CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Sustainable Supply Chain ManagementEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessRecycling and Waste Management Techniques

Exercising the ‘Right to Repair’: A Customer’s Perspective

Open access
Marikyan, Davit, Papagiannidis, Savvas·2024·Journal of Business Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-023-05569-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Concerns over the carbon footprint resulting from the manufacturing, usage and disposal of hardware have been growing. The right-to-repair legislation was introduced to promote sustainable utilisation of hardware by encouraging stakeholders to prolong the lifetime of products, such as electronic devices. As there is little empirical evidence from a consumer perspective on exercising the right to repair, this study aims firstly to examine the factors that underpin consumers’ intention to repair their hardware and secondly to investigate the perceived outcomes of repair practices. Based on 510 responses, the results showed that intention to repair is dependent on three groups of factors, namely the facilitators of pro-environmental behaviour, repair-related factors and beliefs about legislation. If consumers have a stronger intention to repair, they have a stronger feeling of emotional self-assurance, satisfaction with the repair decision and the technology manufacturer, an intention to engage with the manufacturer and a positive perception of a repaired device’s performance. The findings contribute to the literature on sustainable behaviour and the right to repair, offering insight for policymakers and manufacturers about the strategies facilitating the wider adoption of repair practices.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10551-023-05569-9

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research on spare parts pricing reveals its critical influence on repair profitability and customer satisfaction.

    “Research on spare parts pricing reveals its critical influence on repair profitability and customer satisfaction [13,24].”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications (page unavailable) identifies high spare-parts costs as a barrier to repair and says lowering perceived repair costs can drive repair intention. The paper also discusses satisfaction after repair, but the cited passages do not establish that spare-parts pricing affects customer satisfaction or repair profitability. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Individuals with higher self-efficacy in repair contexts and those who associate repair with identity or empowerment are more likely to engage in repair activities.

    “Studies suggest that individuals with higher self-efficacy in repair contexts and those who associate repair with identity or empowerment are more likely to engage in repair activities [24].”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Technology Repair Factors and Antecedent of the Intention to Repair sections (pages unavailable) link perceived ability or control over repair, and a socially desirable identity, to stronger repair intention. But the paper treats empowerment and self-assurance as outcomes of repair or repair intention, not reasons people are more likely to repair. Its findings concern intention rather than observed repair activity. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Concerns about repair quality remain widespread.

    “Concerns about repair quality remain widespread [24].”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    In the Hypothesis 5 section (page unavailable), the paper says that the expected quality of a completed repair is a concern. It does not establish that this concern is widespread or remains so over time. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Established findings from environmental psychology show that pro-environmental affect frequently outpaces factual confidence and behavioral readiness, and evidence indicates that performance uncertainty about sustainable materials persistently tempers consumer commitment.

    “The pattern echoes established findings from environmental psychology, where pro-environmental affect frequently outpaces factual confidence and behavioral readiness [33], and aligns with evidence that performance uncertainty about sustainable materials persistently tempers consumer commitment [24,34].”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Terzioglu identifies quality uncertainty as a structural barrier to repair uptake, and Marikyan emphasizes trust in repair outcomes as a primary driver of repair-oriented behavior.

    “This is consistent with Terzio˘ glu [30], who identifies quality uncertainty as a structural barrier to repair uptake, and with Marikyan [24], who emphasizes trust in repair outcomes as a primary driver of repair-oriented behavior.”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    Only the Marikyan attribution is assessed here. In ‘The Outcomes of the Repair Intention’ (page unavailable), the paper associates willingness to repair with a belief that repair will yield positive outcomes. It does not identify trust in repair outcomes as a primary driver; its reported analysis also treats perceived outcomes largely as consequences of repair intention. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 125

  1. Acuti, D., Pizzetti, M., & Dolnicar, S. (2022). When sustainability backfires: A review on the unintended negative side-effects of product and service sustainability on consumer behavior. Psy- chology & Marketing, 39(10), 1933-1945.
  2. Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., Paredes, M. R., Trujillo, A., & D'Souza, C. (2022). What motivates consumers to buy fashion pet cloth- ing? The role of attachment, pet anthropomorphism, and self- expansion. Journal of Business Research, 141, 367-379.
  3. Arora, H. (2021). "Right to Repair" vis-à-vis Indian trade mark law: A comparative analysis. The Journal of World Intellectual Prop- erty, 24(1-2), 41-54.
  4. Arora, R. (1982). Validation of an SOR model for situation, enduring, and response components of involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 505-516.
  5. Bagozzi, R. P., Ruvio, A. A., & Xie, C. (2020). The material self. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(4), 661-677.
  6. Balapour, A., Reychav, I., Sabherwal, R., & Azuri, J. (2019). Mobile technology identity and self-efficacy: Implications for the adop- tion of clinically supported mobile health apps. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 58-68.
  7. Balderjahn, I., Hoffmann, S., & Hüttel, A. (2023). How empowerment and materialism contribute to anti-consumers' well-being. Euro- pean Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 1186-1218.
  8. Banerjee, A. V. (1992). A simple model of herd behavior. The Quar- terly Journal of Economics, 107(3), 797-817.
  9. Bhardwaj, S., Sreen, N., Das, M., Chitnis, A., & Kumar, S. (2023). Product specific values and personal values together better explains green purchase. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 74, 103434.
  10. Bhattacherjee, A., & Sanford, C. (2009). The intention-behaviour gap in technology usage: The moderating role of attitude strength. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(4), 389-401.
  11. Bowen, K. T., Musarra, G., & Ou, Y. C. (2022). How and when Nar- cissism and faith in humanity drive sustainable consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 39(9), 1706-1724.
  12. Bowlby, J., & Ainsworth, M. (2013). The origins of attachment theory. Attachment Theory: Social, Developmental, and Clinical Per- spectives, 45(28), 759-775.
  13. Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759.
  14. Budovska, V., Torres Delgado, A., & Øgaard, T. (2020). Pro-environ- mental behaviour of hotel guests: Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and social norms to towel reuse. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(1), 105-116.
  15. Bursztyn, L., & Jensen, R. (2017). Social image and economic behavior in the field: Identifying, understanding, and shaping social pres- sure. Annual Review of Economics, 9, 131-153.
  16. Carfora, V., Caso, D., Sparks, P., & Conner, M. (2017). Moderating effects of pro-environmental self-identity on pro-environmental intentions and behaviour: A multi-behaviour study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 92-99.
  17. Cermin, A., Berry, C., Burton, S., & Howlett, E. (2019). The effects of the FTC-mandated disclosure on homeopathic product pur- chase intentions and efficacy perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 101, 47-58.
  18. Chakraborty, D. (2022). Purchase behavior of consumers toward GSAs: A longitudinal assessment. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1-26.
  19. Chang, H.-J., Eckman, M., & Yan, R.-N. (2011). Application of the Stimulus-Organism-Response model to the retail environment: The role of hedonic motivation in impulse buying behavior. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 21(3), 233-249.
  20. Chen, C.-C., Chen, C.-W., & Tung, Y.-C. (2018). Exploring the consumer behavior of intention to purchase green products in belt and road countries: An empirical analysis. Sustainability, 10(3), 854.
  21. Cheng, M.-J., Hung, S.-W., Tsai, H.-H., & Chou, Y.-C. (2020). Fostering environmentally responsible consumer behavior: A hierarchical approach toward smartphone recycling. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(5), 2326-2336.
  22. Chueh, H.-E., & Huang, D.-H. (2023). Usage intention model of digital assessment systems. Journal of Business Research, 156, 113469.
  23. Cialdini, R. B., & James, L. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Pearson education Boston.
  24. Crosby, A., & Stein, J. A. (2020). Repair. Environmental Humanities, 12(1), 179-185.
  25. Culiberg, B., Cho, H., Kos Koklic, M., & Zabkar, V. (2022). The role of moral foundations, anticipated guilt and personal responsibil- ity in predicting anti-consumption for environmental reasons. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-17.
  26. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: Sys- tem characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475-487.
  27. Dhir, A., Sadiq, M., Talwar, S., Sakashita, M., & Kaur, P. (2021). Why do retail consumers buy green apparel? A knowledge-attitude- behaviour-context perspective. Journal of Retailing and Con- sumer Services, 59, 102398.
  28. Dimitrova, T., Ilieva, I., & Angelova, M. (2022). Exploring factors affecting sustainable consumption behaviour. Administrative Sci- ences, 12(4), 155.
  29. Donald, I. J., Cooper, S. R., & Conchie, S. M. (2014). An extended theory of planned behaviour model of the psychological factors affecting commuters' transport mode use. Journal of Environ- mental Psychology, 40, 39-48.
  30. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Grover, P., Abbas, R., Andreini, D., Abumoghli, I., Barlette, Y., & Bunker, D. (2022). Climate change and COP26: Are digital technologies and information management part of the problem or the solution? An editorial reflection and call to action. International Journal of Information Management, 63, 102456. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijinf omgt. 2021. 102456 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Eastman, J. K., Iyer, R., & Dekhili, S. (2021). Can luxury attitudes impact sustainability? The role of desire for unique products, culture, and brand self-congruence. Psychology & Marketing, 38(11), 1881-1894.
  32. Elliott, M. A., Armitage, C. J., & Baughan, C. J. (2007). Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict observed driving behav- iour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 69-90.
  33. Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2001). Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: A conceptual model and implica- tions. Journal of Business Research, 54(2), 177-184.
  34. Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389.
  35. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(FEBRUARY), 39-50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 43781 01800 104 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Foth, M. (2016). Factors influencing the intention to comply with data protection regulations in hospitals: Based on gender dif- ferences in behaviour and deterrence. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(2), 91-109.
  37. Gray, J. M., Montemayor, E., Drennan, M., Widmann, M., & Goldey, K. L. (2020). A mental winner effect? Competitive mental imagery impacts self-assurance but not testosterone in women. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 6(4), 467-489.
  38. Guiltinan, J. (2009). Creative destruction and destructive creations: Environmental ethics and planned obsolescence. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(1), 19-28.
  39. Guo, Y., Zhu, Y., Barnes, S. J., Bao, Y., Li, X., & Le-Nguyen, K. (2018). Understanding cross-product purchase intention in an IT brand extension context. Psychology & Marketing, 35(6), 392-411.
  40. Gupta, S., Raj, S., Singh, D. P., Singh, A., & Kastanakis, M. (2023). Normative influence and masstige purchase intention: Facilita- tors, inhibitors, and the moderating effect of celebrity endorse- ment. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 47(3), 1189-1209.
  41. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition. Pearson Education Limited.
  42. Hartmann, P., Apaolaza, V., & D'Souza, C. (2018). The role of psychological empowerment in climate-protective consumer behaviour: An extension of the value-belief-norm framework. European Journal of Marketing, 52(1/2), 392-417.
  43. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420.
  44. Hernandez, R. J., Miranda, C., & Goñi, J. (2020). Empowering sus- tainable consumption by giving back to consumers the 'right to repair.' Sustainability, 12(3), 850.
  45. Holmes-Rovner, M., Kroll, J., Schmitt, N., Rovner, D. R., Breer, M. L., Rothert, M. L., Padonu, G., & Talarczyk, G. (1996). Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: The satisfaction with decision scale. Medical Decision Making, 16(1), 58-64.
  46. Hosta, M., & Zabkar, V. (2021). Antecedents of environmentally and socially responsible sustainable consumer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 171(2), 273-293.
  47. Hsieh, J.-K. (2023). The impact of influencers 'multi-SNS use on followers' behavioral intentions: An integration of cue consist- ency theory and social identity theory. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 74, 103397.
  48. Hu, R., Sun, I. Y., & Wu, Y. (2015). Chinese trust in the police: The impact of political efficacy and participation. Social Science Quarterly, 96(4), 1012-1026.
  49. Jang, S. S., & Namkung, Y. (2009). Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral intentions: Application of an extended Mehrabian- Russell model to restaurants. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 451-460.
  50. Jensen, R. (1982). Adoption and Diffusion of an innovation of uncer- tain profitability. Journal of Economic Theory, 27(1), 182-193.
  51. Jiménez, F. R., & Voss, K. E. (2014). An alternative approach to the measurement of emotional attachment. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 360-370.
  52. Kahane, L. (2022). The impact of the Massachusetts 2012 right to repair law on small, independent auto repair shops. Applied Eco- nomics Letters, 29(10), 873-879.
  53. Kaiser, F. G., & Scheuthle, H. (2003). Two challenges to a moral exten- sion of the theory of planned behavior: Moral norms and just world beliefs in conservationism. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(5), 1033-1048.
  54. Katyal, K., Dawra, J., & Soni, N. (2022). The posh, the paradoxical and the phony: Are there individual differences between consumers of luxury, masstige and counterfeit brands? Journal of Business Research, 152, 191-204.
  55. Keynes, J. M. (1937). The general theory of employment. The Quar- terly Journal of Economics, 51(2), 209-223.
  56. Khalifa, D., & Shukla, P. (2017). Me, my brand and I: Consumer responses to luxury brand rejection. Journal of Business Research, 81, 156-162.
  57. Kilbourne, W., & Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects environ- mental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behav- ior. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 885-893.
  58. Kim, J., Kang, S., & Bae, J. (2022). Human likeness and attachment effect on the perceived interactivity of AI speakers. Journal of Business Research, 144, 797-804.
  59. Kim, M. J., Lee, C.-K., & Jung, T. (2020). Exploring consumer behav- ior in virtual reality tourism using an extended stimulus-organ- ism-response model. Journal of Travel Research, 59(1), 69-89.
  60. Kim, W.-H., & Kim, K.-S. (2018). Pro-environmental intentions among food festival attendees: An application of the value-belief-norm model. Sustainability, 10(11), 3894.
  61. Koch, J., Frommeyer, B., & Schewe, G. (2022). Managing the transi- tion to eco-friendly packaging-An investigation of consumers' motives in online retail. Journal of Cleaner Production, 351, 131504.
  62. Kullman, M., Campillo, J., Dahlquist, E., Fertner, C., Giffinger, R., Grosse, J., Groth, N. B., Haindlmaier, G., Kunnasvirta, A., Strohmayer, F., & Haselberger, J. (2016). The PLEEC project- planning for energy efficient cities [Article]. Journal of Settle- ments and Spatial Planning, 2016, 89-92.
  63. Kuo, Y.-F., & Chen, F.-L. (2023). The effect of interactivity of brands' marketing activities on Facebook fan pages on continuous par- ticipation intentions: An S-OR framework study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 74, 103446.
  64. Laato, S., Islam, A. N., Farooq, A., & Dhir, A. (2020). Unusual pur- chasing behavior during the early stages of the COVID-19 pan- demic: The stimulus-organism-response approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102224.
  65. Lee, S. W., Sung, H. J., & Jeon, H. M. (2019). Determinants of continu- ous intention on food delivery apps: Extending UTAUT2 with information quality. Sustainability, 11(11), 3141.
  66. Lee, Y., & Larsen, K. R. (2009). Threat or coping appraisal: Determi- nants of SMB executives' decision to adopt anti-malware soft- ware. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(2), 177-187.
  67. Leonard, S., & Weitz, J. (1971). Task enjoyment and task perseverance in relation to task success and self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(5), 414.
  68. Levinthal, D. A., & Purohit, D. (1989). Durable goods and product obsolescence. Marketing Science, 8(1), 35-56.
  69. Lin, C. P., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2010). Extending technology usage models to interactive hedonic technologies: A theoretical model and empirical test. Information Systems Journal, 20(2), 163-181.
  70. Linardi, S., & McConnell, M. A. (2011). No excuses for good behav- ior: Volunteering and the social environment. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5-6), 445-454.
  71. Low, W., & Davenport, E. (2005). Has the medium (roast) become the message? The ethics of marketing fair trade in the mainstream. International Marketing Review, 22(5), 494-511.
  72. Lubell, M. (2002). Environmental activism as collective action. Envi- ronment and Behavior, 34(4), 431-454.
  73. MacArthur, E. (2013). Towards the circular economy. Journal of Indus- trial Ecology, 2(1), 23-44.
  74. Manwaring, K., Kearnes, M., Morgan, B., Munro, P., Pala, R., & Samarakoon, S. (2022). What does a right to repair tell us about our relationship with technology? Alternative Law Journal, 47(3), 179-186.
  75. McBride, M., Carter, L., & Phillips, B. (2020). Integrating the theory of planned behavior and behavioral attitudes to explore texting among young drivers in the US. International Journal of Infor- mation Management, 50, 365-374.
  76. McDonnell, J. (2020). Municipality size, political efficacy and political participation: A systematic review. Local Government Studies, 46(3), 331-350.
  77. McFarlane, B. L., & Hunt, L. M. (2006). Environmental activism in the forest sector: Social psychological, social-cultural, and contex- tual effects. Environment and Behavior, 38(2), 266-285.
  78. McKinney, V., Yoon, K., & Zahedi, F. M. (2002). The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: An expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 296-315.
  79. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. The MIT Press.
  80. Menard, P., Bott, G. J., & Crossler, R. E. (2017). User motivations in protecting information security: Protection motivation theory versus self-determination theory. Journal of Management Infor- mation Systems, 34(4), 1203-1230.
  81. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222.
  82. Mullins, J. K., & Cronan, T. P. (2021). Enterprise systems knowledge, beliefs, and attitude: A model of informed technology accept- ance. International Journal of Information Management, 59, 102348.
  83. Odou, P., & Schill, M. (2020). How anticipated emotions shape behav- ioral intentions to fight climate change. Journal of Business Research, 121, 243-253.
  84. Oliver, R. L. (2014). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the con- sumer: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Routledge.
  85. Packard, V., & McKibben, B. (1963). The waste makers. Penguin books Harmondsworth.
  86. Papagiannidis, S., Alamanos, E., Bourlakis, M., & Dennis, C. (2022). The pandemic consumer response: a stockpiling perspective and shopping channel preferences. British Journal of Management.
  87. Papagiannidis, S., & Marikyan, D. (2022). Environmental Sustainabil- ity: A technology acceptance perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 63, 102445.
  88. Pauluzzo, R., & Mason, M. C. (2022). A multi-dimensional view of consumer value to explain socially-responsible consumer behav- ior: A fuzzy-set analysis of Generation Y's fast-fashion consum- ers. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 30(2), 191-212.
  89. Pavlović-Höck, N. (2022). Herd behaviour along the consumer buying decision process-experimental study in the mobile communica- tions industry. Digital Business, 2(1), 100018.
  90. Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and antici- pated emotions in goal-directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 79-98.
  91. Raafat, R. M., Chater, N., & Frith, C. (2009). Herding in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 420-428.
  92. Rafiq, F., Adil, M., & Sadiq, M. (2022). Does contextual factor influ- ence travelers' towel reuse behavior? Insights from Circular Economy. Sustainability, 14(10), 6155.
  93. Ramayah, T., Lee, J. W. C., & Lim, S. (2012). Sustaining the environ- ment through recycling: An empirical study. Journal of Environ- mental Management, 102, 141-147.
  94. Rosborough, A. D. (2022). Zen and the art of repair manuals: Enabling a participatory Right to repair through an autonomous concept of EU copyright law. Available at SSRN 4089949.
  95. Rosendo-Rios, V., & Shukla, P. (2023). When luxury democratizes: Exploring the effects of luxury democratization, hedonic value and instrumental self-presentation on traditional luxury consum- ers' behavioral intentions. Journal of Business Research, 155, 113448.
  96. Sainfort, F., & Booske, B. C. (2000). Measuring post-decision satis- faction. Medical Decision Making, 20(1), 51-61.
  97. Santos, J. R. A. (1999). Cronbach's alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of Extension, 37(2), 1-5.
  98. Scharfstein, D. S., & Stein, J. C. (1990). Herd behavior and invest- ment. The American Economic Review, 465-479.
  99. Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55(1), 79.
  100. Scott, K. A., & Weaver, S. T. (2018). The intersection of sustain- able consumption and anticonsumption: Repurposing to extend product life spans. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 37(2), 291-305.
  101. Sharma, S., Singh, G., & Sharma, R. (2021). For it is in giving that we receive: Investigating gamers' gifting behaviour in online games. International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102363.
  102. Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 152.
  103. Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3), 203-232.
  104. Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coher- ent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
  105. Stern, P. C., Kalof, L., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Val- ues, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(18), 1611-1636.
  106. Svensson-Hoglund, S., Richter, J. L., Maitre-Ekern, E., Russell, J. D., Pihlajarinne, T., & Dalhammar, C. (2021). Barriers, ena- blers and market governance: A review of the policy landscape for repair of consumer electronics in the EU and the US. Jour- nal of Cleaner Production, 288, 125488.
  107. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using mul- tivariate statistics (Vol. 6, pp. 497-516).
  108. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(2), 137-155.
  109. Tian, X., Song, Y., Luo, C., Zhou, X., & Lev, B. (2021). Herding behavior in supplier innovation crowdfunding: Evidence from Kickstarter. International Journal of Production Economics, 239, 108184.
  110. Tsai, S.-P. (2005). Impact of personal orientation on luxury-brand purchase value: An international investigation. International Journal of Market Research, 47(4), 427-452.
  111. Türkdemir, P., Yıldız, E., & Ateş, M. F. (2023). The acquirements of e-service quality in fashion e-storescapes: Mediating effect in an SOR model. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 51(6), 755-772.
  112. Tzou, R.-C., & Lu, H.-P. (2009). Exploring the emotional, aesthetic, and ergonomic facets of innovative product on fashion technol- ogy acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(4), 311-322.
  113. Ur Rahman, S., Chwialkowska, A., Hussain, N., Bhatti, W. A., & Luomala, H. (2023). Cross-cultural perspective on sustainable consumption: Implications for consumer motivations and pro- motion. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(2), 997-1016.
  114. van der Velden, M. (2021). 'Fixing the world one thing at a time': Community repair and a sustainable circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 304, 127151.
  115. Vedadi, A., & Warkentin, M. (2020). Can secure behaviors be con- tagious? A two-stage investigation of the influence of herd behavior on security decisions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(2), 3.
  116. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(3), 425-478. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 30036 540 · DOI · Paper page
  117. Wallace, E., & Buil, I. (2023). Antecedents and consequences of conspicuous green behavior on social media: Incorporating the virtual self-identity into the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Research, 157, 113549.
  118. Wang, Q., & Shukla, P. (2013). Linking sources of consumer confu- sion to decision satisfaction: The role of choice goals. Psychol- ogy & Marketing, 30(4), 295-304.
  119. Wang, X., Wong, Y. D., Chen, T., & Yuen, K. F. (2022). An investi- gation of technology-dependent shopping in the pandemic era: Integrating response efficacy and identity expressiveness into theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 142, 1053-1067.
  120. Widayat, W., Praharjo, A., Putri, V. P., Andharini, S. N., & Masudin, I. (2021). Responsible consumer behavior: Driving factors of pro-environmental behavior toward post-consumption plastic packaging. Sustainability, 14(1), 425.
  121. Zhang, X., Bai, X., & Shang, J. (2018). Is subsidized electric vehi- cles adoption sustainable: Consumers' perceptions and moti- vation toward incentive policies, environmental benefits, and risks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192, 71-79.
  122. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206.
  123. Zhou, M., Cai, X., Liu, Q., & Fan, W. (2019). Examining continu- ance use on social network and micro-blogging sites: Different roles of self-image and peer influence. International Journal of Information Management, 47, 215-232.
  124. Zollo, L. (2021). The consumers' emotional dog learns to persuade its rational tail: Toward a social intuitionist framework of ethi- cal consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(2), 295-313.
  125. Zwicker, M. V., Nohlen, H. U., Dalege, J., Gruter, G.-J.M., & van Harreveld, F. (2020). Applying an attitude network approach to consumer behaviour towards plastic. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101433.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marikyan, D., & Papagiannidis, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Marikyan, Davit
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Business Ethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-12-05
Volume
193
Issue
1
Pages
35-61
ISSN
  • 0167-4544 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0697
DOI
10.1007/s10551-023-05569-9
OpenAlex
W4389346723
Cited by
22
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6
FWCI
4.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Business Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Recycling and Waste Management Techniques
Keywords
right to repair, pro-environmental behavior, electronic devices, product durability, sustainable consumption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review