Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (2017) 109e120

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Why determinants of green purchase cannot be treated equally? The

case of green cosmetics: Literature review
Genovaite_ Liobikiene_ a, b, *, Jurga Bernatoniene_ b
a
Department of Environmental Sciences, Vytautas Magnus University, Vileikos st. 8, LT-44404 Kaunas, Lithuania
b
Department of Drug Technology and Social Pharmacy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Sukileliu str. 13, LT-50161 Kaunas, Lithuania

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Promotion of green purchasing is one of the ways to minimize the environmental impact of products and
Received 12 January 2017 achieve sustainability. The research on green marketing and green purchase behavior has recently
Received in revised form become a subject of study. This review of 80 papers published from 2011 to 2017 on green purchase
30 May 2017
behavior revealed that most of the studies were conducted during the last three years. Moreover, the
Accepted 31 May 2017
review showed that authors obtained different results of the analysis of the green products in general
(including all green products) purchase behavior. Thus, we suggested that the future researchers consider
^ as de
Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo categories to which particular green products could be attributed, since different factors influence the
Almeida purchase of separate products differently. In addition, we proposed a model for the analysis of green
personal care products purchase behavior, giving particular attention to the health consciousness as the
Keywords: main determinant with brand and quality variables, in regard to the color and styling cosmetics products.
Green products This study provides insight for future research, policy makers and marketing managers seeking the
Green cosmetics promotion of green products purchase behavior.
Determinant of purchase behavior
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sustainable consumption

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2. Research methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2.1. Selection process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2.2. Content analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
2.3. Material evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3. Descriptive analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.1. Distribution across the time period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.2. The studies of green products purchase behavior according to products categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.3. The determinants of general GPs purchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4. The tendencies of green purchase studies in general and according to product categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.1. The differences of determinants of purchase of GPs in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.1.1. Impact of internal factors on green purchase behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.1.2. Impact of social factors on green purchase behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.1.3. Impact of external factors on green purchase behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.2. The classification of GPs and its main determinants of purchase behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.2.1. The determinants of organic food purchase behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.2.2. The determinants of green luxury and durable goods purchase behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.2.3. The determinants of green cosmetics purchase behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.1. Why the determinants of green product purchase cannot be treated equally? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

* Corresponding author. Department of Environmental Sciences, Vytautas Mag-

nus University, Vileikos st. 8, LT-44404 Kaunas, Lithuania.
_
E-mail address: g.liobikiene@gmf.vdu.lt (G. Liobikiene).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.204
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
110 _ J. Bernatoniene_ / Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (2017) 109e120
G. Liobikiene,

5.2. Green cosmetics and a suggested model of green personal care products and color cosmetics purchase behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Further references not included in the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

1. Introduction products into groups. Considering that purchase of products of

different categories is determined by distinct factors (Liobikiene_
The depletion of natural resources, climate change, air pollution et al., 2016), the necessity of the product specification is high-
and waste generation are the main environmental problems which lighted in this paper. Moreover, Joshi and Rahman (2015) presented
the policy should cope with. Over the last decade, great efforts have only the factors and their impact on GPs purchase; meanwhile, this
been put into policies aimed at production processes. However, review proposed a classification system for internal, social and
only in recent years the importance of the consumption perspective external factors determining the green purchase behavior. It was
has been highlighted, as high levels of consumption threaten the convenient and practical for analysis of the determinants of broad
quality of the environment and the processes of sustainable categories of products purchase.
development (Tukker et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2010; Liobikiene_ and In this study, as the case, the exclusive attention was paid to the
Dagiliu te,
_ 2016). The main aim of sustainable consumption is not purchase behavior of green cosmetics products, as currently there
to worsen the environmental quality by growth of goods and ser- is an imbalance between the growing use of organic cosmetics and
vices, not to reduce the consumption but to reduce its environ- the limited attention from researchers to this product category. The
mental impact. One of the main tools to achieve the sustainable product group of green cosmetics is very broad (it encompasses
consumption is to increase purchase of environmentally friendly products such as styling gels or mousses, fragrances (cologne,
products (in this paper we entitle them green products (GPs)). The essence, light essence, perfume, light perfume, etc.), color or make-
consumption of GPs could be a way to minimize the environmental up (lipstick, blush, compact powder, eyebrow pencil, etc.) cos-
impact (Mont and Plepys, 2008; Elliott, 2013; Ritter et al., 2015). metics, and personal care products (creams, lotions, oils, shampoos,
The research work regarding green marketing and GPs purchase soaps, cleansers, and even toothpaste) (Wu and Chen, 2012;
behavior started in late 1960s, however, the main studies appeared at Ecocert, 2012; Patel et al., 2015). Therefore, it is important as well
the end of 80sda time period that also saw a rise in eco-labeling to consider the categories of green cosmetics while analyzing the
(D’Souza et al., 2006; Horne, 2009; Coleman et al., 2011; Smith and main determinants of these products. Thus, this paper reviewed the
Brower, 2012; Braimah, 2015). The green marketing has received studies on green cosmetics purchase behavior and proposed a
increased attention due to the environmental deterioration related to model for the analysis of determinants of make-up, styling and
the rising level of consumption (Kumar, 2010). Thus, in a broad sense personal care products purchasing behavior.
the green marketing activities facilitate exchanges, which satisfy The literature review was conducted aiming to collect and
consumer needs and wants by minimizing the impact of these ac- analyze all relevant papers. The research methodology is described
tivities on the physical environment via: a) reduction of waste in in section 2, descriptive analysis (distribution of papers in a period
packaging; b) growth in resource use efficiency, and c) decrease of of time, product categories and main factors of green product
chemical and toxic emissions and other pollutants in production and purchase) is presented in section 3. In section 4, the material
use (Majumdar and Swain, 2015). Therefore, in general the GPs are evaluation is discussed. The discussion and model of green cos-
referred to as having a lesser impact on the environment and metics purchase behavior is proposed in section 5, while section 6
damaging human health less than traditional products, hence the produces the main conclusions.
term sustainable or environmentally friendly products (Janssen and
Jager, 2002; Albino et al., 2009; Chairy, 2012; Tsai, 2012; Tseng and
Hung, 2013; Biswas and Roy, 2015; Zhao and Zhong, 2015). 2. Research methodology
Braimah (2015) has recently stated that market for green brands
is growing exponentially at global level. These trends are related to 2.1. Selection process
increasing social and political pressures as many companies have
adopted green marketing strategies, and thus environmental issues This paper used the review methodology suggested by Mayring
became a competitive advantage (D’Souza et al., 2006; Coleman (2002) and Seuring and Müller (2008). The primary search for
et al., 2011; Subhani et al., 2012). Moreover, the studies (see related publications from 2011 to 2017 was conducted as a struc-
Oana, 2014; Kong et al., 2014) have shown that the demand of green ture keywords search. The main keywords were: “green products”,
(organic) products has increased significantly in recent years as “consumption of environmentally friendly products“, “organic
well, and, from the perspective of environment, it is evaluated very products”, “sustainable consumption”, “green purchase behavior”
positively. and “pro-environmental consumer”. Major databases (Scopus)
The determinants of GPs intention and purchase behavior have were used to search for related papers in peer-reviewed scientific
been explored in the vast number of research works. Joshi and journals in English. For selection of relevant studies, the following
Rahman (2015) presented a review of empirical articles on con- selection criteria were applied: (1) the study should have been
sumer green purchase behavior published in reputed academic published during 2011e2017; (2) the study should be empirical in
journals from 2000 to 2014. Their review focused on studies that nature; (3) the study should discuss or explain the various factors
sought to identify factors affecting green purchase behavior (except affecting consumer green purchase intention or behavior. More-
demographic variables). The main limitation of their review is over, this review considered not only the papers which analyze the
focusing on general research of GPs purchase and not separating determinants of general green purchase behavior (intention) but
also the ones analyzing the purchase determinants of separate
 _ J. Bernatoniene_ / Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (2017) 109e120
G. Liobikiene,
product groups, such as green (organic) food, cosmetics, clothing,
luxury items, durable and carbon offset products. Taking the stated
delimitations into account, a total of 80 papers were reviewed.
2.2. Content analysis
Descriptive dimensions were used to classify the papers in the
first step of evaluation. The content of the papers was further
assessed by means of a descriptive analysis: 1) what is the distri-
bution of papers across the time period? 2) Which category of
products is the most analyzed? 3) In terms of green products in
general, which factor (determinant) in the studies is analyzed the
most frequently? In order to review the distribution of papers
across the time period and product categories, each publication was
assigned to exactly one category. However, reviewing the frequency
of factors included in analysis of GPs purchase behavior, one article
was attributed to more than one category; it depends on how many
factors were analyzed in the study. Thus, this analysis helped to
reveal the main topics of studies. Moreover, in this part there was
suggested the classification system of factors determining the
purchase behavior, which was applied for the material evaluation.
2.3. Material evaluation
The material analysis was divided into two subsections. In the
first subsection, the determinants of green purchase behavior were
analyzed encompassing those studies which considered only GPs in
general. Thus, in this part, the differences and similarities of studies
and the reasons of these occurrences were revealed. In the second
subsection, there were studies reviewed which analyzed the pur-
chasing determinants of GPs of these categories: organic food,
durable and luxury products. Particular attention was paid to the
green cosmetic products and determinants of purchase behavior.
According to the findings, the model for the analysis of de-
terminants of green personal care and color or makeup (and styl-
ing) products purchasing behavior was proposed.
3. Descriptive analysis
3.1. Distribution across the time period
The basic body of literature encompasses 80 papers in the
research period of 2011e2017. Joshi and Rahman (2015) presented
a review of empirical articles on consumer green purchase behavior
published in reputed academic journals from 2000 to 2014 which
included only 53 papers. Thus, there were more studies conducted
during the last seven years than during 14 years from the beginning
of the 21st century.
Most studies were conducted in the previous three years
(2014e2016). Moreover, despite that 2017 has just begun, 6 articles
have already been published. It shows that the studies of green
purchase behavior and its determinants are very relevant and
topical. Seeking to implement the sustainable consumption and
production policy the findings of these studies have important
implications for marketers and policy makers. These researches not
only reveal how to promote the GPs purchase but show the effec-
tiveness of applied tools (subsidies, advertisement) implementing
the sustainable consumption and production policy as well.
Therefore, we assume that in near future the studies in this field
will not recede but will grow even more.
3.2. The studies of green products purchase behavior according to
products categories
As it is summarized in Fig. 1 and Table 1 (in the appendix), the
111
majority of studies analyzed the determinants of GPs purchase
behavior and intention in general, i.e. without separating products
into categories. The main items assessing the general purchase
behavior (intentions) are: “I will consider buying products because
they are less polluting in coming times”, “I will consider switching
to environmental friendly brands for ecological reasons”, “I feel
more comfortable when I use green products rather than normal
ones”, “I aim to buy green products again after my first purchase”, “I
would recommend green products to my friends and family”, “I
expect to purchase product in the future because of its positive
environmental contribution”. However, respondents were asked
about purchase of GPs in general and such a generality could lead to
confusion. One group of consumers asked about purchase of GPs
could be more concerned about organic food, another about the
energy efficiency or durability of products. Due to this, the de-
terminants of purchase behavior might differ. Moreover, some au-
thors (see: Almossawi, 2014; Majumdar and Swain, 2015) have
found that the preferences of people regarding the eco-friendly
products varied among the product categories as well. Bernard
et al. (2015) also have showed that consumer familiarity with
environmental information varies across product categories, and
they highlighted that it is crucial to understand the differences in
consumer behavior across product categories.
The analyses of determinants of organic food and environ-
mentally friendly luxury and durable goods purchase behavior are
second by their frequency. This is related to the fact that the de-
mand and marketing of these products are developing very fast,
and the implementation of sustainable consumption and produc-
tion of these categories is very important. Meanwhile, the green
cosmetics, clothing and fashion products purchase behavior is
scarcely analyzed (Fig. 2 and Table. 1). Thus, in the near future, the
interest in these products purchase behavior should grow, as
environmentally friendly lifestyle includes all the categories of
consumption.
3.3. The determinants of general GPs purchase
Analyzing the determinants of GPs purchase in general the au-
thors have referred to different theories. The main theories that
were applied: i) Consumption Value theory (takes into consider-
ation functional, social, epistemic, conditional and environmental
values) (Lin and Huang, 2012; Biswas and Roy, 2015; Suki, 2016); ii)
the Theory of Reasoned Action (Coleman et al., 2011); and iii) the
extended Theory of Planned Behavior (Kumar, 2012; Wu and Chen,
2014; Paul et al., 2016; Liobikiene_ et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2017),
which encompasses the attitude towards the behavior, subjective
norms and perceived behavioral control factors (Ajzen, 1991). Other
authors proposed various hypotheses and analyzed different
Fig. 1. Distribution of publications per year across the analyzed period.
112 _ J. Bernatoniene_ / Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (2017) 109e120
G. Liobikiene,
Fig. 2. The products categories in the studies.
factors (prices, environmental concern, etc.) as determinants of GPs
purchase in general.
The factors (determinants) analyzed taking into account the
purchase behavior of GPs in general are presented in Fig. 3 and
Table 2 (see appendix). They are: environmental concern (attitude,
values), environmental consciousness, environmental knowledge,
perception of consequences (responsibility), perceived consumer
effectiveness, attitude towards GPs (green consumption), health
consciousness (quality of life), values (altruism, self-enhancement,
etc.), price, eco-labeling (brand), trust and accessibility (conve-
nience). The environmental attitude (concern) is the most
frequently included factor in the studies. From 38 papers, this in-
dicator was included in 19 studies. The environmental attitude
(concern) is based on how respondents value the importance of
environment components, problems and protection of the envi-
ronment. The majority of authors assume that environmental at-
titudes are very important in the process of GPs purchase.
The factor of environmental knowledge is vastly analyzed as
well. In more than one third of papers this indicator was considered
(Fig. 3). Knowledge is the amount of environmental information
held in one’s memory that affects the way in which consumers
interpret and assess available preferences (Tan, 2011). In the studies
the role of environmental knowledge was more often analyzed as
mediation of attitudes towards green consumption or confidence
level (Kumar, 2012; Liobikiene_ et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2017). Thus,
the environmental knowledge is related with attitude to environ-
ment or GPs first, and then it influences the purchase behavior.
The social norms as the perceived social pressure to perform or
not to perform the behavior are the third indicator by frequency
which was included in 13 papers (Fig. 3). This indicator is related
with social conditions and encompasses the influences of others
Fig. 3. The frequency of analyzed determinants of purchase of GPs in general.
who are close/important to the person, such as friends, relatives,
colleagues. Moreover, social norms involve an individual’s feeling of
social pressure towards certain behavior. Consumers with positive
social norms towards given behavior would purchase more GPs.
Accessibility (convenience level) or perceived behavioral control
is the factor revealing whether the consumer can easily consume a
certain product, or whether its consumption is difficult or impos-
sible. Usually this indicator shows the ability (time, money, enough
supply) to purchase green products and whether GPs are easily
available in shops, or whether environmentally-friendly products
are good value for money. In the studies this factor was considered
in almost one third of papers (Fig. 3). Thus, the ability to purchase
GPs can be one of the main indicators which can promote or be the
barrier in the green purchase process.
The impact of attitude toward purchase of GPs on GPs purchase
was analyzed in 10 papers. This indicator was assessed as a degree
up to which the person favors the behavior in question and includes
judgment on whether the behavior is good or bad, and whether the
respondent wants to behave that way. The factor of perceived con-
sumer effectiveness also relates attitude with consumer behavior.
However, in this case it describes the ability to affect outcomes and
shows stable beliefs about the effectiveness of consumers’ choices.
In literature, this indicator was included in 9 papers (Fig. 3).
The impact of price and eco-label (brand) on purchase behavior
were analyzed in 6 and 7 papers, respectively. These studies revealed
that higher price due to additional costs of better raw materials and
labeling authentication could be the reason not to buy green prod-
ucts, and the eco-brand can promote these products. Meanwhile, the
trust (confidence level) and the environmental consciousness were
analyzed only in 4 papers (Fig. 3). The trust is defined as willingness
to depend on objective based on the belief or expectation resulting
from its credibility and reliability regarding environmental perfor-
mance. The environmental consciousness assesses the presence of
environmental resources, their cost of use and the impact of this use
to the environment and themselves. This indicator encompasses the
dimensions of environmental attitude and the perceived re-
sponsibility of behavior. Thus, the environmental consciousness
should absolutely contribute to the green purchase behavior.
The least frequently in the papers was analyzed the impact on
purchase behavior of values, perception of consequences (re-
sponsibility) and health consciousnesse only in 2 papers (Fig. 3).
The values (altruism, egoism, biospherism) and perception of
consequences are the factors of the theory of Value-Belief-Norms,
which is usually applied analyzing the environmentally friendly
behavior. However, in terms of green purchase behavior this theory
is not applied and is left for future research. We assume that the
health consciousness as the positive belief on health and health
concern is not suitable for the studies of GPs purchase in general
because this factor is prevalent in the studies of health related
products such as food or cosmetic.
Reviewing the determinants of GPs purchase behavior which can
be kept in check, it was noticed that all factors could be classified.
Therefore, there was proposed a classification system separating the
factors into: a) internal factors, which encompass attitudes, values,
awareness; b) social factors, and c) external factors, which are
related to the external circumstances (Fig. 4). According to this
classification most studies were conducted examining the internal
factors as the environmental attitude, the perception of environ-
mental friendly behavior, etc. (Liobikiene_ et al., 2016). However,
these analyses are rather simplex because other factors, such as
social context and different circumstances, are also very important
in the purchase behavior and can contribute more than internal
factors. For example, respondents can be very environmentally
aware; however, they do not buy green products because cannot
afford them. (Liobikiene_ et al., 2017). Therefore, analyzing the
 _ J. Bernatoniene_ / Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (2017) 109e120
G. Liobikiene,
determinants of green purchase behavior, it is very important to
include in the models factors attributed to all dimensions (internal,
social, and external), in order to reveal the tools necessary for the
promotion of GPs purchase behavior.
It is noteworthy that this classification system is convenient and
practical for analyzing determinants of purchase of broad cate-
gories of products. Moreover, it is useful in the review process. This
classification was applied reviewing the findings of researches
concerning the green purchase behavior.
4. The tendencies of green purchase studies in general and
according to product categories
Authors analyzing the determinants of green purchase behavior
referred to different theories and included various factors in their
models. The major part of studies analyzed purchase of GPs in
general, while other authors considered specific categories of
products. In the following part of paper, adopting the proposed
classification system (Fig. 4) for the data related to the general
analysis of the GPs (including all green products), we showed the
results obtained by the main authors, which were partially dis-
cussed in Joshi and Rahman (2015) study. Further in this section,
there are reviewed findings about the determinants of green pur-
chase behavior considering product categories. This part encour-
ages future researches to consider categories to which particular
green products could be attributed.
4.1. The differences of determinants of purchase of GPs in general
4.1.1. Impact of internal factors on green purchase behavior
The internal factors in the studies of green purchase were
analyzed the most often; however, their findings were different.
Taking into account the environmental attitude (concern, values,
perceived seriousness of environmental problems), authors (see:
Tan, 2011; Chen and Chang, 2012; Paço et al., 2013; Almossawi, 2014;
Wang et al., 2014; Azizan and Suki, 2014; Biswas and Roy, 2015;
Ritter et al., 2015; Chekima et al., 2016; Goh and Balaji, 2016; Lai
and Cheng, 2016; Moser, 2016; Paul et al., 2016) have found that
those determinants significantly influenced green purchase inten-
tion and behavior. People for whom the environment and its prob-
lems were important were more likely to purchase GPs for the sake
of environment. Newton et al. (2015) have revealed the direct effect
of environmental concern on environmental purchase intentions
(mediated by intentional and incidental learning). Meanwhile, Junior
Fig. 4. Classification of factors determining the purchase behavior.
113
et al. (2015) have stated that environmental concern had no effect on
the declared purchase of GPs. Braimah (2015) has revealed that other
determinants, such as price and brand name, performed better than
consumers’ concerns for green issues influencing the purchase de-
cisions. These authors revealed that there exists a gap between at-
titudes and behavior, which can be caused by ingredient habits,
affordability, not satisfied expectations of GPs in the marketplace
(Tseng and Hung, 2013). Therefore, the future researches analyzing
the impact of environmental attitudes on green purchase should
consider this gap between attitude and behavior.
Reviewing the findings of environmental awareness (Boztepe,
2012; Ritter et al., 2015; Suki et al., 2016), all authors confirmed
that this indicator affected buying of GPs behavior. With the increase
of environmental pollution and consciousness of environmental
protection, there is observed the growth of awareness of green
products and the decrease of use of harmful to the environment
products. All authors analyzing the impact on GPs purchase of
perceived consumer effectiveness (green consumption self-efficacy)
and attitudes toward GPs or green purchase behavior (see: Coleman
et al., 2011; Tan, 2011; Kumar, 2012; Chen and Chang, 2012; Lin and
Hsu, 2015; Wang et al., 2014; Kong et al., 2014; Kanchanapibul et al.,
2014; Wu and Chen, 2014; Biswas and Roy, 2015; Kabadayi et al.,
2015; Suki, 2016; Kumar et al., 2017) equally supported the idea
that these determinants are significant in determining consumers’
involvement (intentions) as well as their actual purchase behavior.
Ritter et al. (2015) and Azizan and Suki (2014) showed that health
consciousness also significantly determined the green purchase
behavior. However, in this case, the respondents asked about the
consumption of GPs were more concerned about food or cosmetic
products directly related with human health.
4.1.2. Impact of social factors on green purchase behavior
Considering various groups of social factors, the vast number of
research studies have declared that social context (or social sanc-
tions) encouraged consumers to purchase GPs, and it was one of the
dominant factors influencing sustainable consumption (Lin and
Hsu, 2015; Wu and Chen, 2014; Biswas and Roy, 2015; Ritter
et al., 2015; Liobikiene_ et al., 2016; Suki et al., 2016; Suki, 2016).
Liobikiene_ et al. (2017) also found that the more people agree that
buying green products can make a real difference to the environ-
ment and set a good example to others, and that their family or
friends support this behavior, the more often they buy green
products.
Moreover, analyzing the social norms impact on green purchase,
there is a very important cultural aspect to consider, like the index of
individualism and collectivism. Kumar (2012) has found that the
subjective norms are positively related to the level of collectivism. In
more collectivistic countries the social norms determined the green
purchase behavior more. Liobikiene_ et al. (2016) revealed that the
level of subjective norms in EU significantly depended on individ-
ualism level; however, the dependence was negative. Therefore, the
future researches analyzing the influence of social norms should
consider the countries’ collectivism (or individualism) dimension.
Meanwhile, the other authors (see Kumar, 2012, Paul et al.,
2016; Kumar et al., 2017) have found that subjective norms were
related to purchase intention insignificantly. This may occur
because some respondents did not feel that “going green” increases
social approval or makes a good impression. Likewise, Lin and
Huang (2012) have declared that social value did not have a sig-
nificant impact on behavior choice regarding green products even
in collectivistic societies. Considering social norms it is important to
distinct whether the social norms are related with hedonistic or
normative goals. According to the hedonistic perspective, the social
norms are important because they increase the social status of a
person. In terms of normative goal, people are motivated to
114 _ J. Bernatoniene_ / Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (2017) 109e120
G. Liobikiene,
purchase more GPs because they think that this behavior protects
the environment and it is the right thing to do, and that it con-
tributes to wellbeing of other people. Thus, the future researches
should reveal in more detail the role of environmentally friendly
social norms in green purchase behavior, which should be sepa-
rated and attributed to the hedonistic or normative goals
(Liobikiene_ et al., 2017).
4.1.3. Impact of external factors on green purchase behavior
The findings about external factors’ impact on GPs purchase are
inconsistent as well. Taking into account the environmental
knowledge, the most authors (see Tan, 2011; Wang et al., 2014;
Almossawi, 2014; Azizan and Suki, 2014; Kanchanapibul et al.,
2014; Ritter et al., 2015; Biswas and Roy, 2015; Goh and Balaji,
2016) have discovered that knowledge has a positive relationship
with intention and purchase of GPs. The environmental informa-
tion guides consumers by pointing out the environmentally pref-
erable products among otherwise equal ones and engages citizens
to purchase these products. However, Lin and Hsu (2015) showed
that the influence on green consumer behavior of knowledge about
climate change and the mass media was not significant. Kong et al.
(2014) also showed that green advertising had no significant
impact on consumer intention to purchase GPs. Kumar et al. (2017)
indicated that environmental knowledge does not necessarily
result in significant linkage between knowledge about GPs and
green consumer behavior. This factor may be a mediated variable
for attitudes towards green consumption and confidence level
(Kumar, 2012; Liobikiene_ et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2017). Referring
to Frick et al. (2004), the environmental knowledge is divided into
three levels: systemic (knowledge about environmental problems,
components), action related (knowledge about how to behave) and
effectiveness related (knowledge about behavior impact on envi-
ronment). However, the influence of systematic, action related and
effective knowledge on green purchase behavior has not been
analyzed yet. Therefore, in studies of the environmental knowledge
impact on green purchase behavior, it is important to consider the
classification of knowledge.
Considering the convenience (accessibility) level, Braimah
(2015) has revealed that it influences the purchase decision,
while Liobikiene_ et al. (2016) showed that only in four European
Union countries this variable determined the green purchase
behavior. Grimmer et al. (2016) revealed that purchase situation
moderates the intention-behavior relationship, with availability
and ease of purchase influencing the relationship. Kumar (2012),
Wang et al. (2014), Wu and Chen (2014) and Paul et al. (2016)
also found that perceived behavioral control (which reflects the
convenience level) significantly predicts purchase intention. Lin
and Huang (2012) and Biswas and Roy (2015) supported the hy-
pothesis that conditional values, such as environmentally friendly
products being easily acquirable, influence the GP purchase as well.
Meanwhile, Suki (2016) revealed that conditional values had no
significant effect on environmental concern expressed as purchase
of GP in general. In this case, it is important to consider not only the
convenience level but also the quantity of supply.
The findings about the price impact on purchase behavior are also
inconsistent. Boztepe (2012) and Braimah (2015) confirmed that
price clearly was picked as the most relevant determinant in influ-
encing their respondents purchase decisions. Liobikiene_ et al. (2017)
showed that people for whom the price was important in purchase
decision process seldom bought green products. Thus, the price level
is the main barrier in terms of green purchase behavior, and the
decrease of prices of green products could obviously promote the
green purchase behavior. However, Ritter et al. (2015) indicated that
the relationship between price and quality does not play a central
role in the decision to consume green products. Chekima et al. (2016)
also declared that premium price had no moderating effect, thus
denying its role as one of the main barriers for consumers. Liobikiene_
et al. (2016) found that the importance of prices significantly
determined the green purchase behavior only in a few European
countries. Moreover, Suki (2016) revealed that the price as functional
value had no significant effect on environmental concern expressed
as purchase of GP in general. Thus, in terms of price impact on green
purchase behavior, the income level is another factor related with
price effect on the purchase of green products (Grankvist and Biel,
2007; Paço and Raposo, 2010). The lower the income level, the
more important price is in the decision process regarding buying
GPs. Therefore, in this case, the ratio between income and price level
is a more suitable indicator than the price.
Similar results have been observed considering other external
factors, as influence of eco-labeling (Boztepe, 2012; Smith and
Brower, 2012; Azizan and Suki, 2014; Kong et al., 2014; Braimah,
2015; Chekima et al., 2016) and confidence (trust) level on pur-
chase behavior (Chen and Chang, 2012; Tseng and Hung, 2013;
Liobikiene_ et al., 2016). The authors revealed that these factors
significantly influenced the GPs purchase behavior. Therefore, policy
makers should promote the implementation of strict, clear and fair
green labeling policy, and companies must enhance their green trust
in order to raise green purchase behavior (Chen and Chang, 2012).
4.2. The classification of GPs and its main determinants of purchase
behavior
The goods are commonly classified into two categories: the
necessity and luxury goods. According to the purchase frequency,
the goods are divided into everyday products and non-everyday
products. Also, goods can be durable and quickly consumed.
Generally, the necessity goods, which are consumed daily, are
mainly sold in retail stores and have a short consumption life, they
are chosen habitually and are considered as low-involvement
products. Meanwhile, the decision making process of purchase of
luxury and durable goods, such as electronic ones, are more com-
plex, and the purchase of these products is not so frequent
(Achabou and Dekhili, 2013). Therefore, the determinants of pur-
chase of necessity or luxury (durable) goods should be different.
The next subsections review the main findings about determinants
by separate product categories.
4.2.1. The determinants of organic food purchase behavior
Organic food provides long-term benefits to both people and the
environment, such as increased soil fertility, pest and disease
control without pesticides, safe quality of water resources (Vermeir
and Verbeke, 2008; Yazdanpanah and Forouzani, 2015). Analyzing
the purchase of organic food, which is attributed to necessity goods,
and applying the Theory of planed behavior, the authors have found
that subjective norms are the main underlying factor driving the
organic food consumption (de Maya et al., 2011; Rezai et al., 2012).
However, Yazdanpanah and Forouzani (2015) indicated that, while
the attitude was the main predictor of intention to purchase
organic foods, the perceived behavior control and subjective norms
were not significant predictors of intention.
One of the main indicators of organic food purchase behavior is the
attitude towards the health (or health consciousness), as food con-
sumption is directly related to the human health. Teng and Lu (2016)
have found that three sub-dimensions of organic consumption mo-
tives: health consciousness, food safety concern, and ecological mo-
tives, are all positively related to consumers’ involvement with
organic foods. The importance of health aspect has also been
confirmed by other authors (see Rezai et al., 2012; Schleenbecker and
Hamm, 2013; Majumdar and Swain, 2015; Lee and Yun, 2015).
Hemmerling et al. (2015) have conducted a literature review of
 _ J. Bernatoniene_ / Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (2017) 109e120
G. Liobikiene,
organic food consumption and stated that health, taste, safety, and
environmental protection are the main purchasing motives for
organic foods. Lee and Hwang (2016) have also revealed that food
safety and eco-friendliness appear to be more powerful drivers of
quality perception than price is, which further influences organic food
purchase intention. Bradu et al. (2014) showed that the traceability
label has a significant impact on willingness to buy a chocolate bar.
Meanwhile, the lack of consumer trust is a barrier for development of
organic food market (Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen, 2017).
4.2.2. The determinants of green luxury and durable goods
purchase behavior
The environmentally friendly durable and luxury goods encom-
pass all energy efficient (and environmentally friendly) appliances,
equipment, light bulbs, vehicles, furniture, etc. Taking into account
the studies of luxury and durable goods purchase, Zhao et al. (2014)
have found that environmental attitudes are the most significant
predictors of energy efficient household appliances and light bulbs
purchasing. Yang and Zhao (2015) have explored the energy-efficient
and renewable energy equipment purchase and showed that family
income positively moderates the relationship between the equip-
ment purchase attitude and behavioral intention, and subsidy in-
centives positively affect the moderating effect of family income.
Nguyen et al. (2016) have revealed that biospheric values
encourage active engagement in energy efficient household appli-
ances purchase behavior by enhancing consumers’ attitudes towards
environmental protection, their subjective norms and environ-
mental self-identity, and by mitigating their perceived inconve-
nience associated with eco-friendly products. Achabou and Dekhili
(2013), when analyzing purchase behavior of green luxury goods,
emphasized that despite the increasing consumer concerns about
preservation of the planet the responsible behavior of purchasing the
brand remains a secondary selection criterion. The consumers of
luxury goods primarily focus on the intrinsic quality of the product.
Angelis et al. (2017) also confirmed that a brand is very important in
terms of green luxury products. Moreover, Davies et al. (2012) have
showed that many luxury consumers do not see environmental
protection as a factor of primary importance to the point that
emphasizing sustainability may lower their overall perception of
luxury goods’ quality. Meanwhile, Steinhart et al. (2013) found that
the environmental claim may improve evaluations of luxury prod-
ucts by providing available justification to indulge and use luxuries.
Medeiros and Ribeiro (2017) indicated the important green at-
tributes for automobiles, such as “economy”, “engine” and “new
technologies”. Regarding furniture, green attributes, such as
“design”, “origin label” and “origin of the raw material”, were indi-
cated as important. Knez et al. (2014) have declared that the most
relevant factor for purchasing a low emission vehicle is the total
vehicle price. Wu et al. (2015) have supported the argument that
image, risk, value, and perceived usefulness are key determinants of
electric motorcycle purchase intention. Rudolph (2016) has showed
that subsidizing zero emission vehicles may increase the likelihood
of choosing an alternatively propelled vehicle.
4.2.3. The determinants of green cosmetics purchase behavior
Cosmetics are substances used to enhance the appearance or
odor of human body (Rawat and Garga, 2012; Pervin et al., 2014;
Patel et al., 2015). Modern cosmetics industry uses a wide range
of chemicals such as parabens, petrochemicals, sodium lauryl sul-
phate, artificial colors and preservatives. There is no doubt that
long-term exposure to such chemicals may cause many health
related problems, such as cancer, dermatitis and allergies. More-
over, Nijkamp et al. (2015) have confirmed that personal care
products contribute to consumers’ general exposure more than
household cleaning agents. Therefore, consumers avoiding
115
unwanted exposure to preservatives, synthetic ingredients, hor-
mones, bioengineering products, and pesticide residues are more
likely to use green (organic) cosmetics. Consequently, the demand
of green cosmetics has increased exceptionally (Ferrer et al., 2012).
In Europe, the market for organic cosmetics had been growing 20%
per year and, according to the advance calculations, represented
almost 30% of the total cosmetics sales in 2015 (Organic Monitor,
2011). The main requirements for green cosmetics are that the in-
gredients should be environmentally-friendly, i.e., grown without
pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, toxic materials, genetically modi-
fied organisms or ionizing radiation. Thus, green cosmetics guar-
antee environmental conservation all along the production line, a
respect for consumers and utilization of natural materials of su-
perior ecological quality for better health.
Authors (see Mueller, 2006; Essoussi and Zahaf, 2008; Kim and
Chung, 2011; Kalita, 2014), analysing the green cosmetics, declared
that some similarities are expected to exist between organic food
and organic cosmetics purchase behavior. Primarily, food products,
as well as cosmetics, are seen as low-involvement products which
entail minimal effort and consideration before a purchase decision
(Mueller, 2006). Furthermore, the ingredients are one of the most
important product attributes in choosing the food and cosmetic
product which is directly related with human health. However,
some differences between these two product categories are ex-
pected. Unlike food products, cosmetic products affect consumers’
appearances and consumers use these products to manage their
appearances (Marcoux, 2000).
Applying the proposed classification (in Fig. 4) and considering
internal factors, Kim and Chung (2011) have highlighted that health
consciousness is the most important factor influencing attitude
towards organic cosmetics (personal care products), and in decision
process this factor is the most considered. Consumers believe that
green products are better for their body, are safer than traditional
cosmetics (Hall, 2008; Pearson and Henryks, 2008) and promote a
healthy lifestyle by containing ingredients which are beneficial for
body and skin (Kim and Chung, 2011; Rezai et al., 2012). Moreover,
people who strongly desire to maintain a youthful look and
improve their appearance look for chemical-free products. Thus,
Kim and Chung (2011) revealed that appearance consciousness is
an important predictor of consumers’ attitudes towards organic
personal care products as well.
Aside from the increasing concern about the effects of in-
gredients on health, several authors (see Pervin et al., 2014;
Tamashiro et al., 2014; Patel et al., 2015) have indicated that the
environmental concern has an impact on the preference for green
cosmetics. Consumers who believe that the use of organic cos-
metics would help to save the environment and reduce the use of
chemicals are more likely to buy green cosmetic products (Pervin
et al., 2014). In the context of personal care products, Kim and
Chung (2011) and Hsu et al. (2017) found that the attitude to-
wards buying organic products has significant impact on purchase
intention of green skincare products as well.
Taking into account the social factors which engage consumers
in the cosmetic purchase due to the perceived encouragement from
their family, friend or colleague, expert, sale representative and
presenter or celebrity endorsement, Kim and Chung (2011) and Hsu
et al. (2017) have shown the strong relationship between subjective
norm and intention to buy organic skin and hair care products.
Considering the external factors, Pervin et al. (2014) have
highlighted an eco-label as a powerful tool for differentiating green
cosmetics. Brands that are committed socially and environmentally
are valued as they explicitly show information about the in-
gredients and company’s policies (Mason, 2009; Akehurst et al.,
2012). Thus, brands perceived as green can create a more positive
public image resulting in more advantages for green cosmetics
116 _ J. Bernatoniene_ / Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (2017) 109e120
G. Liobikiene,
(Kim and Seock, 2009). Therefore, consumers who pay attention to
the eco-label are more likely to purchase eco-labeled cosmetics.
The environmental knowledge is also an important factor deter-
mining whether or not to purchase organic cosmetics (Bachleda et al.,
2012; Tamashiro et al., 2014). However, Cervellon et al. (2010) have
stated that there is a lack of information that consumer has about
green products in general and about green cosmetics in particular.
Therefore, information about green cosmetics would be effective
promoting the green market (Pervin et al., 2014).
Moreover, the ability is very important in purchase of green
cosmetics (Bachleda et al., 2012). In particular, when people believe
that they have more time, money and assortment their behavioral
intentions increase (Kim and Chung, 2011; Hsu et al., 2017). The
most important is financial ability (Bachleda et al., 2012; Kalita,
2014). According to Organic Monitor (2010), due to the economic
crisis in Europe, since 2009 the consumers of green cosmetics have
been becoming more price-sensitive. Refering to the Organic
Monitor (2011), since 2011 there has been observed a slowdown
in sales of organic cosmetics due to economic situation. Hsu et al.
(2017) have shown that price sensitivity can enhance the positive
effects of green skincare products purchase intention and its an-
tecedences. Thus, retailers might try to change consumers’ per-
ceptions of higher prices to affordable prices using marketing
strategies (e.g., discount, advertisement, new product develop-
ment), which would make consumers believe that they are capable
of buying organic personal care products (Kim and Chung, 2011).
5. Discussion
Seeking sustainability and implementation of the sustainable
consumption and production policy, one of the main tools is pro-
motion of GPs purchase. There is vast literature analyzing the de-
terminants of green purchase where authors, according to their
findings, suggested how to effectively promote this behavior.
However, for the suggestions to be useful, it is important that the
used methods and data are suitable. The major contribution of this
paper is to provide a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed
journal publications on green purchase behavior. This concluding
section points out the most important weaknesses of analyzed
papers, which should be considered in future researches. The
particular attention is paid to cosmetic products purchase behavior,
as this category is scarcely analyzed, and to this group of products
being multidimensional. Thus, in this part there is proposed a
model for studies of green personal care products and color (and
styling) cosmetics purchase behavior. We believe that in the near
future these theoretical considerations will be confirmed or cor-
rected by other experts in the field.
5.1. Why the determinants of green product purchase cannot be
treated equally?
This literature review showed that the most of studies analyzed
the determinants of GPs purchase in general including all green
products into one term. Reviewing the literature data related to the
general analysis of the GPs (including all green products), it was
observed that authors obtained different results in terms of inter-
nal, social and external factors impact on green purchase. These
differences could be explained by the fact that they encompassed
different countries with distinctive culture, economic development
and GPs supply. However, another insight could be that the re-
spondents were asked about purchase of GPs in general and such a
generality could confuse them and the determinants could also
differ. Analyzing the separate categories of products, authors in
their models included different variables. In terms of organic food
purchase behavior, the biggest attention was paid to health, taste,
safety and environmental protection (Hemmerling et al., 2015).
Meanwhile, authors analyzing the purchase behavior of green
luxury and durable goods considered price, quality and brand fac-
tors. Thus, it could be summarized that different factors influence
the separate groups of GPs purchase behavior.
In addition, the motives and goals which prompt to purchase GPs
are different as well. Saving energy and money in the household
could be the main motive to purchase and consume energy efficient
bulbs and appliances (Liobikiene_ and Juknys, 2016). The enhance-
ment of status could be the main motive to buy eco-friendly clothing
and fashion goods (Cervellon and Carey, 2011; Cervellon and
Wernerfelt, 2012; Elliott, 2013). Health aspects could promote pur-
chase of organic food and personal care products (Magnusson et al.,
2001; Chen, 2009). Moreover, it is very important to consider that
products are also distinct in terms of their functional benefits, such
as superior quality, performance and health benefits. The factors
which influence GPs purchase could be different according to the
functional specification of the latter (Kumar, 2014). Therefore, these
results confirmed that in the analysis of GPs purchase it is very
important to consider the product categories and their specifications.
Bernard et al. (2015) also confirmed that it is crucial to understand
and consider the differences in consumer behavior across product
categories. The analysis of determinants of GPs purchase behavior in
general, not distinguishing between separate groups of the products,
is limited and the suggested tools for policy should be treated
carefully (Liobikiene et al., 2016). Therefore, the future researches
should avoid the analysis of the determinants of purchase behavior
of GPs as general group. The policy promoting the consumption of
GPs should consider the category of product group as well. For
example, in order to enhance the purchase of environmentally
friendly bulbs and appliances, the aspect of saving money should be
highlighted. Meanwhile, for the promotion of organic food, the
health aspects should be in the foreground.
In order to reveal the comprehensive view of determinants of
green purchase behavior and the tools necessary for the promotion
of GPs purchase behavior, it is very important for future researches
to include in the models factors which attribute to all dimensions
(internal, social, and external). Thus, analyzing green purchase
behavior, the theory of planned behavior or the consumption value
theory are absolutely suitable for application as these theories
encompass all these dimensions and reveal the general view of
determinants impact.
5.2. Green cosmetics and a suggested model of green personal care
products and color cosmetics purchase behavior
In this study the exclusive attention as for the case was paid to
purchase of green cosmetic products, as currently there is an
imbalance between the growing use of organic cosmetics and the
limited research attention focused on this product category.
Moreover, it is one of the product groups which are comprised of
two different categories. Color (make-up) and styling cosmetics are
attributed to luxury products, which reflect status of consumers.
Meanwhile, the personal care products are attributed to necessity
products (Wu and Chen, 2012). On the other hand, purchase of
personal care products satisfies one’s needs for beauty and care for
one’s general appearance (Todd, 2004; Kim and Chung, 2011).
Therefore, in the analysis of determinants of green cosmetics pur-
chase researchers should consider the category to which a partic-
ular cosmetic product is attributed.
Proposing a model for the analysis of determinants of personal
care products and color (and styling) cosmetics purchasing
behavior it is important to include all factors which could reveal the
comprehensive view of determinants of green cosmetic purchase
behavior. Thus, primarily in the model there are adjusted internal,
 _ J. Bernatoniene_ / Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (2017) 109e120
G. Liobikiene,
Fig. 5. Model of green personal care products and color cosmetics purchase behavior.
social and external factors which are applied to purchase behavior
of both personal care products and color cosmetics.
The internal factors such as environmental concern or aware-
ness should positively determine the green personal care and color
cosmetics purchase (Kim and Seock, 2009; Kim and Chung, 2011;
Pervin et al., 2014; Tamashiro et al., 2014; Patel et al., 2015; Hsu
et al., 2017). The social factors like positive attitudes of the family
and friends towards these products should also positively influence
the purchase behavior of green personal care products and color
cosmetics (Moungkhem and Surakiatpinyo, 2010; Kim and Chung,
2011; Hsu et al., 2017). The external factors such as information,
convenience and confidence level, and a big assortment of these
products should promote the purchase behavior as well (Cervellon
et al., 2010; Kim and Chung, 2011; Bachleda et al., 2012; Tamashiro
et al., 2014; Hsu et al., 2017). However, the price would be the main
obstacle to buy green cosmetics products (Kim and Chung, 2011;
Bachleda et al., 2012; Kalita, 2014; Hsu et al., 2017).
Considering the categories of green cosmetics (personal care
products and color cosmetics), we enriched the model by including
particular variables which have the main impact and can act as
mediators of other factors influencing green cosmetics purchase
behavior. By taking into account the green personal care products,
the particular attention was paid to health consciousness, because
personal care products could be equated to organic food product
category (Mueller, 2006; Essoussi and Zahaf, 2008; Kim and Chung,
2011; Kalita, 2014). Considering that the ingredients are one of the
most important product attributes in choosing the food and per-
sonal care products, which is directly related with human health, in
this model we assumed that the health consciousness should be the
main direct motivator to buy these products. In addition, we sup-
posed that health variable could be a mediator (Fig. 5). We predict
that health consciousness will have indirect effect (mediation ef-
fect). Mediation effects occur when an independent variable in-
fluences the dependent through its effects on or as a result of a
mediator variable. In this case, we assume that health consciousness
influences the purchase of green personal care products by affecting
motivational (internal, social and external) factors. Moreover, we
assume that internal and social factors have a greater or the obsta-
cles as price have a lesser impact on green personal care products for
those people for whom the health is very important.
The color (and styling) cosmetics are attributed to luxury
products; thus, the consumption of these products reflects status of
consumers. Consequently, the health consciousness in regard to
117
these products may not play the main role in purchase behavior.
According to the insights from the work of Achabou and Dekhili
(2013), we assumed that brand and quality variables are the main
factors directly determining the green color cosmetics purchase.
The brand and quality variables can also serve as mediators and
indirectly, via motivational factors (internal, social and external),
affect the purchase of color cosmetics products (Fig. 5).
Therefore, we suggest that the future researchers and policy
makers in order to enhance the purchase of green personal care
products should give particular attention to the health conscious-
ness. For future researches we also propose to include in the
analysis of green color cosmetics the brand and quality variables as
the main motivators and mediators to buy colored cosmetics.
Meanwhile, the policy makers in order to promote the green color
cosmetics consumption should make effort to achieve greener
production of well-known brand products. The quality aspect of
green color cosmetics should be highlighted as well.
6. Conclusion
The research on GPs purchase behavior has developed very fast in
the last three decades. In this literature review it was revealed that,
particularly recently, the researches on green purchase behavior
increased extensively. During the years 2011e2017 there were con-
ducted 80 studies. Seeking to implement the sustainable consump-
tion and production policy, the findings of these studies are
important for marketers and policy makers. However, the major
share of analyses was generally concerned with the GPs, without
distinguishing these products into separate categories. The envi-
ronmental attitude (concern) was the most frequently analyzed
factor. In this review it was suggested that in order to reveal the
comprehensive view of green purchase (organic food, luxury prod-
ucts) determinants, the models need to include the factors which are
attributed to all dimensions (internal, social, and external).
Reviewing the findings about internal, social and external fac-
tors impact on GPs (including all green products) purchase
behavior, it was discovered that authors obtained different results.
In the models authors included different factors analyzing separate
categories (such as organic food, luxury, durable goods). Consid-
ering organic food the most popular determinants were environ-
mental attitude, health and taste, taking into account the durable
goods e price, quality and brand. The motives and goals which
prompt to purchase GPs and functional benefits, such as superior
118 _ J. Bernatoniene_ / Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (2017) 109e120
G. Liobikiene,

quality, performance and health benefits, were different as well.
Therefore, there was emphasized the importance of considering the
classification of product categories and the product specificity
when analyzing the determinants of GPs purchase behavior. The
analysis of determinants of GPs purchase behavior in general
without distinguishing groups of the products can distort the re-
sults, and the recommendations for policy could be perverse.
In this study, the exclusive attention was paid to the purchase of
green cosmetics products, as currently there is an imbalance be-
tween the growing use of organic cosmetics in the marketplace and
the limited research attention paid to this product category. It is
known that for the purchase of green cosmetics several factors (the
health consciousness, environmental concern, social factors, eco-
label, environmental knowledge and price) are of great impor-
tance. However, it was highlighted that for the analysis of the de-
terminants of green cosmetics purchase behavior authors should
consider a category to which a particular cosmetics product can be
attributed.
Thus, there was a model proposed for the analysis of de-
terminants of green personal care and color (and styling) products
purchasing behavior. Primarily, the internal, social and external
factors were included in both personal care products and color
cosmetics purchase studies in order to reveal the comprehensive
view of determinants of green cosmetic purchase behavior.
Analyzing the purchase of green personal care products, which in
our model were attributed to necessity products, it was suggested
to pay a particular attention to health consciousness. Meanwhile,
when considering the color and styling cosmetics which in our
model were attributed to luxury products, we highlighted the
importance of brand and quality. By proposing this model we hope
that in the near future our theoretical considerations of the green
products purchase behavior will be confirmed or corrected by other
experts in the field. This study also can provide more insight for the
policy makers and marketing seeking the promotion of GPs pur-
chase behavior, which is important for the sustainability and
implementation of sustainable consumption and production policy.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful for financial support provided by sci-
encefoundation of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences.
Appendix

Table 1
Summary of studies on GPs purchase (intention) behavior according to the product categories.

Products References

Green products in Coleman et al., 2011; Tan, 2011; Lin and Huang, 2012; Chairy, 2012; Smith and Brower, 2012; Kumar, 2012; Boztepe, 2012; Kaufmann et al.,
general 2012; Chen and Chang, 2012; Tseng and Hung, 2013; Paço et al., 2013; Elliott, 2013; Kong et al., 2014; Azizan and Suki, 2014; Kanchanapibul
et al., 2014; Diglel and Yazdanifard, 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Wu and Chen, 2014; Almossawi, 2014; Oana, 2014; Kabadayi et al., 2015; Junior
et al., 2015; Ritter et al., 2015; Biswas and Roy, 2015; Lin and Hsu, 2015; Braimah, 2015; Newton et al., 2015; Chekima et al., 2016; Goh and
Balaji, 2016; Suki et al., 2016; Paul et al., 2016; Moser, 2016; Suki, 2016; Lai and Cheng, 2016; Grimmer et al., 2016; Liobikiene_ et al., 2016;
Liobikiene_ et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2017.
Food de Maya et al., 2011; Rezai et al., 2012; Wheeler et al., 2013; Schleenbecker and Hamm, 2013; Kalita, 2014; Bradu et al., 2014; Yazdanpanah and
Forouzani, 2015; Lee and Yun, 2015; Majumdar and Swain, 2015; Hemmerling et al., 2015; Bernard et al., 2015; Hwang, 2016; Yadav and Pathak,
2016; Lee and Hwang, 2016; Teng and Lu, 2016; Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen, 2017.
Cosmetics product Kim and Chung, 2011; Bachleda et al., 2012; Rawat and Garga, 2012; Wu and Chen, 2012; Ferrer et al., 2012; Jawahar and Tamizhjyothi, 2013;
Pervin et al., 2014; Tamashiro et al., 2014; Patel et al., 2015; Bernard et al., 2015; Hsu et al., 2017.
Clothing and fashion Cervellon and Carey 2011; Cervellon and Wernerfelt, 2012; Achabou and Dekhili, 2013; Angelis et al., 2017.
products
Luxury and durable Davies et al., 2012; Tsai, 2012; Steinhart et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2014; Knez et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2015; Yang and Zhao, 2015; Zhao and Zhong,
products 2015; Liu et al., 2015; Rudolph, 2016; Nguyen et al., 2016; Medeiros and Ribeiro, 2017.

Table 2
Summary of studies on GPs purchase (intention) behavior (including all green products) according to the analyzed determinants.

Determinants References

Environmental attitude (concern, Tan, 2011; Chen and Chang, 2012; Lin and Huang, 2012; Kaufmann et al., 2012; Paço et al., 2013; Almossawi, 2014; Wang et al., 2014;
values) Azizan and Suki, 2014; Newton et al., 2015; Ritter et al., 2015; Junior et al., 2015; Braimah, 2015; Biswas and Roy, 2015; Chekima et al.,
2016; Goh and Balaji, 2016; Lai and Cheng, 2016; Moser, 2016; Paul et al., 2016.
Environmental consciousness Boztepe, 2012; Kaufmann et al., 2012; Ritter et al., 2015; Suki et al., 2016.
Perceived consumer effectiveness Tan, 2011; Kumar, 2012; Kaufmann et al., 2012; Lin and Hsu, 2015; Wang et al., 2014; Kong et al., 2014; Kanchanapibul et al., 2014;
Kabadayi et al., 2015.
Perception of consequences Wang et al., 2014; Lai and Cheng, 2016.
(responsibility)
Health consciousness (quality of Azizan and Suki, 2014; Ritter et al., 2015.
life)
Attitude towards GPs (green Coleman et al., 2011; Chen and Chang, 2012; Kumar, 2012; Lin and Huang, 2012; Wu and Chen, 2014; Kong et al., 2014; Biswas and Roy,
consumption) 2015; Suki, 2016; Paul et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2017.
Values Kaufmann et al., 2012; Chairy, 2012.
Social norms Coleman et al., 2011; Kumar, 2012; Lin and Huang, 2012; Lin and Hsu, 2015; Wu and Chen, 2014; Biswas and Roy, 2015; Ritter et al.,
2015; Liobikiene_ et al., 2016; Suki, 2016; Paul et al., 2016, Suki et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2017; Liobikiene_ et al., 2017 .
Environmental knowledge Tan, 2011; Kumar, 2012; Kaufmann et al., 2012; Lin and Hsu, 2015; Wang et al., 2014; Kong et al., 2014; Almossawi, 2014; Azizan and
(information) Suki, 2014; Kanchanapibul et al., 2014; Ritter et al., 2015; Biswas and Roy, 2015; Goh and Balaji, 2016; Kumar et al., 2017; Liobikiene_
et al., 2016.
Eco-labelling (brand) Smith and Brower, 2012; Boztepe, 2012; Tseng and Hung, 2013; Azizan and Suki, 2014; Kong et al., 2014; Braimah, 2015; Chekima et al.,
2016.
Trust Kaufmann et al., 2012; Chen and Chang, 2012; Tseng and Hung, 2013; Liobikiene_ et al., 2016.
Accessibility Conditional values Kumar, 2012; Lin and Huang, 2012; Kaufmann et al., 2012; Wu and Chen, 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Biswas and Roy, 2015; Braimah,
2015; Liobikiene_ et al., 2016, Grimmer et al., 2016; Paul et al., 2016; Suki, 2016.
Price Boztepe, 2012; Braimah, 2015; Ritter et al., 2015; Chekima et al., 2016; Liobikiene_ et al., 2016; Suki 2016; Liobikiene_ et al., 2017.
 _ J. Bernatoniene_ / Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (2017) 109e120
G. Liobikiene, 119

References Econ. 14, 50e69.

Kim, H., Chung, J., 2011. Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care
products. J. Consum. Mark. 28, 40e47.
Achabou, M.A., Dekhili, S., 2013. Luxury and sustainable development: is there a
Knez, M., Jereb, B., Obrecht, M., 2014. Factor influencing the purchasing decisions of
match? J. Bus. Res. 66, 1896e1903.
low emission cars: a study of Slovenia. Transp. Res. Part D. 30, 53e61.
Almossawi, M., 2014. Promoting green purchase behavior to the youth (case of
Kong, W., Harun, A., Sulong, R.S., Lily, J., 2014. The influence of consumers‘
Bahrain). Brit. J. Mark. Stud. 2, 1e16.
perception of green products on green purchase intention. Int. J. Asian Soc. Sci.
Angelis, M., Adigüzel, F., Amatulli, C., 2017. The role of design similarity in con-
4, 924e939.
sumers’ evaluation of new green products: an investigation of luxury fashion
Kumar, B., 2012. The Theory of Planned Behaviour Approach to Understand the
brands. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 1515e1527.
Purchasing Behaviour for Environmentally Sustainable Products. Res. Pub,
Azizan, S.A.M., Suki, M.N., 2014. The potential for greener consumption: some in-
pp. 2e43.
sights from Malaysia. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 5 (16), 11e17.
Kumar, B., Manrai, A.K., Manrai, L.A., 2017. Purchasing behaviour for environmen-
Bachleda, C., Fakhar, A., Hlimi, L., 2012. Sunscreen purchase intention amongst
tally sustainable products: a conceptual framework and empirical study.
young moroccan Adult.Inter. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2222e6990.
J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 34, 1e9.
Bernard, Y., Bertrandias, L., Elgaaied-Gambier, L., 2015. Shoppers’ grocery choices in
Lai, C.K.M., Cheng, E.W.L., 2016. Green purchase behaviour of undergraduate stu-
the presence of generalized eco-labelling. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 43 (4/5),
dents in Hong Kong. Soc. Sci. J. 53, 67e76.
448e468.
Lee, H.-J., Yun, Z.-S., 2015. Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and
Biswas, A., Roy, M., 2015. Green products: an exploratory study on the consumer
cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions
behaviour in emerging economies of the east. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 462e468.
toward organic food. Food Qual. Prefer 39, 259e267.
Boztepe, A., 2012. Green marketing and its impact on consumer buying behaviour.
Lee, H.-J., Hwang, J., 2016. The driving role of consumers’ perceived credence at-
Eur.J. Econ. Polit. Stud. 5, 5e21.
tributes in organic food purchase decision: a comparison of two groups con-
Bradu, C., Orquin, J.L., Thøgersen, J., 2014. The mediated influence of a traceability
sumers. Food Qual. Prefer 54, 141e151.
label on Consumer’s willingness to buy the labelled product. J. Bus. Ethics 124
Lin, H.-Y., Hsu, M.-H., 2015. Using social cognitive theory to investigate green
(2), 283e295.
consumer behavior. Bus. Strat. Environ. 24, 326e343.
Braimah, M., 2015. Green brand awareness and customer purchase intention.
Lin, P., Huang, Y., 2012. The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green
Manage. Sci. Lett. 5, 895e902.
products based on the theory of consumption values. J. Clean. Prod. 22, 11e18.
Cervellon, M.C., Wernerfelt, A.S., 2012. Knowledge sharing among green fashion  Bernatoniene,
Liobikiene,_ G., Grincevi _ S.,
ciene, _ J., 2017. Environmentally friendly
communities online. J. Fash. Mark. Manag An Int. J. 16 (2), 176e192.
behaviour and green purchase in Austria and Lithuania. J. Clean. Prod. http://
Cervellon, M.C., Carey, L., 2011. Consumers’ Perceptions of ’green’: Why and How
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.084.
Consumers Use Eco-fashion and Green Beauty Products. Intellect Ltd [online]
Liobikiene,_ G., Mandarvickaite, _ J., Bernatoniene,
_ J., 2016. Theory of planned behavior
Available at: http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/journals/view-Article,id¼12039/.
approach to understand the green purchasing behavior in the EU: a cross-
Chairy, 2012. Spirituality, self transcendence, and green purchase intention in col-
cultural study. Ecol. Econ. 125, 38e46.
lege students. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 57, 243e246.
Liu, L., Chen, R., He, F., 2015. How to promote purchase of carbon offset products:
Chekima, B., Wafa, S.A.W.S.K., Igau, O.A., Chekima, S., Sondoh Jr., S.L., 2016. Exam-
labelling vs. calculation? J. Bus. Res. 68, 942e948.
ining green consumerism motivational drivers: does premium price and de-
Majumdar, S., Swain, S.C., 2015. Identification and analysis of factors influencing
mographics matter to green purchasing? J. Clean. Prod. 112, 3436e3450.
preferences for green products: a study in and around Kolkata (India). Int. J. Bus.
Chen, Y.-S., Chang, C.-H., 2012. Enhance green purchase intentions. The roles of
Quant. Econ. Appl. Manag. Res. 1 (9), 36e49.
green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust. Manag. Decis. 50,
Medeiros, J.F., Ribeiro, J.L.D., 2017. Environmentally sustainable innovation: ex-
502e520.
pected attributes in the purchase of green products. J. Clean. Prod. 142,
Coleman, L.J., Bahnan, N., Kelkar, M., Curry, N., 2011. Walking the walk: how the
240e248.
Theory of Reasoned Action explains adult and student intentions to go green.
Moser, A.K., 2016. Consumers’ purchasing decisions regarding environmentally
J. Appl. Bus. Res. 27, 107e116.
friendly products: an empirical analysis of German consumers. J. Retail. Con-
Davies, I.A., Lee, Z., Ahonkhai, I., 2012. Do consumers care about ethical-luxury?
sum. Serv. 31, 389e397.
J. Bus. Ethics 106 (1), 37e51.
pez-Lo pez, I., Munuera, J.L., 2011. Organic food consumption in Newton, J.D., Tsarenko, Y., Ferraro, C., Sands, S., 2015. Environmental concern and
de Maya, S.R., Lo
environmental purchase intentions: the mediating role of learning strategy.
Europe: international segmentation based on value system differences. Ecol.
J. Bus. Res. 68 (9), 1974e1981.
Econ. 70, 1767e1775.
Nguyen, N., Lobo, A., Greenland, S., 2016. Pro-environmental purchase behaviour:
Diglel, A., Yazdanifard, R., 2014. Green marketing: it’s influence on buying behavior
the role of consumers’ biospheric values. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 33, 98e108.
and attitudes of the purchasers towards eco-friendly products. Glob. J. Manag.
Nuttavuthisit, K., Thøgersen, J., 2017. The importance of consumer trust for the
Bus. Res. Mark. 14 (7), 11e18.
emergence of a market for green products: the case of organic food. J. Bus.
Elliott, R., 2013. The taste for green: the possibilities and dynamics of status dif-
Ethics 140 (2), 323e337.
ferentiation through ‘‘green’’ consumption. Poetics 41, 294e322.
Oana, D., 2014. Applying sustainable marketing strategies e the key to obtaining
Ferrer, A., Hidalgo, C., Kaps, R., Kougoulis, J.S., 2012. Revision of European Ecolabel
competitive advantages on the industrial products market. Stud. Bus. Econ. 9,
Criteria for Soaps, Shampoos and Hair Conditioners: Market Analysis. Retrieved
21e28.
from: http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/soaps_and_shampoos/docs/Technical%
Paço, A., Alves, H., Shiel, C., Leal Filho, W., 2013. Development of a green consumer
20background%20draft%20report.pdf.
behaviour model. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 37, 414e421.
Goh, S.K., Balaji, M.S., 2016. Kinking green scepticism to green purchase behaviour.
Patel, N., Padhtare, D., Saudagar, R.B., 2015. Newer trends in cosmetology. World J.
J. Clean. Prod. 131, 629e638.
Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 4 (3), 483e502.
Grimmer, M., Kilburn, A.P., Miles, M.P., 2016. The effect of purchase situation on
Paul, J., Modi, A., Patel, J., 2016. Predicting green product consumption using theory
realized pro-environmental consumer behaviour. J. Bus. Res. 69, 1582e1586.
of planned behaviour and reasoned action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 29, 123e134.
Hemmerling, S., Hamm, U., Spiller, A., 2015. Consumption behaviour regarding
Pervin, S., Ranchhod, A., Wilman, M., 2014. Trends in cosmetics purchase: ethical
organic food from a marketing perspectiveda literature review. Org. Agr. 5 (4),
perceptions of consumers in different cultures. A cross country comparative
277e313.
study between South Asian and Western consumers. J. Consum. Behav. 13 (1),
Hsu, C.-L., Chang, C.-Y., Yansritakul, C., 2017. Exploring purchase intention of green
57e72.
skincare products using the theory of planned behaviour: testing the moder-
Rawat, S.R., Garga, P.K., 2012. Understanding Consumer Behaviour towards Green
ating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 34,
Cosmetics. Retrieved from. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
145e152.
id¼2111545.
Hwang, J., 2016. Organic food as self-presentation: the role of psychological moti-
Rezai, G., Teng, P.K., Mohamed, Z., Shamsudin, M.N., 2012. Consumers’ awareness
vation in older consumers’ purchase intention of organic food. J. Retail. Consum.
and consumption intention towards green foods. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 61 (2),
Serv. 28, 281e287.
4496e4503.
Jawahar, J.V., Tamizhjyothi, K., 2013. Consumer attitude towards cosmetic product.
Ritter, A.M., Borchardt, M., Vaccaro, G.L.R., Pereira, G.M., Almeida, F., 2015. Moti-
Int. J. Eng. Manag. Res. 3, 1e7.
vations for promoting the consumption of green products in an emerging
Junior, S.S.B., Silva, D., Gabriel, M.L.D.S., Braga, W.R.O., 2015. The effect of environ-
country: exploring attitudes of Brazilian consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 106,
mental concern on purchase of green products in retail. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci.
507e520.
170, 99e108.
er, 2015. Green purchase intention of young Rudolph, C., 2016. How may incentives for electric cars affect purchase decisions?
Kabadayi, E.T., Dursun, I., Alan, A.K., Tug
Transp. Policy 52, 113e120.
Turkish consumers: effects of consumers’ guilt, self-monitoring and perceived
Schleenbecker, R., Hamm, U., 2013. Consumers’ perception of organic product
consumer effectiveness. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 207, 165174.
characteristics. A review. Appetite 71, 420e429.
Kalita, M., 2014. Eco-friendly buying behaviour of women: a study with special
Smith, K.T., Brower, T.R., 2012. Longitudinal study of green marketing strategies that
reference to Guwahati city, India. Clar. 3, 124e128.
influence Millennials. J. Strat. Mark. 20 (6), 535e551.
Kanchanapibul, M., Lacka, E., Wang, X., Chan, H.K., 2014. An empirical investigation
Steinhart, Y., Ayalon, O., Puterman, H., 2013. The effect of an environmental claim on
of green purchase behaviour among the young generation. J. Clean. Prod. 66,
consumers’ perceptions about luxury and utilitarian products. J. Clean. Prod. 53,
528e536.
277e286.
Kaufmann, H.R., Panni, M.F.A.K., Orphanidou, Y., 2012. Factor affecting consumers‘
Suki, N.M., 2016. Consumer environmental concern and green product purchase in
green purchasing behavior: an integrated conceptual framework. Amfiteatru
Malaysia: structural effects of consumption values. J. Clean. Prod. 132, 204e214.
120 _ J. Bernatoniene_ / Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (2017) 109e120
G. Liobikiene,
Suki, N.M., Suki, N.M., Azman, N.S., 2016. Impacts of corporate social responsibility
on the links between green marketing awareness and consumer purchase
intention. Proc. Econ. Financ. 37, 262e268.
Tamashiro, H.R.S., Silveira, J.A.G., Merlo, E.M., Acevedo, C.A., 2014. Structural equa-
tion modelling applied to a study on the background of green buying behaviors.
PARIPEX Indian J. Res. 3 (9), 1e8.
Tan, B.-C., 2011. The roles of knowledge, threat, and PCE on green purchase
behaviour. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 6 (12), 14e27.
Teng, C.-C., Lu, C.-H., 2016. Organic food consumption in Taiwan: motives,
involvement, and purchase intention under the moderating role of uncertainty.
Appetie 105, 95e105.
Tsai, C.C., 2012. A research on selecting criteria for new green product development
project: taking Taiwan consumer electronics products as an example. J. Clean.
Prod. 25, 106e115.
Tseng, S.-C., Hung, S.-W., 2013. A framework identifying the gaps between cus-
tomers’ expectations and their perceptions in green products. J. Clean. Prod. 59,
174e184.
Wang, P., Liu, Q., Qi, Y., 2014. Factors influencing sustainable consumption behav-
iors: a survey of the rural residents in China. J. Clean. Prod. 63, 152e165.
Wheeler, M., Sharp, A., Nenycz-Thiel, M., 2013. The effect of ‘green’ messages on
brand purchase and brand rejection. Australas. Mark. J. 21, 105e110.
Wu, S.-I., Chen, J.-Y., 2014. A model of green consumption behaviour constructed by
the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 6 (5), 119e132.
Wu, J.-H., Wu, C.-W., Lee, C.-T., Lee, H.-J., 2015. Green purchase intentions: an
exploratory study of the Taiwanese electric motorcycle market. J. Bus. Res. 68,
829e833.
Wu, Y.-L., Chen, Y.-S., 2012. The analysis of consumer purchasing behavior on cos-
metics. J. Ad. Comput. Intell. Inf. 16 (3), 425e435.
Yadav, R., Pathak, G.S., 2016. Intention to purchase organic food among young
consumers: evidences from a developing nation. Appetite 96, 122e128.
Yang, S., Zhao, D., 2015. Du subsidies work better in low-income than in high-
income families? Survey on domestic energy-efficient and renewable energy
equipment purchase in China. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 841e851.
Yazdanpanah, M., Forouzani, M., 2015. Application of the Theory of Planned
Behaviour to predict Iranian students’ intention to purchase organic food.
J. Clean. Prod. 107, 342e352.
Zhao, H.-H., Gao, Q., Wu, Y.-P., Wang, Y., Zhu, X.-D., 2014. What affects green con-
sumer behavior in China? A case study from Qingdao. J. Clean. Prod. 63,
143e151.
Zhao, R., Zhong, S., 2015. Carbon labelling influences on consumers’ behaviour: a
system dynamics approach. Ecol. Indic. 51, 98e106.
Further references not included in the review
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 50,
179e211.
Akehurst, G., Afonso, C., Goncalves, M., 2012. Re-examining green purchase
behaviour and the green consumer profile: new evidences. Manag. Dec. 50,
972e988.
Albino, V., Balice, A., Dangelico, R.M., 2009. Environmental strategies and green
product development: an overview on sustainability-driven companies. Bus.
Strat. En. 18, 83e96.
Cervellon, M.-C., Hjerth, H., Ricard, S., Carey, L., 2010. Green in Fashion? An
exploratory study of national differences in consumers concern for eco-fashion.
In: Proceedings of 9th International Marketing Trends Conference, Venice, Jan
20e21th.
Chen, M.F., 2009. Attitude toward organic foods among Taiwanese as related to
health consciousness, environmental attitudes, and the mediating effects of a
healthy lifestyle. Br. Food J. 111 (2), 165e178.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., Peretiatkos, R., 2006. Green products and
corporate strategy: an empirical investigation. Soc. Bus. Rev. 1, 144e157.
Ecocert, 2012. Ecocert Standard: Natural and Organic Cosmetics. Retrieved from.
http://www.ecocert.com/sites/default/files/u3/Natural-and-Organic-Cosmetic-
Ecocert-Greenlife-standard-2012-with-TS_1.pdf.
Essoussi, L., Zahaf, M., 2008. Decision making process of community organic food
consumers: an exploratory study. J. Consum. Mark. 25, 95e104.
Frick, J., Kaiser, F.G., Wilson, M., 2004. Environmental knowledge and conservation
behaviour: exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Pers.
Individ. Differ. 37, 1597e1613.
Grankvist, G., Biel, A., 2007. Predictors of purchase of eco-labelled food products: a
panel study. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 701e708.
Hall, M.C., 2008. The marketing of organic products: an instrumental/symbolic
perspective. J. Food Prod. Mark. 14 (3), 1e11.
Horne, R.E., 2009. Limits to labels: the role of eco-labels in the assessment of
product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. Int. J. Consum.
Stud. 33, 175e182.
Janssen, M.A., Jager, W., 2002. Stimulating diffusion of green products. J. Evol. Econ.
12, 283e306.
Joshi, Y., Rahman, Z., 2015. Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future
research directions. Int. Strat. Man. Rev. 128e143.
Kim, S., Seock, Y., 2009. Impacts of health and environmental consciousness on
young female consumers’ attitude towards and purchase of natural beauty
products. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 33, 627e638.
Kumar, P.D., 2010. Green marketing: a start to environmental safety. Adv. Manag. 4,
59e61.
Kumar, P., 2014. Greening retail: an indian experience. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.
42, 613e625.
Liobikiene, _ G., Dagiliu
 te,
_ R., 2016. The relationship between economic and carbon
footprint changes in EU: the achievements of the EU Sustainable Consumption
and Production policy implementation. Environ. Sci. Policy 61, 204e2011.
Liobikiene, _ G., Juknys, R., 2016. The role of values, environmental risk perception,
awareness of consequences, and willingness to assume responsibility for
environmentally-friendly behaviour: the Lithuanian case. J. Clean. Prod. 112,
3413e3422.
Liu, J., Wang, R., Yang, J., Shi, Y., 2010. The relationship between consumption and
production system ant its implications for sustainable development of China.
Ecol. Complex 7, 212e216.
Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U.-K., Aberg, L., Sjoden, P.-O., 2001.
Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish consumers. Brit. Food J. 103,
209e227.
Marcoux, D., 2000. Appearance, cosmetics, and body art in adolescents. Dermatol.
Clin. 18, 67e73.
Mason, S., 2009. Breaking barriers, Retail’s natural (R)evolution. Glob. Cosmet. Ind.
177, S8eS12. Business Source Elite, EBSCOhost.
Mayring, P., 2002. Einfu€hrung in die qualitative Sozialforschung e eine Anleitung
zum qualitativen Denken [Introduction to qualitative social research]. Beltz
Verlag, Weinheim, Germany.
Mont, O., Plepys, A., 2008. Sustainable consumption progress: should we be proud
or alarmed? J. Clean. Prod. 16, 531e537.
Moungkhem, C., Surakiatpinyo, J., 2010. A Study of Factors Affecting on Men’s Skin
Care Products Purchasing, Particular in Kalstad, Sweden. Kalstad University,
Kalstad.
Mueller, B., 2006. The role of product involvement in advertising message
perception and believability. Int. Advert. Commun. 3e22.
Nijkamp, M.M., Bokkers, B.G.H., Bakker, M., Ezendam, J., Delmaar, J.E., 2015. Quan-
titative risk assessment of the aggregate dermal exposure to the sensitizing
fragrance geraniol in personal care products and household cleaning agents.
Regul. Toxic. Pharmacol. 73, 9e18.
Organic Monitor, 2010. The European Market for Natural & Organic Cosmetics:
Briefing & Future Outlook.
Organic Monitor, 2011. Global Market for Natural & Organic Personal Care Products.
Paço, A.M.F., Raposo, M.L.B., 2010. Green consumer market segmentation: empirical
findings from Portugal. Int. J. Consumer Stud. 34 (4), 429e436.
Pearson, D., Henryks, J., 2008. Marketing organic products: exploring some of the
pervasive issues. J. Food Prod. Mark. 14 (4), 95e108.
Subhani, M.I., Hasan, S.A., Osman, A., 2012. The crux of green marketing: an
empirical effusive study. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 27 (3), 425e435.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1699e1710.
Todd, A.M., 2004. The aesthetic turn in green marketing. Ethics Environ. 9, 86e102.
Tukker, A., Cohen, M.J., Hubacek, K., Mont, O., 2010. Sustainable consumption and
production. J. Ind. Ecol. 14 (1).
Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W., 2008. Sustainable food consumption among young adults
in Belgium: theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values.
Ecol. Econ. 64, 542e553.