1. Introduction
It is needless to question the fact that global warming leads to severe and unpredictable weather, shifting rainfall patterns, and droughts that limit crop yields [
1]. Kihiko and Kinoti [
2] also stressed that by the end of the 21st century, the temperature will rise between 1.4 and 5.8 °C. Koch [
3] indicates that the growth rate in CO
2 concentration has been the highest for at least 20,000 years. According to the report “Renewable and non-renewable resources” [
4], natural resources are being depleted at a faster rate than they are produced or renewed by nature. The rising consumer awareness of all these environmental issues, which result in the depletion of natural resources, global warming, an increase in the world’s population, etc., increases the importance of the responsible role every market player should have. This relates not only to companies, institutions, governments, or economies but to individuals as well [
5]. People must rethink their consumption behavior patterns and understand the way they acquire and dispose of resources. The awareness of Earth’s limits renders individuals more vulnerable to volatility in the sphere of the natural environment, which requires the take–make–waste approach to be amended [
6]. On the other hand, the rising prosperity in countries allows quality-of-life and environmental concerns to be more prioritized by consumers. As noted by Peterson [
6], having more disposable income leads to valuing environmental aspects more. The data coming from Edelman’s report say that one in two people are currently belief-driven customers [
7]. Individuals’ increasing awareness of environmental issues determines the change in their consumption behaviors. Consumers are becoming more competent, environmentally sensitive, and appreciative of sustainability values. More and more frequently they make informed decisions in the area of their ecological footprint and have an increasing propensity to influence others’ sustainable behaviors. However, as stressed by Sharma, Kaur, and Syan [
8], this ecological thinking very often has an economical background—saving the world, by means of, for instance, switching off the light or buying eco-efficient household appliances saves on bills.
Responsible consumer behaviors gained researchers’ attention in the second half of the 1970s with the Fisk [
9] research using the term “responsible consumption”. Since that time, different approaches to the conceptualization of the concept appeared. One stream of research associates that kind of behavior solely with preserving the environment. De Castro [
10], for example, defined it as “
actions undertaken by an individual in favour of the preserving natural resources and with the intension to obtain a better environmental quality”. Agrawal and Gupta [
11] perceive it as behavior that helps in reducing the harmful effect of consumption on the environment. This approach had been criticized by some scholars for not including human welfare, ethics and social justice, or benefits of health. Thus, the conceptualization of the phenomenon is being extended in some research by these aspects [
5]. According to the authors, responsible consumption refers to actions related to the use of natural resources in a way that ensures the welfare of individuals as well as ecological equilibrium. These may include energy and water savings or ecological building. A similar approach to the conceptualization of sustainable consumption behaviors was presented by Sharma, Kaur, and Syan [
12], as well as Yan and She [
13]. According to the authors, that kind of behavior refers to the reasons and ways in which consumers incorporate sustainability issues into their consumption behavior. They refer to the selection, usage, and disposition of products and services in a way that minimizes the impact on society, in general, and the environment. This means resources are used wisely, and consumption behaviors result in minimum waste or pollution. The authors also stress that in order to include the essence of sustainability into customers’ consumption behaviors, they need to amend their previous consumption habits or even adopt new ones.
Results of earlier studies demonstrate two categories of responsible consumer behaviors [
5,
11]. The first group includes non-consumption behaviors. These are related to resource reduction and include, among others, water conservation, reduction of energy use, or car use reduction. In the literature, they are called curtailment behaviors (CB) or habitual action behavior [
14]. They do not cause extra costs; however, they do require regular efforts from individuals and thus may be a kind of inconvenience for them. They are made on an everyday basis and thus may have a substantial impact on the environment. These are behaviors that require a change in customers’ habits that they were used to. The second type of responsible behavior is associated with an increase in energy efficiency and is called high-involvement buying decisions or energy efficiency behavior (EEB). They can be performed by means of the use of new technologies, solutions, and innovations that are more efficient. They include investing in energy-efficient light bulbs or substituting old and expensive home appliances for new, more efficient ones. As stressed by Janson et al. [
14], these behaviors usually involve one-time purchase decisions, so the individual has to make an initial financial expense for future savings.
Nowadays, it seems vital to understand the antecedents of responsible consumer behavior. Knowledge about the motives of sustainable consumption is a prerequisite for proposing activities that enable changing behaviors in the desired direction. According to Stern et al. [
15], responsible consumer behavior is influenced by the individual values and beliefs of consumers, understood as “… guiding principles in life”. They may influence the way consumers assess the severity of environmental problems and whether they decide to take any action or not (e.g., [
16,
17]). Such guiding principles related to the general attitude towards the environmental consequences of human behavior are called environmental awareness. Starting from a typical definition of attitude, ecological awareness is a predisposition to respond to environmental issues in a specific way [
18] (p. 132). It is an element of one′s own individual system of values and beliefs, and a part of social awareness.
A widely used measure in research on environmental awareness and its effects on consumer behavior is the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) revised by Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, and Jones [
19] on the basis of their New Environmental Paradigm [
20]. The NEP measures the support for an ecological worldview.
Essentially, the NEP scale “focused on beliefs about humanity′s ability to upset the balance of nature, the existence of limits to growth for human societies, and humanity′s right to rule over the rest of nature” [
19] (p. 427). The scale was used primarily by psychologists [
15], but also by politicians [
21], sociologists [
22], and geographers [
23], and has been revised several times. The latest version [
19] consists of 15 positions and was designed to improve upon the original one in several respects: (1) It taps into a wider range of facets of an ecological worldview, (2) it offers a balanced set of pro and anti-NEP items, and (3) it avoids outmoded terminology.
Environmental awareness (NEP) can precede environmental behavior (CB, EEB). However, even if people are ecologically aware, they may not necessarily behave pro-ecologically. Environmental awareness is the first step to becoming a conscious consumer [
24] (p. 46). We can say that environmental awareness is operationalized through an ecologically motivated form, i.e., pro-ecological behavior. There are basically two types of attitudes used to predict pro-environmental behavior, i.e., attitudes towards nature itself and towards pro-environmental behavior. If environmental awareness (attitude) is fostered through actual pro-ecological behavior, we can use the term environmental responsibility. In other words, environmental awareness consists of a positive attitude to the environment and appropriate pro-environmental behavior.
The literature on environmental awareness indicates that one of the most important factors determining it is perceived consumer efficiency (PCE). Perceived consumer efficiency is understood as “the extent to which the consumer believes that his/her personal efforts can contribute to the solution of a problem” [
25] (p. 544). Researchers combined PCE with constructs such as a perceived change in consumption [
26,
27,
28], concern [
29,
30,
31], and responsibility [
32]. Studies that examined PCE show that the construct is positively related to pro-environmental consumption intentions and behavior across a wide range of product categories, domestic markets, and consumer groups [
33,
34,
35,
36,
37]. These results suggest that PCE plays an important role in sustainable consumption, and people who have a strong belief that their consumption choices influence reality are more likely to engage in sustainable consumption.
Another determiner of environmental awareness discussed in the literature is sensitivity mobilization or mobilization attitude (MA). Bomberg and McEwen [
38] presented the original application of the theory of resource mobilization in the field of energy research. They pointed out that the recent mobilization study has expanded to explain not only protest movements but also citizen mobilization around a wide range of issues including climate change and energy consumption. Mobilization refers to activating “the community to support and actively participate in initiatives related to energy reduction or production of energy from renewable or low-carbon sources” [
38] (p. 436). Lippman et al. [
39] proposed seven dimensions of the mobilization scale: Concern, critical consciousness, networks, leadership, collective actions, social control, and social cohesion. Empirical studies provide strong evidence of the effect of the mobilization attitude on environmentally friendly practices. Macias and Williams [
40] found that after accounting for environmental concern and background characteristics, individuals living in closely connected neighborhoods are more likely to purchase chemical-free produce, use less water and household energy, and drive less due to the exposure to a variety of perspectives.
From the point of view of promoting responsible energy consumption, it may be important to research whether, and to what extent, an individual is willing to exert social control and pressure on his/her social environment in terms of saving energy and reporting to the authorities events adversely affecting the environment and how it can influence ecological awareness and, as a consequence, responsible energy consumption.
Consumer behavior may also be influenced by legal regulations and public policy. Creating positive incentives, or the lack of these incentives on the part of the public regulator, e.g., in the form of subsidies and tax cuts, may moderate the effect of environmental awareness on behavior related to energy saving. The actual impact of public policy on energy-use activities has been discussed by many researchers in the context of businesses [
41,
42] or consumers [
43,
44]. So far, the impact of the stringency of environmental regulations perceived by households has not been taken into account, for example, in the form of assessing whether the current legal regulations favor the use of renewable energy sources in the opinion of consumers. Therefore, a question arises—will the perceived stringency of environmental regulations (PSER) moderate the impact of environmental awareness on the behavior of households?
The growing impact of consumption on the environment has been attracting much attention from academics for many years now and caused some inquiries into antecedents of responsible consumption. Previous studies have focused on analyzing different antecedents of responsible consumption in various areas and contexts, but scholars concentrated largely on developed countries [
11,
13], which call for more research in developing markets [
45]. They prove the existence of a significant relation between consumers’ beliefs, attitudes, and responsible consumption behaviors [
46,
47]. Gatersleben et al. [
48] also investigated the role of environmental awareness in the process of sustainable consumer behavior in developed markets. The findings showed the existence of a positive influence. What remains unclear, however, is to what degree there exists a relation between the two concepts in emerging markets. Very few studies investigated antecedents of responsible consumption in emerging European countries [
49]. This is likely due to the fact that consumers in these markets show less environmental commitment. Moreover, very little research referred to the energy sector [
50]. Changes in consumption patterns seem to be essential in the energy sector. Final energy consumption in Polish households in 2020 equaled 557 KGOE (kilogram of oil equivalent) per capita, and in 2019, it was 553 KGOE. In the European Union, both in 2019 and 2020, it reached the level of 555 KGOE per capita [
51]. Furthermore, the dynamic development of BRICS countries, especially China and India, results in an increasing demand for energy. In addition, a crisis situation in Europe caused by the war in Ukraine in 2022 has also impacted the energy sector dramatically. As a consequence, the energy price is currently climbing higher. Therefore, in this paper, we aim to examine the effect of environmental awareness on responsible consumption in the energy sector. In the context of energy-responsible consumption behaviors, previous research did not include the two types of responsible consumption simultaneously, i.e., curtailment behaviors and energy efficiency behaviors [
14]. Additionally, the impact of perceived consumer effectiveness and sensitivity mobilization, as the two key determiners of environmental awareness on responsible energy consumption, has not been studied so far. That poses another gap our paper fills.
Our article contributes to the existing literature in three aspects. First, it is the first examination of the relationship between environmental awareness and responsible consumption behaviors in the emerging European market. Second, this is one of the first studies that examines the relations between these two constructs in the energy sector. Finally, for the first time, the two determiners of environmental awareness, i.e., perceived consumer effectiveness and sensitivity mobilization, have been analyzed in our study.
3. Results
3.1. Scales’ Dimensionality
The analysis of the scales’ dimensionality was performed using Horn′s parallel analysis for principal component (PCA). The parallel analysis enables us to extract unbiased eigenvalues of the correlation matrix and thus determine the number of dimensions based on the eigenvalues extracted from the actual data matrix and from the random (uncorrelated) data matrix with the same number of indicators [
55]. This method allows for the correction of the eigenvalues by the effect of the collinearity of the variables (bias) resulting from the random error.
The parallel analysis of environmental awareness using the New Environmental Policy (NEP) scale indicated one dominant dimension. Because of the large number of items in the NEP scale, the item parceling of NEP was performed using second-order hierarchical factor analysis. It resulted in seven second-order items (parcels) for NEP scale analysis. The exploratory parallel principal component analysis identified two dimensions. The unbiased eigenvalue of the first dimension was 4.335, and the second was 1.599. The estimated bias of the first dimension was 0.176, and the second dimension was 0.148. Scree plot analysis and the eigenvalue ratio provided some insight into the acceptance of one general factor. Finally, the seven-item NEP scale was accepted for further analysis.
Parallel PCA analysis of the Mobilizing Attitude (MA) scale reflected one general dimension. The unbiased eigenvalue of the first dimension was 4.453 with an eigenvalue bias of 0.093. The MA scale appeared to be unidimensional.
The Energy Efficiency Behavior (EEB) scale was also unidimensional. The adjusted eigenvalue of the first dimension was 0.229 and the bias was 0.023.
Curtailment Behavior (CB) scale consisted of a variety of indicators of actual behavior that respondents reveal in everyday life. In the final scale, the following items were included that maximized the common variance of constructs: cb2, cb5, cb11, cb12, and cb13. The retained eigenvalues showed one common factor with an unbiased eigenvalue of the first dimension of 1.593 with an eigenvalue bias of 0.071.
The Perceived stringency (PS) scale and Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) scale was formed by only two items; therefore, no dimensionality analysis was performed.
3.2. Reliability and Validity Analysis
The reliability of constructs was measured using Cronbach′s Alpha, McDonald′s Omega coefficient (construct reliability CR), Dijkstra–Henseler′s rho, and the Larcker–Fornell average variance extracted (AVE). McDonald′s Omega is given as:
The Larcker–Fornell average variance extracted (AVE) is given as:
where
l is the standardized factor loading for the construct.
The convergent validity of all constructs was checked using the AVE > 0.5 rule. Discriminant validity assessment was evaluated on the basis of a comparison of AVE with squared correlations (SC) between the constructs. When AVE values ≥ SC values, there is no problem with discriminant validity.
Table 3 presents the reliability and validity measures of all constructs. The reliability of NEP, MA, EEB, and PCE scales are acceptable. All of these constructs have reliability measures above 0.7. However, the CB scale has too-low reliability and was converted into a composite in the SEM model. The convergent validity of MA, EEB, and PCE scales is acceptable, but discriminant validity is acceptable only for the EEB scale. On the other hand, the heterotrait–monotrait ratio of the correlations matrix (HTMT matrix) shown in
Table 4 proves that all of the correlations are below 0.9, which indicates the appropriate validity of constructs [
56].
Additionally, due to the use of the self-explicated Likert scale and cross-sectional data, the common method variance and related bias were analyzed using the Unmeasured latent method factor (ULMF) in the CFA model with the restriction of factor loadings equality for the method factor [
57]. The estimated common variance for the model (squared fixed loadings) was insignificant (the method variance is equal to 0.001).
3.3. SEM Model Parameters and Goodness-of Fit
The structural model was estimated using a reflective measurement model for PCE, NEP, EEB, CB, and MA scales. The structural parameters of the model are presented in
Figure 2.
The model goodness of fit is moderate. The Chi square value is 3140.463 with 212 degrees of freedom. The relative Chi-square (Chi square/df) is 5.549. The geodesic distance is 0.300 (95% critical value = 0.081), Squared Euclidian distance is 1.266 (95% critical value = 0.271) and ML distance is 1.679 (95% critical value = 0.428). Estimated distances allow us to reject the H0 hypothesis that the model-implied indicator covariance matrix equals the population indicator covariance matrix [
58].
The comparative fit indices CFI and NFI are too low and equal to 0.703 and 0.665, respectively (cut-off criteria of 0.9). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is acceptable and equal to 0.072. Residual measures of RMS = 0.053 and SRMR = 0.072 show relatively small, standardized residuals.
The results show significant negative relationships between perceived consumer (in)effectiveness (PCE) and both mobilizing attitude (MA) and environmental awareness (NEP). The higher the perceived (in)effectiveness of individuals (due to reverse scaling of items), the lower the mobilizing attitudes and environmental awareness. On the other hand, the mobilizing attitude and environmental awareness have a positive impact on energy efficiency behavior, whereas curtailment behavior depends significantly on mobilizing attitude only. The mobilizing attitude also has a positive relation to environmental awareness.
3.4. Effects of Mediation and Moderated Mediation
The model depicted in
Figure 2 indicates the mediation role of the NEP and MA construct in the explanation of the relationships between the perceived (in)effectiveness of consumers and the two behavioral constructs. In the mediation analysis, the single-step Zhao, Lynch, and Chen Monte Carlo approach was used to test the mediation effects [
59]. The first tested effect is the PCE–NEP–CB path. The Monte Carlo test of the mediation effect is significant, and the direct path is insignificant (with B = −0.068 and
p = 0.139), so there is full mediation. RIT (indirect effect/total effect) is 0.055/0.123 = 0.450, so 45% of the effect of PCE on CB is mediated by NEP. RID (Indirect effect/Direct effect) is 0.055/0.068 = 0.819, that is, the mediated effect is approximately 0.8 times as large as the direct effect of PCE on CB.
The second effect is the PCE–NEP–EEB path. The Monte Carlo test of the mediation effect is significant, and the direct path is insignificant (with B = −0.010 and p = 0.781), so there is full mediation. RIT (indirect effect/total effect) is 0.074/0.084 = 0.880, so 88% of the effect of PCE on EEB is mediated by NEP. RID (Indirect effect/Direct effect) is 0.074/0.010 = 7.343, that is, the mediated effect is approximately 7.3 times as large as the direct effect of PCE on EEB.
The third effect is the MA–NEP–CB path. The Monte Carlo test of the mediation effect is significant, and the direct path is significant (with B = 0.608 and p = 0.000), so there is complementary partial mediation. RIT (indirect effect/total effect) is 0.044/0.652 = 0.067, so nearly 7% of the effect of MA on CB is mediated by NEP. RID (Indirect effect/Direct effect) is 0.044/0.608 = 0.072, that is, the mediated effect is approximately 0.1 times as large as the direct effect of MA on CB.
The fourth effect is the MA–NEP–EEB path. The Monte Carlo test of the mediation effect is significant, and the direct path is significant (with B = 0.447 and p = 0.000), so there is complementary partial mediation. RIT (indirect effect/total effect) is 0.059/0.505 = 0.116, so nearly 12% of the effect of MA on EEB is mediated by NEP. RID (Indirect effect/Direct effect) is 0.059/0.447 = 0.131, that is, the mediated effect is approximately 0.1 times as large as the direct effect of MA on EEB.
The analysis confirmed the mediating role of NEP in explaining the relationship between PCE and EEB as well as PCE and CB. Based on the results of the analysis, it can be presumed that the perceived consumer efficiency is irrelevant to energy efficiency and curtailment behavior without considering the role of environmental awareness of the consumers.
Similarly, there is complementary partial mediation of the relationship between MA and behavioral variables EEB and CB. This indicates that MA, compared to PCE, has a stronger role in the conditioning of behavioral constructs. The mediating role of NEP is still present but appears to be relatively less important.
Having significant mediation effects, the model with a moderation role of perceived stringency was estimated. The perceived stringency of environmental regulations (PSER) was estimated as a composite with formative indicators. In the estimation of model parameters, a composite structural equation model (cSEM) with a path weighting scheme was used [
60].
Table 5 presents the model parameters with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. For simplicity, parameters for moderated variables only are presented.
The result of the analysis shows that the moderator effect of PSER is not statistically significant. The parameter bias is relatively small and does not exceed 0.003 in magnitude.