effort has been dedicated to clarifying the concept and building a
sound theoretical framework around it.
Ref. [7] broadly defines green consumption in terms of purchasing choices that are
made with a view for preserving the environment. Green buying behavior obviously rejects
choices harmful to the environment and the ecosystem. Green consumption might also
include all sorts of related actions, such as recycling, partaking in communal cleaning
campaigns, environmental protection activism, and other activities in a similar vein.
Green buying behavior is closely related to green consumption values [11] and green
communication [12,13]. Green consumption values are expressed through attitudes, con-
cerns, and values related to the protection of the environment and purchase of goods and
services that are eco-friendly. The relationship among green buying behavior, green con-
sumption values, and green communication has been modeled and documented explicitly
and convincingly [5], showing that green buying behavior is driven by green consumption
values—directly and through the mediation of green advertising. This setup explains up to
55% of the variation in green buying behavior.
A distinct yet related notion is that of voluntary simplicity. Voluntary simplicity can
be conceptualized in terms of frugality [14–16] and downshifting [4]. Individuals who
adopt it hold strong convictions opposed to the overuse of both collective and personal
resources. The main goal is to reduce waste and embrace a simple yet wholesome lifestyle
by separating wants from needs. In accepting a lower level of consumption, one has
additional time and freedom to pursue more fulfilling goals, such as artistic, intellectual,
spiritual, or personal growth projects [8]. Besides frugality and a rejection of luxuries and
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 3 of 17

conspicuous consumption, simple living entails a desire for self-sufficiency and respect for
nature [17,18].
Voluntary simplicity is easily conflated and confused with austerity and even ascetism;
hence, one needs to further clarify the concept because it has important consequences in
terms of practical interventions, as it will be seen later on. One has to distinguish between
voluntary simplicity—a proactive, programmatic attitude based on a sophisticated set of
beliefs pertaining to material simplicity—and austerity driven by poverty. When consump-
tion is reduced as a result of shortages, lack of income, and overall economic hardship, the
resulting attitude and behavior is reactive and does not qualify as voluntary simplicity [9].
As noted by [19], individuals must first meet their most basic consumption needs and feel
secure before they voluntarily and wholeheartedly adopt beliefs and attitudes that enable
material simplicity.
As mentioned earlier, green consumption and voluntary simplicity are kindred con-
cepts, but they have not been modeled in a unified framework until now. In the next
section, the authors of this paper extend and adapt the green consumption model with the
inclusion of three additional constructs: voluntary simplicity, ecological responsibility, and
beliefs in material simplicity.
This research builds on the green consumption model developed by [5]. Although the
model is already widely accepted, it is nevertheless fairly recent. There are no competing
models or alternative research paradigms to our knowledge to date. The choice of the
starting point is straight forward and provides the authors of this paper with the opportu-
nity to make a significant contribution early on and shape the direction in which this line
of research will evolve in the future. The original model posits that green consumption
(buying) behavior is an outcome determined by green consumption values and receptivity
to green communication. One formulates the first two hypotheses to merely reconfirm
previously reported findings before proceeding with the extended [20] model [5]:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Green consumption values are positively related to green buying behavior.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Receptivity to green communication is positively related to green buying behavior.

This research extends and refines the original model by adding additional hypotheses
aimed at capturing the complexity of the relationships among green consumption and its
determinants. The innovation advanced here posits that voluntary simplicity must be a
determinant of green buying behavior, either directly or through the mediation of beliefs
in material simplicity and/or ecological responsibility. As already stressed, voluntary
simplicity entails—among many other things—concerns related to sustainability and the
environment [17,18]. It makes perfect sense to infer that a voluntary reduction in one’s
level of consumption is also accompanied by awareness about the need to move towards
green consumption [8]. One is therefore justified in assuming that voluntary simplicity
would have an effect on buying behavior [20].
Although ecological responsibility has been traditionally associated with voluntary
simplicity [18], we decided to treat it as a stand-alone variable to bridge the interaction
with green consumption values and green buying behavior. Ecological responsibility is
the linchpin that connects two important dimensions that have been developed in par-
allel but never connected in this way before: green consumption values and voluntary
simplicity [3,4,8–10]. In other words, this paper asks about the role of ecological respon-
sibility, either as a direct influence on green buying behavior or as a mediator for green
consumption values and/or voluntary simplicity. Based on the theoretical background
outlined above, one formulates five additional hypotheses that expand the original model
as follows:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Ecological responsibility is positively related to green buying behavior.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Voluntary simplicity is positively related to green buying behavior.

 Hypothesis 3 (H3). Ecological responsibility is positively related to green b
behavior
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 Hypothesis 4 (H4). Voluntary simplicity is positively related
4 of to
17 green b
behavior
Hypothesis 5 (H5). Belief in material simplicity is positively related to green b
behavior
Hypothesis 5 (H5). Belief in material simplicity is positively related to green buying behavior.
Hypothesis 6 (H6). Receptivity to green communication and ecol
Hypothesis 6 (H6). Receptivitymediate
responsibility to green communication and between
the relationship ecological green
responsibility mediate values
consumption the and
relationship between green
buying consumption values and green buying behavior.
behavior
Hypothesis 7 (H7). Ecological responsibility and the belief in material sim
Hypothesis 7 (H7). Ecological responsibility and the belief in material simplicity mediate the
mediate the relationship between voluntary simplicity and green buying behavior
relationship between voluntary simplicity and green buying behavior.
Figure 1 provides a visual and more intuitive representation of the model.
Figure 1 provides a visual and more intuitive representation of the model.

Figure 1. The conceptual model. .

Figure 1. The conceptual model.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data 3. Materials and Methods
Data was 3.1.
collected
Data in Romania between November–December 2021 through a self-
reported questionnaire. It was posted on different social platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn,
Data was
Telegram, and WhatsApp. Thecollected
resultinginsample
Romania betweena combination
represents November–December 2021 through
of convenience
and snowball sampling methods [21,22]. The initial convenience sample of seeds originatedlike Fac
reported questionnaire. It was posted on different social platforms
from WhatsApp LinkedIn, Telegram,
and Telegram and WhatsApp.
[23]. Before completingThe theresulting sample
questionnaire, therepresents
respondents a combinat
convenience and snowball sampling methods [21,22].
provided their consent to participating in the study, were informed about the purpose ofThe initial convenience sam
seeds originated
the study, that participation from WhatsApp
is anonymous and Telegram
and voluntary, [23]. the
and that Before completing
collected the question
data will
be used only for research purposes. The participants did not receive any monetary rewardsinformed
the respondents provided their consent to participating in the study, were
for taking part the purpose
in the study. of the study, that participation is anonymous and voluntary, and th
collected data will
There were 741 responses. be used only
In WarpPLS forminimum
6.0, the research purposes.
sample sizeThefor participants
a significancedid not r
any monetary rewards for taking part in the study.
level of 0.05 and a power level of 0.990 is 407 respondents when using the inverse square
root method and/orThere were 741 responses.
385 respondents when usingIntheWarpPLS 6.0, the minimum
gamma-exponential method. sample
The size
significance
sample size obtained here islevel of 0.05 and
reassuringly wella above
powerboth levelthresholds.
of 0.990 is 407 respondents when usi
inverse square root method and/or 385 respondents when using the gamma-expon
3.2. Measurementmethod. The sample size obtained here is reassuringly well above both thresholds.
The proposed model includes five potential predictors, of which three are deemed
mediators. With 3.2.the
Measurement
exception of Ecological Responsibility (ER) and Belief in Material
Simplicity (BMS), all Thevariables
proposed represent latent constructs,
model includes five potentialwhich were estimated
predictors, of whichusing
three are d
dimension-reduction techniques that will be explained in the next subsection.
mediators. With the exception of Ecological Responsibility (ER) and Belief in M The measure-
ment items andSimplicity
the corresponding
(BMS), all latent constructs
variables included
represent in constructs,
latent the analysiswhich
are presented
were estimated
in Table 1, anddimension-reduction
a complete list of items techniques that will be explained in available
involved in each latent construct is the next in subsection
Appendix A. measurement items and the corresponding latent constructs included in the analy
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 5 of 17

Table 1. Measurement items by latent constructs.

Latent Structure Observed Variables

Buying Behavior Refers to purchase in a responsible, sustainable, and
(BB) [24] environmentally friendly way: BB1–BB8.
Describes an environmental protection preference, expressed
Green Consumption Values
through personal consumption and buying behavior:
(GCV) [15]
GCV1–GCV6.
Receptivity to Green Refers to consumer reaction to environmental communication:
Communication (RGC) [13] RCG1–RGC9.
Refers to a lifestyle characterized by low consumption,
Voluntary Simplicity
sustainability, self-sufficiency, and environmental responsibility:
(VS) [25]
VS1–VS6.

All items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 corresponds to “total
disagreement” and 7 stands for “total agreement”.
Green Buying Behavior (BB) was measured using eight items from the “Ecologically
Conscious Consumer Behavior” (ECCB) scale [24]. Earlier research tested the reliability of
this scale and used it extensively [5,7,26].
Prior studies used ten items of the ECCB scale to quantify a green purchasing behav-
ior [5,7,26,27]. Here, we exclude the first item of the scale “I try to buy energy-efficient
products and appliances” and the last one “I buy high-efficiency light bulbs to save energy.”
We argue these items have a negligible relevance to our respondents because a significant
proportion of them are students living in residence or at home with their family. The
exploratory analysis revealed that all items were grouped in a single latent construct, which
is consistent with the findings of prior research [5,27].
The six-item Green scale [15] was used to measure Green Consumption Values
(GCV). This is the same construct used by previous research to establish that stronger
green consumption values advance consumer preferences for environmentally friendly
goods [5,27,28].
One uses a nine-item scale to quantify Receptivity to Green Communication (RGC) [13].
The third item was dropped because it registers too low a loading following the ex-
ploratory analysis.
In the case of the Voluntary Simplicity (VS) latent construct, we only use five of
the original six items [25]. It was decided that Ecological Responsibility (ER) would
be modeled as a stand-alone variable, at the confluence between Green Consumption
Values and Voluntary Simplicity (VS). We had to apply the same treatment to Beliefs
in Material Simplicity (BMS), because this item shows lower loadings when attempting
dimension reduction.

3.3. Method
We used a Partial Least Square-Path Modeling, also known as PLS-PM or PLS-SEM [29],
to assess the contemporary relationships among variables in the conceptual model. This
is achieved by maximizing the variance of Buying Behavior (BB) as explained by the
predictors and the control variables presented in the next section. The PLS-SEM estimation
method is similar to the approach used by previous research [5] and, therefore, allows
for the meaningful comparison of the results. In addition, the methodology benefits
from the capabilities of a predictive technique that is widely used to inform practical
interventions [30].
The PLS-SEM method does not require any particular assumptions about the dis-
tribution of the data [31]. In this case, the Jarque-Bera and the robust Jarque-Bera tests
show that none of the numerical predictors are normally distributed. In addition, the
statistical package used to conduct the analysis, WarpPLS version 6.0, has a unique ca-
pacity to identify potential non-linear relationships among variables. This capability is
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 6 of 17

particularly important because the usual estimation in regression models assume either a
linear relationship among variables or a pre-defined non-linear functional form. Unlike this
approach, WarpPLS relies on non-parametric techniques able to detect the most appropriate
functional form that describes the data. We found this aspect very useful, as previous
research using WarpPLS shows that, in some cases, statistically insignificant relationships
in models are not due to the absence of the relationship, but rather to the non-linear form
of the relationship involved [32,33].
The PLS-SEM estimation involves an outer (measurement) model, assessing the rela-
tionships between the latent constructs and their corresponding manifest variables; and an
inner (or structural) model, estimating the relationships among latent variables. We report
the results in accordance with the recommendations available in [30,34].

4. Results
The sample consists of 741 Romanian respondents (564 women and 177 men) with an
average age of 23.36 (median = 20.00, sd = 7.73). A proportion of 82.05% of the respondents
were aged between 18–25 years. This explains why 74.77% of them acknowledged high
school as their terminal degree. A proportion of 25.78% of the respondents reported
an income under RON 500 (€101), while 22.27% reported an income above RON 3000
(around €610 at the time when the study was conducted). A complete sample description
is available in Table 2. In this table, the income intervals were converted into euros but, in
the questionnaire, we measured the monthly income using the national currency, RON.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Study Participants
N = 741 (%)
Gender
Male 177 23.89
Female 564 76.11
Income
Under €101 191 25.78
€101–€202 119 16.06
€203–€304 74 9.99
€305–€406 66 8.90
€407–€508 78 10.52
€509–€610 48 6.48
Above €610 165 22.27
Education
High school 554 74.77
Bachelor’s degree 133 17.95
Master’s degree 33 4.45
Doctoral degree 21 2.83

Table 3 shows the reliability of the measurement for each latent construct. The compos-
ite reliability values are high, ranging between a minimum of 0.822, for voluntary simplicity,
and a maximum of 0.950 for receptivity to green communication. All values score above
the recommended threshold of 0.70 [35]. Cronbach’s alpha values are also high, ranging
between 0.913 in the case of Green Values Consumption (GVC) and 0.939 for Receptivity to
Green Communication (RGC), indicating high internal consistency [36,37].
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 7 of 17

Table 3. Assessment of the measurement model.

Composite Cronbach’s Average Variance

Variable
Reliability Alpha Extracted (AVE)
Buying Behavior (BB) 0.943 0.931 0.676
Green Consumption Values (GCV) 0.932 0.913 0.697
Receptivity to Green Communication (RGC) 0.950 0.939 0.704
Voluntary simplicity (VS) 0.822 0.675 0.606

Voluntary Simplicity (VS) has a Cronbach’s alpha of only 0.675, which is slightly below
the recommended value of 0.7. Given the exploratory nature of this study and the high
value of the corresponding composite reliability index, we nevertheless consider VS as
reliable and keep it in the analysis. The last column of Table 3 shows that the average
variance extracted (AVE) for each composite variable is above the recommended minimum
threshold of 0.50 [37,38]. Therefore, the reliability of the measurement is confirmed.
Table 4 shows that convergent validity holds. All loadings range from a minimum
value of 0.743 to a maximum value of 0.899, which is above the required threshold of
0.7 [39]. All off-diagonal values are lower than the corresponding diagonal values for each
block of measurements.

Table 4. Combined loadings and cross-loadings.

BB GCV RGC VS
BB1 0.743 −0.053 −0.109 −0.009
BB2 0.849 0.104 0.111 −0.046
BB7 0.812 −0.007 0.053 0.009
BB8 0.829 −0.007 0.048 −0.005
BB3 0.847 0.034 −0.016 0.001
BB4 0.855 0.027 0.017 −0.043
BB5 0.813 −0.027 −0.042 0.035
BB6 0.824 −0.081 −0.077 0.061
GCV1 −0.053 0.830 −0.039 0.046
GCV2 −0.100 0.848 −0.109 −0.013
GCV3 0.243 0.856 −0.034 0.008
GCV4 0.060 0.834 0.148 0.015
GCV5 −0.204 0.832 −0.063 −0.079
GCV6 0.051 0.807 0.101 0.024
RGC1 0.011 0.300 0.748 −0.004
RGC4 0.076 −0.095 0.885 −0.010
RGC5 −0.008 −0.045 0.899 −0.006
RGC2 0.109 0.145 0.840 0.002
RGC6 −0.251 −0.183 0.837 0.030
RGC7 −0.284 −0.131 0.796 0.025
RGC8 0.176 0.078 0.834 −0.025
RGC9 0.151 −0.034 0.864 −0.010
VS2 0.100 0.133 −0.042 0.791
VS3 −0.148 −0.028 0.025 0.773
VS4 0.046 −0.108 0.018 0.771

In Table 5, we present evidence that the discriminant validity of the measurement

holds as well. All diagonal values are higher than all corresponding off-diagonal values. In
addition, none of the off-diagonal correlations exceeds the recommended value of 0.8 [40].
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 8 of 17

Table 5. Correlations among latent constructs with square roots of AVE.

BB GCV RGC VS
BB 0.822 0.734 0.683 0.508
GCV 0.734 0.835 0.708 0.476
RGC 0.683 0.708 0.839 0.459
VS 0.508 0.476 0.459 0.778

Table 6 presents the estimated coefficients of the model and Table 7 shows the corre-
sponding effect sizes. The total amount of variance in Buying Behavior (BB) explained by
the model is 69%, with an adjusted R2 of 68.8%. The coefficient of determination in the
case of the first mediator, Receptivity to Green Communication (RGC), is 50.2% (adjusted
R2 = 50.2%) and for the second mediator, Ecologic Responsibility (ER), it is 58.1% (adjusted
R2 = 58%). The explained variation of the third mediator, Belief in Material Simplicity
(BMS), is 25.3% (adjusted R2 = 25.2%).

Table 6. Path coefficients for direct effects, with p-values in parentheses.

Direct Effects Involving Mediators

Model BB
RGC ER BMS
0.709 *** 0.636 *** 0.219 ***
Green consumption values (GCV) -
(p < 0.001) (p < 0.001) (p < 0.001)
0.209 *** 0.503 *** 0.040
Voluntary Simplicity (VS) -
(p < 0.001) (p < 0.001) (p = 0.136)
Receptivity to Green Communication 0.230 ***
- - -
(RGC) (p < 0.001)
0.360 ***
Ecological Responsibility (ER) - - -
(p < 0.001)
0.133 ***
Belief in Material Simplicity (BMS) - - -
(p < 0.001)
0.034
Age - - -
(p = 0.178)
50.2% 58.1% 25.3% 69%
R2 /Adjusted R2
(50%) (58%) (25.2%) (68.8%)
Tenehaus GoF 0.636 (large)
*** p-value < 0.001; ** p-value < 0.01; * p-value < 0.05.

Table 7. Effect sizes for direct effects.

Direct Effects Involving the Mediators

Model BB
RGC ER BMS
Green consumption values (GCV) 0.502 0.471 - 0.162
Voluntary Simplicity (VS) - 0.110 0.253 0.021
Receptivity to Green Communication (RGC) - - - 0.159
Ecological Responsibility (ER) 0.274
Belief in Material Simplicity (BMS) 0.069
Age 0.006

All VIF values are lower than 3.20 and the average block VIF (AVIF) is 2.008, which is
below the recommended threshold of 3.3 [41]. The Tenehaus goodness of fit is 0.641, which
is considered large. We could not detect the presence of statistical suppression, Simpson’s
paradox, or bivariate causality direction. No non-linear relationships were found.
Green Consumption Values (GCV) predicts Receptivity to Green Communication
(RGC) (β = 0.709, p = 0.011), Ecological Responsibility (ER) (β = 0.636, p < 0.001), and Buying
Behavior (BB) (β = 0.230, p < 0.001). GCV has comparable predictive power on RGC and ER,
with effect sizes classified as high (0.502 and 0.471). GCV has a lower effect size (0.162) as a
direct predictor of Buying Behavior (BB), but it is still suitable for interventions. Voluntary
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 9 of 17

Simplicity (VS) predicts Beliefs in Material Simplicity (BMS) (β = 0.503, p < 0.001) with a
rather strong effect size (0.253) and Ecological Responsibility (ER) (β = 0.209, p < 0.001)
with a moderate effect size that supports practical interventions (0.110). There is no direct
relationship with Buying Behavior (BB) though (β = 0.040, p = 0.136).
Buying Behavior (BB) is strongly predicted by RGC (β = 0.230, p < 0.001), ER (β = 0.360,
p < 0.001), and BMS (β = 0.133, p < 0.001), with effect sizes suitable for potential interventions
(0.159 for RCG, 0.274 for ER and 0.069 in the case of BMA). ER displays the highest effect
size and, therefore, presents the highest potential for interventions. We concluded that
hypotheses H1–H5 are strongly supported.
Some of the control variables are categorical and, therefore, we used multigroup
analysis—such as the Satterthwaite method—to explore their relevance as predictors. We
conducted three multigroup explorations: by gender, by income, and by education, and
did not identify any significant differences across the estimated coefficients.
The size of the subsamples for each category is higher than 50, which is the minimum
required size in WarpPLS. For gender, the size of the groups is 564 (females) and 177 (males);
for education, the sample size is 554 (high school) and 187 (bachelor diploma or above); and
for income, there are 450 respondents with a monthly income less than 2000 lei (roughly
the minimum wage in Romania) and 291 with a higher monthly income. Age is numeric
and not statistically significant (β = 0.034, p = 0.178), as shown in Table 6. We conclude
there is no significant socio-demographic impact on green Buying Behavior (BB).
The structural model presented in Figure 1 involves three mediators: RGC and ER
(from GCV to BB), and ER and BMS (from vs. to BB). Ecological Responsibility (ER) is thus
a mediator for both Green Consumption Values (GCV) and Voluntary Simplicity (VS). As
shown in Table 8, both indirect effects are statistically significant: the one from GCV to BB
is a sum of two indirect effects, via RFC and ER (β = 0.429, p < 0.001), whereas the one from
VS acts through BMS (β = 0.142, p < 0.001) and a fraction of the VS influence through ER
(β = 0.209, p < 0.001). This result confirms that RGC, ER, and BMS are mediators. The effect
size from GCV to BB ranks higher than the one from VS to BB (0.289 versus 0.075), but both
are suitable for interventions. The former effect size qualifies as high, whereas the latter
qualifies as low.

Table 8. Path coefficients and effect sizes for indirect and total effects.

Indirect Effect Effect Size Total Effect Size

Model on BB via of Indirect Effect on of Total
Mediators Effect BB Effects
0.391 *** 0.611 ***
Green consumption values (GCV) 0.289 0.451
(p < 0.001) (p < 0.001)
0.142 ** 0.182 ***
Voluntary Simplicity (VS) 0.075 0.096
(p < 0.001) (p < 0.001)
Receptivity to Green 0.230 ***
- - 0.159
Communication (RGC) (p < 0.001)
0.360 ***
Ecological Responsibility (ER) - - 0.274
(p < 0.001)
0.133 ***
Belief in Material Simplicity (BMS) - - 0.069
(p < 0.001)
0.034
Age - - 0.006
(p = 0.178)
*** p-value < 0.001; ** p-value < 0.01; * p-value < 0.05.

The total effect of VS on BB is statistically significant (β = 0.182, p < 0.001), as Table 8

shows, but, after deconstruction into direct and indirect effects via the mediators, the direct
effect remains statistically irrelevant (β = 0.040, p = 0.136). We conclude that BVS and ER
completely mediate the relationship between VS and BB. The relation between GCV is only
partially mediated by RGC and ER: after controlling for mediators, the direct effect between
GCV and BB is still statistically significant. We conclude that hypotheses H6 and H7 are
supported. Table 9 summarizes our overall findings.
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 10 of 17

Table 9. Summary of hypothesis testing.

Supported/
Hypotheses
Rejected
H1: Green consumption values are positively related to green buying behavior. Supported
Receptivity to green communication is positively related to green buying
H2: Supported
behavior.
H3: Ecologic responsibility is positively related to green buying behavior. Supported
H4: Voluntary simplicity is positively related to green buying behavior. Supported
H5: Belief in material simplicity is positively related to green buying behavior. Supported
Receptivity to green communication and ecological responsibility mediate
H6: the relationship between green consumption values and green buying Supported
behavior.
Ecological responsibility and the belief in material simplicity mediate the
H7: Supported
relation between voluntary simplicity and green buying behavior.

5. Discussion
This paper is able to corroborate previous findings and extend a widely accepted
analytical groundwork [5,13,15]. The results show that indeed Green Consumption Values
(GCV) influence Receptivity to Green Communication (RGC), showing a coefficient that
is comparable to that obtained by [5]—that is, 0.701 vs. 0.675. The relationship between
Green Consumption Values (GCV) and green Buying Behavior (BB) shows a coefficient of
0.22 vs. 0.659, a difference most likely due to the extension of the original framework and
the inclusion of additional variables and mediators. In this extended framework, Green
Consumption Values (GCV) also significantly influence Ecological Responsibility (ER). The
emerging picture shows a strong and robust system of green consumption values, thereby
increasing one’s proclivity for ecological responsibility and enhancing one’s receptivity
to the dissemination of messages with a green or ecological content. Green Consumption
Values (GCV), Ecological Responsibility (ER), and Receptivity to Green Communication
(RGC) contribute directly to determining buying behavior.
The other important extension of the original model is represented by Voluntary
Simplicity (VS), which acts on Buying Behavior (BB) through the mediation of Belief in
Material Simplicity (BMS) and Ecological Responsibility (ER). Ecological Responsibility
(ER) acts as a mediating bridge between Green Consumption Values (GCV) and Voluntary
Simplicity (VS); it highlights the joint influence of Green Consumption Values (GCV) and
Voluntary Simplicity (VS) on Buying Behavior (BB).
The results fully justify the extension of the original model. Besides obtaining compa-
rable coefficients and comparable or better statistical significance, they also reveal a higher
overall explanatory power of just under 70%, compared to the original 55% obtained by [5].
The important thing to note is that all these constructs are notionally related and
overlap to varying degrees. By integrating Voluntary Simplicity, Ecological Responsibility,
and Belief in Material Simplicity into the fold, one is able to emphasize the complex nature
of the dynamic taking place.
It appears the effect sizes corresponding to Receptivity to Green Communication
(RGC), Ecologic Responsibility (ER), and Belief in Material Simplicity (BMS) are suitable
for interventions. The significant results documented here open the door to a whole range
of implications and consequences. At first glance, it is nevertheless difficult to formulate
novel directions for public policies and practical implications for managerial action that
are not radical or diverge significantly from what has been already suggested in the
extant literature [20,42–45]. The amount of work and the ground covered by these papers
is significant and impressive. Instead of reiterating the ideas and suggestions already
formulated in extenso by other authors, it is perhaps more enlightening to pursue another
angle that is usually downplayed or avoided for reasons that are easy to understand.
To a certain extent, as it is argued next, green buying behavior is at odds with the
current paradigm of economic growth. At least partially, because voluntary simplicity
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 11 of 17

and belief in material simplicity represent kindred concepts and are an integral part of the
theoretical structure revolving around green buying behavior.

6. Practical Implications and Their Limitations

The most obvious practical implications stemming from this research and previous
papers take into consideration two broad directions of action: to enact strict environmental
regulation and to sensitize the public to the imperative of becoming responsible consumers
to reduce our ecological footprint and delay the irreversible environmental damage in the
offing. However, this type of public policy is walking a fine line between being ecologically
sound and economically unfriendly.
Enacting regulation to alter consumption patterns has already been pursued for
decades. It has the double effect of impacting both consumers and producers of goods and
services. Corporations are forced to internalize the cost of degrading the environment and
pushed towards pursuing eco-friendly technologies and products previously considered
less cost effective. These higher costs are eventually passed on to consumers. In addition,
consumers are redirected towards more responsible buying choices, mainly through fiscal
measures and other combinations of incentives and penalties.
A second direction is represented by policies aimed at educating and sensitizing the
public towards making green buying choices on a voluntary basis as opposed to coerced
by fiscality or other types of penalties. There are precedents suggesting a combination of
regulation and persuasion might work in the long run. Starting in the 1960s and 1970s many
Western nations have pursued vigorous anti-smoking campaigns featuring a combination
of tough regulatory measures and assertive public education and advertising campaigns.
The evidence to date points towards a significant reduction in smoking driven by both
coercion [46] and perhaps, to a lesser extent, education and advertising campaigns [47,48].
Nevertheless, tobacco products represent a very narrow and well-delineated subset
of the economy. Despite this, anti-smoking campaigns proved to be long, drawn-out
crusades against Big Tobacco. Prevailing over the powerful tobacco lobby, and persuading
consumers to cut back on smoking on a voluntary basis were no small feats.
The structural shift towards green buying behavior and absolute reductions in the
levels of consumption required to assist the effort to stop and even reverse environmen-
tal degradation are on a whole different level. Whereas anti-smoking policies faced a
determined pushback from a small segment of Corporate America (and other tobacco
multinationals), the momentous conversion to a green economy is facing a potential back-
lash from almost all quarters of society. Internalizing the enormous costs of environmental
protection could prove to be too much for both corporations and consumers [49–51].
Notice that until now the thrust in public policies has been towards fomenting a shift
in consumer demand and not towards a reduction in it. The message conveyed to the
public is to drive electric vehicles instead of gasoline-powered cars, but not necessarily to
drive less. In fact, public eco-anxiety is allayed by signaling that citizens need not reduce
their consumption as long as its structure shifts towards eco-friendly products.
However, this is at odds with what our findings suggest. One of the important
determinants of green buying behavior is voluntary simplicity mediated by the belief in
material simplicity and ecological responsibility. Green buying behavior cannot be properly
understood without making reference to an absolute reduction in the level of consumption,
and therein lies the great challenge faced by society.
Our entire economic system—economic growth and prosperity as we know them
today—are driven by consumer demand. On 22 December 2021, CNN Business posted a
headline warning of “What glum consumer sentiment could mean for the US economy
next year.” [52]. On 14 January 2022, the headlines were even more ominous: “Warning
sign for the economy: Consumers are getting grumpy” [53]. These media articles under-
score the attention economists, politicians, investors, and the public devote to the level of
consumption as a barometer of economic health.
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 12 of 17

Consumer demand is linked to corporate profits. Corporate profits are linked to cash-
flows and stock market valuation [54–58]. Finally, stock markets are linked to investment
funds, pension plans, and other types of wealth management companies that today drive
our overall sense of affluence and prosperity. Dramatic stock market declines can trigger
painful and persistent economic downturns, as it happened in 1929; on the other hand,
rebounding market valuations can enable and accompany economic growth. To make a
long story short, there is a complex yet irreducible connection between consumer demand
and economic prosperity.
The recent example of the COVID-19 pandemic underlines the point raised here. The
pandemic represented and still represents a formidable threat to public health. It has the
potential to wreak havoc with our fragile healthcare systems and kill millions of people.
However, by no means does it represent a potential extinction-level event on par with
global warming. Acting against COVID-19—although well warranted—is not an existential
imperative on the same level with transitioning to green consumption in order to save
humanity in its entirety.
Governments around the world took unprecedented measures to contain or slow
down the spread of the virus. These tough measures resulted in huge economic costs
that were eventually internalized by corporations and consumers. However, notice what
happened next: in order to stave off a colossal economic slump, policy makers everywhere
compensated by increasing public borrowing and quantitative easing to levels not seen
since World War II. As a result, governments across the world added an additional $5 tril-
lion in public debt when compared to 5 years earlier [59]. When faced with a significant
health threat, the world chose to binge on debt to preserve economic growth and maintain
consumption steady. Rising inflation in the aftermath of the pandemic is [60,61], in fact,
strengthening this point; inflation is the toxic consequence of trying to maintain consump-
tion when faced with a major crisis. One cannot have it both ways. One simply cannot get
serious about fighting a crisis without assuming the consequences and the costs of one’s
actions.
Green buying behavior is clearly linked to ecological responsibility, voluntary sim-
plicity, and belief in material simplicity. We cannot engender a coherent transition policy
to green buying behavior without addressing the need to reduce the absolute level of
consumption. Instead of asking how to avoid a significant reduction in consumption to
save the planet, we should find what needs to be done to make a potential long-term decline
in economic prosperity more palatable. As already emphasized in the first part of this
paper, a forced reduction in consumption driven by economic hardship and accompanied
by resentment and fear does not amount to voluntary simplicity.
We need to find a practical way to nudge consumers towards voluntarily embracing
material simplicity and acquiescing to a reduction in consumption. Perhaps it is time to
adjust the way in which we measure economic performance and consumer satisfaction [62].
There is no quick or easy solution to this conundrum. Overplaying the dangers of en-
vironmental degradation and summoning the specter of catastrophe [20] might have an
adverse effect. Instead of awakening the feelings of shared responsibility, it might trigger
heightened levels of eco-anxiety, intolerance, and even denial [63,64]. Both anxiety and
denial can result in hoarding, the very opposite of what voluntary simplicity is aiming
for [65].

7. Conclusions
Green buying behavior has been successfully and convincingly modeled in the extant
literature in relation to green consumption values and receptivity to green communication.
This paper extends the original structure by taking into consideration ecological responsi-
bility and voluntary simplicity. It also provides a more complex and integrative framework,
with richer and more challenging practical implications.
The analysis uses a sample of 741 respondents and a PLS-PM methodology to test the
determinants of green buying behavior and their mediators. The measurement of green
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 13 of 17

buying behavior, green consumption values, receptivity to green communication, and

voluntary simplicity was adapted from scales validated by previous research.
It is found that green consumption values determine green buying behavior directly,
and through the mediation of ecological responsibility and receptivity to green communi-
cation. Voluntary simplicity determines green buying behavior only indirectly, through the
total mediation of beliefs in material simplicity and ecological responsibility. Overall, the
expanded model is able to explain almost 70% of the variation in green buying behavior,
which is substantially more than what previous research found.
Effect sizes vary from moderate to large and they no doubt highlight the challenges
associated with practical interventions. One of the major contributions of this paper
is to underscore the extent to which green buying behavior is connected to voluntary
simplicity, ecological responsibility, and beliefs in material simplicity. The findings imply
that a paradigm-changing approach towards responsible consumption to delay or reverse
environmental degradation cannot be conceived without considering a voluntary reduction
in the absolute level of consumption. Reductions in consumption can be the result of
education campaigns and regulatory action.
One must be careful with the message conveyed to the public. No doubt, there
is a great danger in ignoring or denying the existential threat posed by environmental
degradation and global warming. On the other hand, pushing the panic button hysterically
might de-sensitize consumers, induce acute eco-anxiety, and trigger denial. All of these
might lead to compulsive hoarding instead of voluntary frugality; or they might lead to the
wholesale rejection of the message, defeating the purpose of persuasion campaigns.
History shows that regulation aimed at selectively changing consumption patterns has
met with vigorous pushback from powerful lobby groups, the wrath of big corporations,
and the inertia of consumers. There is no telling what will happen when taking regulatory
action on a global scale to fend off the largest existential threat to life on Earth since the
last major extinction some 65 million years ago. Until now, the thrust of public policies has
been to gently nudge consumption by altering its patterns and not by reducing its absolute
levels. This is understandable given the extent to which economic growth and prosperity
depends on consumerism.
The COVID-19 pandemic provides a cautionary and sobering tale. In order to flat-
ten the curve and reduce the number of deaths, governments across the world adopted
stringent lockdowns, vaccine passports, and other draconian regulation with mixed results.
At the same time, they aggressively promoted extremely lax monetary policies that ran
up public and private debt to levels never seen since World War II. All this to maintain
consumption and keep the economy steady. The ensuing inflation and the debt hangover
represent a stark reminder that there is no free lunch and, eventually, someone or everyone
will have to bear the costs.
It is not even clear if stringent and overbearing regulation, the sorts of which we
witnessed during the pandemic, is the answer. A regulated austerity driven by economic
hardship and threat of penalties is the opposite of what voluntary simplicity is set to
achieve. The key to success is persuasion and voluntary compliance. The challenge is to
find the right balance between education campaigns and choice architecture solutions that
are effective without being resented as oppressive.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.D., A.-I.P.; methodology, E.D.; software, E.D.; formal
analysis, E.D.; data curation, E.D. and A.-I.P.; writing—original draft preparation, E.D., C.V., A.-I.P.;
writing—review and editing, E.D., C.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: Bishop’s University Canada supported the APC.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study
because this questionnaire-based research does not raise any privacy issues.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 14 of 17

Data Availability Statement: Data is available on request.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. The measurement items.

Dimensions Item Abrreviation Item

It is important to me that the products I use do not
GCV1
harm the environment.
I consider the potential environmental impact of my
GCV2
Green actions when making many of my decisions.
consumption My purchase habits are affected by my concern for
GCV3
values our environment.
(GCV) [5,15] I am concerned about wasting the resources of our
GCV4
planet.
I would describe myself as environmentally
GCV5
responsible.
I am willing to be inconvenienced in order to take
GCV6
actions that are more environmentally friendly.
RGC1 I support brands that support the environment.
I tend to pay attention to advertising messages that
RGC2
talk about the environment.
The use of green messages in ads affects my attitude
Drooped
toward ads.
Receptivity to
I respond favourably to brands that use green
green RGC4
messages in their advertising.
communication
I am the kind of consumer who responds favourably
(RGC) [5,13] RGC5
when brands use green messages in their ads.
RGC6 I think that green advertising is valuable.
RGC7 Green advertising is a necessary form of advertising.
I am the kind of consumer who is willing to
RGC8
purchase products marketed as being green.
I tend to pay attention to green advertising
RGC9
messages.
I avoid buying products that have excessive
BB1
packaging.
When there is a choice, I choose the product that
BB2
causes the least pollution.
I have switched products/brands for ecological
BB3
reasons.
Buying behavior I make every effort to buy paper products made
BB4
(BB) [5,24] from recycled paper.
BB5 I use environmentally friendly soaps and detergents.
I have convinced members of my family or friends
BB6 not to buy some products which are harmful to the
environment.
Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in
BB7
reusable container.
BB8 I try to buy products that can be recycled.
I believe in “small is beautiful” (e.g., I prefer smaller
VS2
cars over large cars).
I believe chat product function is usually more
Voluntary VS3
important than its style.
simplicity
I am interested in personal growth more than
(VS) [25] VS4
economic growth
I am determined to have more control over my life
dropped as a consumer (e.g., stay away from instalment
buying).
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 15 of 17

Table A1. Cont.

Dimensions Item Abrreviation Item

Ecological
Responsibility (ER) VS6 I consider myself ecologically responsible.
[25]
Belief in Material
I believe in material simplicity (buying and
Simplicity (BMS) VS1
consuming only what I need).
[25]

References
1. Held, I.M.; Soden, B.J. Robust Responses of the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming. J. Clim. 2006, 19, 5686–5699. [CrossRef]
2. Mundaca, L.; Ürge-Vorsatz, D.; Wilson, C. Demand-Side Approaches for Limiting Global Warming to 1.5 ◦ C. Energy Effic. 2019,
12, 343–362. [CrossRef]
3. Shiel, C.; do Paço, A.; Alves, H. Generativity, Sustainable Development and Green Consumer Behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,
245, 118865. [CrossRef]
4. Lorenzen, J.A. Green Consumption and Social Change: Debates over Responsibility, Private Action, and Access: Green Inequality.
Sociol. Compass 2014, 8, 1063–1081. [CrossRef]
5. Do Paço, A.; Shiel, C.; Alves, H. A New Model for Testing Green Consumer Behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 998–1006.
[CrossRef]
6. Hsu, W.-C.; Huang, K.-I. A Study of Behavioral Model on Green Consumption. J. Econ. Bus. Manag. 2016, 4, 372–377. [CrossRef]
7. Do Paço, A.; Alves, H.; Shiel, C.; Filho, W.L. An Analysis of the Measurement of the Construct “Buying Behaviour” in Green
Marketing. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2014, 11, 55–69. [CrossRef]
8. Alexander, S. The Voluntary Simplicity Movement: Reimagining the Good Life Beyond Consumer Culture. SSRN J. 2011, 7, 1–18.
[CrossRef]
9. Leonard-Barton, D. Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyles and Energy Conservation. J. Consum. Res. 1981, 8, 243. [CrossRef]
10. Connolly, J.; Prothero, A. Green Consumption: Life-Politics, Risk and Contradictions. J. Consum. Cult. 2008, 8, 117–145. [CrossRef]
11. Alagarsamy, S.; Mehrolia, S.; Mathew, S. How Green Consumption Value Affects Green Consumer Behaviour: The Mediating
Role of Consumer Attitudes Towards Sustainable Food Logistics Practices. Vision 2021, 25, 65–76. [CrossRef]
12. Jan, I.U.; Ji, S.; Yeo, C. Values and Green Product Purchase Behavior: The Moderating Effects of the Role of Government and
Media Exposure. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6642. [CrossRef]
13. Bailey, A.A.; Mishra, A.; Tiamiyu, M.F. Green Advertising Receptivity: An Initial Scale Development Process. J. Mark. Commun.
2016, 22, 327–345. [CrossRef]
14. Osikominu, J.; Bocken, N. A Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle: Values, Adoption, Practices and Effects. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1903.
[CrossRef]
15. Haws, K.L.; Winterich, K.P.; Naylor, R.W. Seeing the World through GREEN-Tinted Glasses: Green Consumption Values and
Responses to Environmentally Friendly Products. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 336–354. [CrossRef]
16. Elgin, D.; Mitchell, A. Voluntary Simplicity. Plan. Rev. 1977, 5, 13–15. [CrossRef]
17. Kropfeld, M.I.; Nepomuceno, M.V.; Dantas, D.C. The Ecological Impact of Anticonsumption Lifestyles and Environmental
Concern. J. Public Policy Mark. 2018, 37, 245–259. [CrossRef]
18. Shi, D.E. The Simple Life: Plain Living and High Thinking in American Culture, New ed.; University of Georgia Press: Athens, GA,
USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0-8203-2975-8.
19. Etzioni, A. Essays in Socio-Economics; Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; New
York, NY, USA, 1999; ISBN 978-3-540-64466-8.
20. Chaudhary, R.; Bisai, S. Factors Influencing Green Purchase Behavior of Millennials in India. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2018, 29,
798–812. [CrossRef]
21. Baltar, F.; Brunet, I. Social Research 2.0: Virtual Snowball Sampling Method Using Facebook. Internet Res. 2012, 22, 57–74.
[CrossRef]
22. Kosinski, M.; Matz, S.C.; Gosling, S.D.; Popov, V.; Stillwell, D. Facebook as a Research Tool for the Social Sciences: Opportunities,
Challenges, Ethical Considerations, and Practical Guidelines. Am. Psychol. 2015, 70, 543–556. [CrossRef]
23. Heckathorn, D.D. Comment: Snowball versus Respondent-Driven Sampling. Sociol. Methodol. 2011, 41, 355–366. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
24. Straughan, R.D.; Roberts, J.A. Environmental Segmentation Alternatives: A Look at Green Consumer Behavior in the New
Millennium. J. Consum. Mark. 1999, 16, 558–575. [CrossRef]
25. Shama, A. The Voluntary Simplicity Consumer: A Comparative Study. Psychol. Rep. 1988, 63, 859–869. [CrossRef]
26. Do Paço, A.; Alves, H.; Shiel, C.; Filho, W.L. Development of a Green Consumer Behaviour Model: Green Consumer Behaviour
Model. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2013, 37, 414–421. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 16 of 17

27. Kowalska, A.; Ratajczyk, M.; Manning, L.; Bieniek, M.; Macik, ˛ R. “Young and Green” a Study of Consumers’ Perceptions
and Reported Purchasing Behaviour towards Organic Food in Poland and the United Kingdom. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13022.
[CrossRef]
28. Bailey, A.A.; Mishra, A.; Tiamiyu, M.F. GREEN Consumption Values and Indian Consumers’ Response to Marketing Communica-
tions. J. Consum. Mark. 2016, 33, 562–573. [CrossRef]
29. Joreskog, K.G.; Wold, H. The ML and PLS Techniques for Modeling with Latent Variables: Historical and Comparative Aspects.
In Systems under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure, Prediction; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1982; pp. 263–270.
30. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [CrossRef]
31. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31,
2–24. [CrossRef]
32. Druică, E.; Băicus, , C.; Ianole-Călin, R.; Fischer, R. Information or Habit: What Health Policy Makers Should Know about the
Drivers of Self-Medication among Romanians. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 689. [CrossRef]
33. Druică, E.; Mihăilă, V.; Burcea, M.; Cepoi, V. Combining Direct and Indirect Measurements to Assess Patients’ Satisfaction with
the Quality of Public Health Services in Romania: Uncovering Structural Mechanisms and Their Implications. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2019, 17, 152. [CrossRef]
34. Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research;
Marcoulides, G.A., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 295–336.
35. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology; Tata McGraw Hill Education
Private Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 2010; ISBN 978-0-07-107088-1.
36. Cortina, J.M. What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 98–104. [CrossRef]
37. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [CrossRef]
38. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark.
Res. 1981, 18, 39. [CrossRef]
39. Hair, J.F. (Ed.) Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998; ISBN 978-0-13-894858-0.
40. Kennedy, P. A Guide to Econometrics, 6th ed.; Blackwell Pub: Malden, MA, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-1-4051-8258-4.
41. Kock, N.; Lynn, G. Lateral Collinearity and Misleading Results in Variance-Based SEM: An Illustration and Recommendations. J.
Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012, 13, 546–580. [CrossRef]
42. Zhu, J.; Tang, W.; Wang, H.; Chen, Y. The Influence of Green Human Resource Management on Employee Green Behavior—A
Study on the Mediating Effect of Environmental Belief and Green Organizational Identity. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4544. [CrossRef]
43. Hussain, S.A.; Haq, M.A.U.; Soomro, Y.A. Factors Influencing Consumers’ Green Purchase Behavior: Green Advertising as
Moderator. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2020, 4, 144–153. [CrossRef]
44. Moser, A.K. Thinking Green, Buying Green? Drivers of pro-Environmental Purchasing Behavior. J. Consum. Mark. 2015, 32,
167–175. [CrossRef]
45. Peattie, K. Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2010, 35, 195–228. [CrossRef]
46. Jacobson, P.D.; Wasserman, J.; Anderson, J.R. Historical Overview of Tobacco Legislation and Regulation. J. Soc. Issues 2010, 53,
75–95. [CrossRef]
47. Bardsley, P.; Olekans, N. Cigarette and Tobacco Consumption: Have Anti-Smoking Policies Made a Difference? Working Paper Series;
The University of Melbourne: Parkville, Australia, 1998.
48. Warner, K.E. The Effects of the Anti-Smoking Campaign on Cigarette Consumption. Am. J. Public Health 1977, 67, 645–650.
[CrossRef]
49. Micklethwait, J.; Wooldridge, A. The Globalization Backlash. Foreign Policy 2001, 126, 16–26. [CrossRef]
50. Paterson, M. Understanding the Green Backlash. Environ. Politics 1999, 8, 183–187. [CrossRef]
51. Jacques, P.J.; Dunlap, R.E.; Freeman, M. The Organisation of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism.
Environ. Politics 2008, 17, 349–385. [CrossRef]
52. Zandi, M. What Glum Consumer Sentiment Could Mean for the US Economy Next Year. CNN Business Perspectives. 2021. Avail-
able online: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/22/perspectives/us-economy-2022-consumer-sentiment/index.html (accessed
on 25 January 2022).
53. Tappe, A.; Meyersohn, N. Warning Sign for the Economy: Consumers Are Getting Grumpy. CNN Business. 2022. Available
online: https://ktvz.com/money/cnn-business-consumer/2022/01/14/american-retail-sales-were-surprisingly-dreadful-in-
december/ (accessed on 25 January 2022).
54. Ferrer, E.; Salaber, J.; Zalewska, A. Consumer Confidence Indices and Stock Markets’ Meltdowns. Eur. J. Financ. 2016, 22, 195–220.
[CrossRef]
55. Fisher, K.L.; Statman, M. Consumer Confidence and Stock Returns. J. Portf. Manag. 2003, 30, 115–127. [CrossRef]
56. Sum, V. Effects of Business and Consumer Confidence on Stock Market Returns: Cross-Sectional Evidence. Econ. Manag. Financ.
Mark. 2012, 9, 21–25. [CrossRef]
57. Foerster, S.R.; Tsagarelis, J.; Wang, G. Are Cash Flows Better Stock Return Predictors than Profits? Financ. Anal. J. 2017, 73, 73–99.
[CrossRef]
58. Lemmon, M.; Portniaguina, E. Consumer Confidence and Asset Prices: Some Empirical Evidence. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2006, 19,
1499–1529. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 1889 17 of 17

59. The Economist The Global Debt Clock. The Economist. Available online: https://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_
clock (accessed on 5 February 2022).
60. Seiler, P. Weighting Bias and Inflation in the Time of COVID-19: Evidence from Swiss Transaction Data. Swiss J. Econ. Stat. 2020,
156, 13. [CrossRef]
61. Demertzis, M. Growth and Inflation after the Pandemic in the EU; Bruegel: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
62. Johnson, M.D.; Fornell, C. A Framework for Comparing Customer Satisfaction across Individuals and Product Categories. J. Econ.
Psychol. 1991, 12, 267–286. [CrossRef]
63. Woodbury, Z. Climate Trauma: Toward a New Taxonomy of Trauma. Ecopsychology 2019, 11, 1–8. [CrossRef]
64. Mah, A.Y.J.; Chapman, D.A.; Markowitz, E.M.; Lickel, B. Coping with Climate Change: Three Insights for Research, Intervention,
and Communication to Promote Adaptive Coping to Climate Change. J. Anxiety Disord. 2020, 75, 102282. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Medley, A.N.; Capron, D.W.; Korte, K.J.; Schmidt, N.B. Anxiety Sensitivity: A Potential Vulnerability Factor For Compulsive
Hoarding. Cogn. Behav. Ther. 2013, 42, 45–55. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.