CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 49Environmental Sustainability in BusinessSustainable Supply Chain ManagementEnvironmental Education and Sustainability

Consumers’ categorization of eco-friendly consumer goods: An integrative review and research agenda

Open access
Larranaga, Arancha, Valor, Carmen·2022·Sustainable Production and Consumption
DOI 10.1016/j.spc.2022.10.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Understanding how consumers categorize a consumer good as eco-friendly is key to facilitating consumers' purchasing of products with lower environmental footprints. Scholarship has increasingly addressed this question. However, most research has examined a single cue that prevents the building of a holistic explanation. An integrative review of studies may provide not only a synthesis of the state of the art but also an overarching integrative theoretical framework that explains what cues consumers use to categorize products as green and the mechanisms guiding the interpretation of these cues. This review of 29 studies examining consumers' assessment of eco-friendliness in consumer goods unearths five cues used as surrogate indicators of eco-friendliness. Nevertheless, these cues are not entirely related to the actual environmental footprint of a product based on the life cycle assessment. Drawing from schema categorization theory, an integrative theoretical framework is presented whereby categorization processes are said to be guided by consumers' lay theories. A research agenda is outlined to stimulate new lines of inquiry around lay theories and product attributes.

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 · 10.1016/j.spc.2022.10.005

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • The vast majority (99%+) of cues encountered and used by consumers are nominal, consisting of a visual icon that can be consistently processed and interpreted consciously or subconsciously by the consumer.

    “The vast majority (99%+) of cues that are encountered and used by consumers are nominal, consisting of a visual icon that can be consistently processed and interpreted consciously or subconsciously by the consumer [17][18][19].”

    From Marketing Tactics for Sustainable Fashion and the Circular Economy: The Impact of Ethical Labels on Fast Fashion Choice (2023) · cites this paper as [19]

    Section 3.1 and the Discussion say consumers use iconic cues to assess product greenness, supporting the general point that consumers interpret cues. The paper does not say that 99%+ of cues are nominal or visual icons, and the Discussion reports contradictory findings about how some cues are interpreted. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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: 97

  1. Armstrong, C.L., Nelson, M.R., 2005. How newspaper sources trigger gender stereotypes. J. Mass Commun.Q. 82 (4), 820-837. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200405. · DOI
  2. Autio, M., Collins, R., Wahlen, S., Anttila, M., 2013. Consuming nostalgia? The appreciation of authenticity in local food production. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 37 (5), 564-568. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.834803. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bangsa, A.B., Schlegelmilch, B.B., 2020. Linking sustainable product attributes and consumer decision-making: insights from a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 245. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118902. · DOI
  4. Bazzani, C., Canavari, M., 2017. Is local a matter of food miles or food traditions? Ital.J.Food Sci. 29 (3), 505. https://doi.org/10.14674/IJFS-733. · DOI
  5. Boyer, P., Petersen, M.B., 2018. Folk-economic beliefs: an evolutionary cognitive model. Behav. Brain Sci. 41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17001960, e158. · DOI
  6. Boz, Z., Korhonen, V., Koelsch Sand, C., 2020. Consumer considerations for the implemen- tation of sustainable packaging: a review. Sustainability 12 (6), 2192. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su12062192. · DOI
  7. Broniarczyk, S.M., Alba, J.W., 1994. The role of consumers' intuitions in inference making. J. Consum. Res. 21 (3), 393-407 doi:0093-5301/95/2103-0001.
  8. Carroll, B.E., Fahy, F., 2015. Locating the locale of local food: the importance of context, space and social relations. Renew.Agric.Food Syst. 30 (6), 563-576. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1742170514000404. · DOI
  9. Cheng, Y., Mukhopadhyay, A., Schrift, R.Y., 2017. Do costly options lead to better outcomes? How the protestant work ethic influences the cost-benefit heuristic in goal pursuit. J. Mark. Res. 54 (4), 636-649. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0105. · DOI
  10. Chen, H., Pang, J., Koo, M., Patrick, V.M., 2020. Shape matters: package shape informs brand status categorization and brand choice. J. Retail. 96 (2), 266-281. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.08.003. · DOI
  11. Cho, H., Schwarz, N., 2008. Of great art and untalented artists: effort information and the flexible construction of judgmental heuristics. J. Consum. Psychol. 18 (3), 205-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.04.009. · DOI
  12. Cohen, J.B., Basu, K., 1987. Alternative models of categorization: toward a contingent pro- cessing framework. J. Consum. Res. 13 (4), 455-472. https://doi.org/10.1086/209081. · DOI
  13. Costa, C.S.R., da Costa, M.F., Maciel, R.G., Aguiar, E.C., Wanderley, L.O., 2021. Consumer an- tecedents towards green product purchase intentions. J. Clean. Prod. 313, 127964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127964. · DOI
  14. Dam, Y.K.v., 1996. Environmental assessment of packaging: the consumer point of view. Environ. Manag. 20 (5), 607-614. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01204134 (New York). · DOI
  15. Deval, H., Cronley, M.L., Mantel, S.P., Kardes, F.R., 2016. Naïve theories about marketing and consumption in consumer inference. Routledge International Handbook of Con- sumer Psychology. Routledge, pp. 447-464.
  16. Eldesouky, A., Mesias, F.J., Escribano, M., 2020. Perception of Spanish consumers towards environmentally friendly labelling in food. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 44 (1), 64-76. https:// doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12546. · DOI
  17. ElHaffar, G., Durif, F., Dubé, L., 2020. Towards closing the attitude-intention-behavior gap in green consumption: a narrative review of the literature and an overview of future research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122556. · DOI
  18. Etale, A., Siegrist, M., 2021. Food processing and perceived naturalness: is it more natural or just more traditional? Food Qual. Prefer. 94, 104323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodqual.2021.104323. · DOI
  19. Feldmann, C., Hamm, U., 2015. Consumers' perceptions and preferences for local food: a re- view. Food Qual. Prefer. 40, 152-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.014. · DOI
  20. Ferrara, C., Zigarelli, V., De Feo, G., 2020. Attitudes of a sample of consumers towards more sustainable wine packaging alternatives. J. Clean. Prod. 271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.122581. · DOI
  21. Folkes, Valerie S., Matta, Shashi, 2013. When a product takes on characteristics of the per- son who created it: sometimes it sounds sweeter. J. Consum. Psychol. 23 (1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.01.006. · DOI
  22. Furnham, A., 1988. Lay theories: everyday understanding of problems in the social sci- ences: Elmsford. In: Argyle, M. (Ed.), International Series in Experimental Social Psy- chology. Vol. 17. Elsevier, Oxford.
  23. Gershoff, A.D., Frels, J.K., 2015. What makes it green? The role of centrality of green attri- butes in evaluations of the greenness of products. J. Mark. 79 (1), 97-110. https://doi. org/10.1509/jm.13.0303. · DOI
  24. Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62 (1), 451-482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Gomez, P., 2013. Common biases and heuristics in nutritional quality judgments: a qual- itative exploration. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 37 (2), 152-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1470-6431.2012.01098.x. · DOI
  26. Granvik, M., Joosse, S., Hunt, A., Hallberg, I., 2017. Confusion and misunderstanding- interpretations and definitions of local food. (Basel, Switzerland)Sustainability 9 (11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111981. · DOI
  27. Green, T., Peloza, J., 2011. How does corporate social responsibility create value for con- sumers? J. Consum. Mark. 28 (1), 48-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761111101949. · DOI
  28. Hanss, D., Böhm, G., 2012. Sustainability is seen from the perspective of consumers. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 36 (6), 678-687. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01045.x. · DOI
  29. Haws, K.L., Reczek, R.W., Sample, K.L., 2017. Healthy diets make empty wallets: the healthy = expensive intuition. J. Consum. Res. 43 (6), 992. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw078. · DOI
  30. Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Guinée, J.B., 2010. Life cycle assessment and sustainability anal- ysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sus- tainability life cycle analysis. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 95 (3), 422-428. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2009.11.010. · DOI
  31. Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., Ramme, I., 2018. Consumer attitudes towards biobased packaging -a cross-cultural comparative study. J. Clean. Prod. 194, 203-218. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.106. · DOI
  32. Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., Ramme, I., 2020. How green is your packaging-a comparative in- ternational study of cues consumers use to recognize environmentally friendly pack- aging. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 44 (3), 258-271. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12560. · DOI
  33. Hutchinson, J.W., Alba, J.W., 1991. Ignoring irrelevant information: situational determi- nants of consumer learning. J. Consum. Res. 18 (3), 325-345. https://doi.org/10. 1086/209263. · DOI
  34. Joshi, P., Kronrod, A., 2020. Sounds of green: how brand name sounds metaphorically con- vey environmental friendliness. J. Advert. 49 (1), 61-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00913367.2019.1696720. · DOI
  35. Joshi, Y., Rahman, Z., 2015. Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future re- search directions. Int.Strateg.Manag.Rev. 3 (1-2), 128-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ism.2015.04.001. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Jungbluth, N., Tietje, O., Scholz, R.W., 2000. Food purchases: impacts from the consumers' point of view investigated with a modular LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 5 (3), 134-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978609. · DOI
  37. Judge, M., Fernando, J.W., Paladino, A., Mikolajczak, G., Kashima, Y., 2020. Lay concepts of art, craft, and manufacture and the implications for sustainable consumption. J. Soc. Issues 76 (1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12368. · DOI
  38. Ketelsen, M., Janssen, M., Hamm, U., 2020. Consumers' response to environmentally- friendly food packaging -a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 254. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2020.120123. · DOI
  39. Komatsu, L.K., 1992. Recent views of conceptual structure. Psychol. Bull. 112 (3), 500-526. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.500. · DOI
  40. Labrecque, L.I., Milne, G.R., 2013. To be or not to be different: exploration of norms and benefits of color differentiation in the marketplace. Mark. Lett. 24 (2), 165-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9210-5. · DOI
  41. La Macchia, S.T., Louis, W.R., Hornsey, M.J., Leonardelli, G.J., 2016. In small we trust: lay theories about small and large groups. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42 (10), 1321-1334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216657360. · DOI
  42. Lazzarini, G.A., Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M., 2017. Our own country is best: factors influencing consumers' sustainability perceptions of plant-based foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 60, 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.04.008. · DOI
  43. Lee, A.Y., Labroo, A.A., 2004. The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand eval- uation. J. Mark. Res. 41 (2), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.2.151.28665. · DOI
  44. Lee, E.J., Bae, J., Kim, K.H., 2020. The effect of environmental cues on the purchase inten- tion of sustainable products. J. Bus. Res. 120, 425-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2019.10.048. · DOI
  45. Levy, S.R., Chiu, C., Hong, Y., 2006. Lay theories and intergroup relations. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 9 (1), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206059855. · DOI
  46. Lieven, T., Grohmann, B., Herrmann, A., Landwehr, J.R., van Tilburg, M., 2015. The effect of brand design on brand gender perceptions and brand preference. Eur. J. Mark. 49 (1/2), 146-169. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2012-0456. · DOI
  47. Lin, Y., Chang, C.A., 2012. Double standard: the role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. J. Mark. 76 (5), 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0264. · DOI
  48. Lindh, H., Olsson, A., Williams, H., 2016. Consumer perceptions of food packaging: contribut- ing to or counteracting environmentally sustainable development? Packag. Technol. Sci. 29 (1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2184. · DOI
  49. Loken, B., 2006. Consumer psychology: categorization, inferences, affect, and persuasion. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57, 453-485. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904. 190136. · DOI
  50. Loken, B., Barsalou, L.W., Joiner, C., 2008. Categorization theory and research in consumer psychology: category representation and category-based inference. In: Haugtvedt, C.P., Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R. (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology. Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 133-163.
  51. Luchs, M.G., Naylor, R.W., Irwin, J.R., Raghunathan, R., 2010. The sustainability liability: potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. J. Mark. 74 (5), 18-31. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.5.018. · DOI
  52. Lunardo, R., Saintives, C., 2013. The effect of naturalness claims on perceptions of food product naturalness in the point of purchase. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 20 (6), 529-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.05.006. · DOI
  53. Magnier, L., Crié, D., 2015. Communicating packaging eco-friendliness. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 43 (4/5), 350-366. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-04-2014-0048. · DOI
  54. Magnier, L., Schoormans, J., 2017. How do packaging material, colour and environmental claim influence package, brand and product evaluations? Packag.Technol.Sci. 30 (11), 735-751. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2318. · DOI
  55. Marsh, B., 2002. Heuristics as social tools. New Ideas Psychol. 20 (1), 49-57. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0732-118X(01)00012-5. · DOI
  56. Medin, 1989. Concepts and conceptual structure. Am. Psychol. 44 (12), 1469-1481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1469. · DOI
  57. Medin, Smith, E.E., 1984. Concepts and concept formation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 35 (1), 113-138. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.35.020184.000553. · DOI
  58. Meier, M.S., Stoessel, F., Jungbluth, N., Juraske, R., Schader, C., Stolze, M., 2015. Environ- mental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products-are the differences captured by life cycle assessment? J. Environ. Manag. 149, 193-208. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.006. · DOI
  59. Meiting, L., Hua, W., 2021. Angular or rounded? The effect of the shape of green brand logos on consumer perception. J. Clean. Prod. 279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020. 123801. · DOI
  60. Mick, D.G., 1986. Consumer research and semiotics: exploring the morphology of signs, sym- bols, and significance. J. Consum. Res. 13 (2), 196-213. https://doi.org/10.1086/209060. · DOI
  61. Newman, G.E., Gorlin, M., Dhar, R., 2014. When going green backfires: how firm inten- tions shape the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements. J. Consum. Res. 41 (3), 823-839. https://doi.org/10.1086/677841. · DOI
  62. Nguyen, A.T., Parker, L., Brennan, L., Lockrey, S., 2020. A consumer definition of eco- friendly packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 252, 119792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2019.119792. · DOI
  63. Niedenthal, P.M., Halberstadt, J.B., Innes-Ker, Å.H., 1999. Emotional response categoriza- tion. Psychol. Rev. 106 (2), 337-361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.2.337. · DOI
  64. Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., Paladino, A., 2014. Perceived greenwashing: the interactive effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance on consumer re- actions. J. Bus. Ethics 125 (4), 693-707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1944-3. · DOI · Paper page
  65. Olson, J.C., 1978. Inferential belief formation in the cue utilization process. In: Hunt, Kent, Abor, Ann (Eds.), NA -Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 05. Association for Con- sumer Research, MI, pp. 706-713.
  66. Venkatesan, M. (Ed.), SV -Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Associ- ation for Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research, pp. 167-179.
  67. Orth, U.R., Malkewitz, K., 2008. Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. J. Mark. 72 (3), 64-81. https://doi.org/10.1509/JMKG.72.3.064. · DOI
  68. Ostrom, E., 2006. The value-added of laboratory experiments for the study of institutions and common-pool resources. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 61 (2), 149-163. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jebo.2005.02.008. · DOI
  69. Pancer, E., McShane, L., Noseworthy, T.J., 2017. Isolated environmental cues and product efficacy penalties: the color green and eco-labels. J. Bus. Ethics 143 (1), 159-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2764-4. · DOI
  70. Pickett-Baker, J., Ozaki, R., 2008. Pro-environmental products: marketing influence on consumer purchase decision. J. Consum. Mark. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 07363760810890516. · DOI
  71. Pollan, M., 2009. The Omnivore's Dilemma: The Search for a Perfect Meal in a Fast-food World. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  72. Poor, M., Duhachek, A., Krishnan, H.S., 2013. How images of other consumers influence subsequent taste perceptions. J. Mark. 77 (6), 124-139. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm. 12.0021. · DOI
  73. Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R.W., Hoyer, W.D., 2006. The unhealthy= tasty intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. J. Mark. 70 (4), 170-184 doi:www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12961/volumes/v34/NA-34.
  74. Rajagopal, P., Burnkrant, R.E., 2009. Consumer evaluations of hybrid products. J. Consum. Res. 36 (2), 232-241. https://doi.org/10.1086/596721. · DOI
  75. Ratneshwar, S., Pechmann, C., Shocker, A.D., 1996. Goal-derived categories and the ante- cedents of across-category consideration. J. Consum. Res. 23 (3), 240-250.
  76. Richardson, P.S., Dick, A.S., Jain, A.K., 1994. Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on percep- tions of store brand quality. J. Mark. 58 (4). https://doi.org/10.2307/1251914. · DOI
  77. Rokka, J., Uusitalo, L., 2008. Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices- do consumers care? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 32 (5), 516-525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1470-6431.2008.00710.x. · DOI
  78. Röös, E., Karlsson, H., 2013. Effect of eating seasonal on the carbon footprint of Swedish vegetable consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 59, 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2013.06.035. · DOI
  79. Samaraweera, M., Sims, J.D., Homsey, D.M., 2021. Will a green color and nature images make consumers pay more for a green product? J. Consum. Mark. 38 (3), 305-312. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2020-3771. · DOI
  80. Scekic, A., Krishna, A., 2021. Do firm cues impact product perceptions? When small is natu- ral. J. Consum. Psychol. 31 (2), 350-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1210. · DOI
  81. Schleenbecker, R., Hamm, U., 2013. Consumers' perception of organic product character- istics.A review. Appetite 71, 420-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.08.020. · DOI
  82. Scott, Vigar-Ellis, D., 2014. Consumer understanding, perceptions and behaviours with re- gard to environmentally friendly packaging in a developing nation. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 38 (6), 642-649. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12136. · DOI
  83. Sengupta, J., Goodstein, R.C., Boninger, D.S., 1997. All cues are not created equal: obtaining attitude persistence under low-involvement conditions. J. Consum. Res. 23 (4), 351-361. https://doi.org/10.1086/209488. · DOI
  84. Seo, J.Y., Scammon, D.L., 2017. Do green packages lead to misperceptions? The influence of package colors on consumers' perceptions of brands with environmental claims. Mark. Lett. 28 (3), 357-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-017-9420-y. · DOI
  85. Silayoi, P., Speece, M., 2007. The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis approach. Eur. J. Mark. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710821279. · DOI
  86. Slepian, M.L., Galinsky, A.D., 2016. The voiced pronunciation of initial phonemes predicts the gender of names. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110 (4), 509. https://doi.org/10.1037/ pspa0000041. · DOI
  87. Sloman, S.A., Love, B.C., Ahn, W., 1998. Feature centrality and conceptual coherence. Cogn. Sci. 22 (2), 189-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80039-1. · DOI
  88. Smithers, J., Lamarche, J., Joseph, A.E., 2008. Unpacking the terms of engagement with local food at the farmers' market: insights from Ontario. J. Rural. Stud. 24 (3), 337-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.009. · DOI
  89. Steenis, N.D., van Herpen, E., van der Lans, Ivo A., Ligthart, T.N., van Trijp, H.C., 2017. Con- sumer response to packaging design: the role of packaging materials and graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 286-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.036. · DOI · Paper page
  90. Steinhart, Y., Kamins, M., Mazursky, D., Noy, A., 2014. Effects of product type and contex- tual cues on eliciting naive theories of popularity and exclusivity. J. Consum. Psychol. 24 (4), 472-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.04.004. · DOI
  91. Stoessel, F., Juraske, R., Pfister, S., Hellweg, S., 2012. Life cycle inventory and carbon and water footprint of fruits and vegetables: application to a swiss retailer. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (6), 3253-3262. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2030577. · DOI
  92. Thogersen, J., 2011. Green shopping. Am. Behav. Sci. 55 (8), 1052-1076. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0002764211407903 (Beverly Hills). · DOI
  93. Thome-Ortiz, H., 2016. Turismo rural y sustentabilidad. El caso del turismo micológico en el Estado de México. In: Yaneth, Alicia (Ed.), En CARREÑOMELÉNDEZ, FERMÍN y VÁZQUEZ-GONZÁLEZ. Ambiente y patrimonio cultural. UAEM doi:www. aacademica.org/humberto.thome.ortiz/28.
  94. Veryzer, R.W., 1999. A nonconscious processing explanation of consumer response to product design. Psychol. Mark. 16 (6), 497-522. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520- 6793(199909)16:6<497::AID-MAR4>3.0. CO;2-Z. · DOI · Paper page
  95. Wattenmaker, W.D., Nakamura, G.V., Medin, D.L., 1988. Relationships between similarity- based and explanation-based categorisation. In: Hilton, Denis J. (Ed.), Contemporary Science And Natural Explanation: Commonsense Conceptions of Causality. New York University Press.
  96. Wood, S., Robinson, S., Poor, M., 2018. The efficacy of green package cues for mainstream versus niche brands. J. Advert. Res. 58 (2), 165-176. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR- 2018-025. · DOI
  97. Yang, Z., Yang, H., Wang, H., 2020. Evaluating urban sustainability under different devel- opment pathways: a case study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Sustain. Cities Soc. 61, 102226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102226. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Larranaga, A., & Valor, C.
Affiliations
Universidad Pontificia Comillas (ES)
ORCID
Venue
Sustainable Production and Consumption
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-11
Volume
34
Pages
518-527
ISSN
2352-5509 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.spc.2022.10.005
OpenAlex
W4304098309
Cited by
49
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10
FWCI
8.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainable Production and Consumption (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Comillas Repository (Comillas Pontifical University) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
Keywords
environmental footprint, life cycle assessment, lay theories, sustainable consumption, product attributes

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