Energy Efficiency Starts in the Mind: How Green Values and Awareness Drive Citizens’ Energy Transformation

Abstract

Background: Understanding the psychological drivers of the energy transition is essential for accelerating the shift to low-carbon societies. The aim of this study is to examine how green consumer values (GCV), energy-saving knowledge (KES) and consumer energy awareness (CEA) jointly shape pro-environmental energy behaviors (EEB), while accounting for citizens’ perceived cost barriers (PESC). Methods: We conducted a nationally representative Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI) survey of 1405 Polish households and employed structural-equation modeling to test an integrated framework linking values, awareness, knowledge, perceived costs and two behavioral domains: high-commitment efficiency investments and low-cost curtailment actions. Results: The structural-equation model confirms that green consumer value significantly enhance both knowledge of energy-saving (β = 0.434) and consumer energy awareness (β = 0.185), thereby driving two distinct pro-environmental pathways: high-commitment efficiency investments (energy efficiency behavior) (β = 0.488) and curtailment behaviors (β = 0.355). Green consumer value also reduces perception of energy-saving costs (β = −0.344), yet these costs themselves exert strong inhibitory effects on both energy efficiency behavior (β = −0.213) and curtailment behaviors (β = −0.302). Conclusions: Our findings validate an integrated value–awareness–behavior framework, demonstrating that fostering green values and improving informational access are critical to enhancing energy-saving practices, while cost-reduction measures remain indispensable. Policymakers should combine value-based education, transparent feedback tools and targeted financial incentives to unlock citizens’ full potential in driving the energy transition.

1. Introduction

The global imperative to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions has placed household energy consumption at the forefront of climate-action strategies. Households account for a substantial share of electricity use, and transforming citizens from passive consumers into active managers of energy resources is essential for achieving an equitable and effective energy transition. However, despite growing policy support for efficiency measures and smart-grid innovations, the actual implementation of energy-saving practices often falls short of projected targets. This gap underscores the need to understand the psychological factors that translate environmental concerns into concrete action.

The literature identifies two interrelated constructs as key antecedents of pro-environmental energy behavior: Green Consumer Values (GCV) and Consumer Energy Awareness (CEA). GCV reflects the extent to which individuals incorporate environmental considerations into their consumption decisions; the five-item scale developed by Haws et al. [1] has demonstrated solid reliability and validity across diverse contexts, including its adaptation for Polish consumers. CEA encompasses individuals’ knowledge of energy tariffs, billing structures and consumption levels, reflecting their information competence and responsiveness to energy issues [2]. Empirical studies from Jordan [3] and the Philippines [4] show that heightened awareness significantly predicts adoption of solar installations and efficient appliances, even under conditions of energy poverty. Yet the relationship between knowledge and behavior is not straightforward. Some researchers report a persistent “knowledge–behavior gap,” in which informational interventions yield modest behavioral change unless accompanied by motivational or structural incentives. Furthermore, perceptions of energy-saving costs, including financial outlays, effort and comfort sacrifices, often act as barriers, diminishing willingness to invest in efficiency upgrades or alter daily routines. While Frederiks, Stenner and Hobman [5] highlight socio-demographic predictors of residential consumption, Broberg and Kažukauskas [6] demonstrate that less informed consumers tend to overestimate both the costs and the benefits of energy-saving technologies. These divergent findings point to the need for an integrated model that simultaneously accounts for values, awareness, knowledge and cost perceptions. Moreover, whereas Gajdzik et al. [7] investigated energy-saving behaviors among prosumer households using photovoltaic panels and heat pumps, the aim of this work broadens the focus to the general population of Polish consumers, thereby capturing a wider range of value–awareness–behavior dynamics across both prosumer and non-prosumer segments.

Taking the above into account, the aim of the main work can be formulated as: develop and empirically test an integrated structural-equation model that links green consumer values, consumer energy awareness, energy-saving knowledge and perceived cost barriers to two distinct domains of pro-environmental energy behavior, high-commitment efficiency investments and low-cost curtailment actions, using a nationally representative sample of Polish households. Against this backdrop, in the paper we have formulated three research questions:

• RQ1. How do green consumer values influence consumers’ energy-saving knowledge, awareness, and behaviors?
• RQ2. What is the impact of perceived energy-saving costs on the likelihood of engaging in energy efficiency and curtailment behaviors?
• RQ3. How do knowledge of energy-saving practices and energy-related consumer awareness mediate the relationship between green values and actual pro-environmental behavior?

Using a structural-equation-modeling approach on a nationally representative sample of Polish households, we show that green values positively shape both knowledge and awareness, which in turn enhance high-commitment efficiency investments and low-cost daily curtailment actions. By contrast, perceived energy-saving costs exert a significant negative effect on both behavioral domains. These findings confirm an integrated Value-Belief-Norm and Theory-of-Planned-Behavior framework and suggest that policy interventions should concurrently foster green values, improve informational access and mitigate perceived cost barriers to unleash citizens’ full potential in driving the energy transition.

Our study makes several important contributions to the literature on pro-environmental energy behavior. By integrating Green Consumer Values, Consumer Energy Awareness, knowledge of energy-saving practices and perceived cost barriers into a single structural-equation model, we offer a more comprehensive theoretical framework than has previously been tested in any single national context. In addition, by employing a large, nationally representative sample of Polish households, we extend findings from developing-country settings to a post-transition European economy, thereby enhancing the generalizability of value–awareness–behavior relationships. Our dual focus on both high-commitment efficiency investments and low-cost curtailment actions enables us to distinguish between different behavioral domains and their respective drivers.

The article is organized as follows. In the theoretical section, we review the literature on green consumer values, energy awareness, the knowledge–behavior gap and cost perceptions, and we develop our conceptual model and hypotheses. The methods section presents our research design, including sampling procedures, measurement scales and the estimation strategy for our structural-equation model. The empirical section reports our findings, assessing both direct and indirect effects among values, awareness, knowledge, costs and behavior. In the concluding section, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our results, acknowledge limitations and propose directions for future research. We also offer recommendations for policymakers and practitioners seeking to engage citizens in the energy transition.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Green Consumer Values

In the era of citizen-led climate action, the construct of Green Consumer Values (GCV) has emerged as a central explanatory variable in understanding and predicting pro-environmental behaviors, particularly in the domain of energy consumption. GCV encapsulate the extent to which individuals integrate environmental considerations into their consumption-related decision-making [1]. These values not only reflect ecological concern but also express a consumer’s identity, sense of responsibility, and moral alignment with sustainability principles.

The GCV scale, developed by Haws, Winterich and Naylor [1], is a five-item, unidimensional psychometric tool widely used in sustainability research. The scale has demonstrated high reliability and internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > 0.85) in various cultural and sectoral contexts. This measurement was adopted and validated in the Polish context by Hoffmann-Burdzińska et al. [2], who examined its role in shaping energy-saving behavior. These findings provide empirical support for the inclusion of GCV in energy behavior models and contribute to closing the attitudinal-behavioral gap observed in earlier sustainability research.

Research utilizing the Green Consumer Values scale spans a wide array of themes, ranging from sustainable product choices and energy-efficient behaviors to participation in renewable energy communities and environmentally driven policy acceptance. For instance, Shabbir [8] found that GCV significantly influenced consumer behavioral intentions toward adopting energy-efficient vehicles (EEVs). The study highlighted that while functional value was the strongest predictor, symbolic and emotional components of GCV also played a statistically significant role, especially when mediated by environmental attitudes.

Similarly, Cambra-Fierro et al. [9] demonstrated that GCVs underpin citizen participation in green public–private partnerships within the energy sector. GCVs were shown to foster stakeholder alignment and inter-organizational trust, particularly when environmental goals were made transparent and participatory.

The growing emphasis on energy transition in Europe and globally has repositioned the citizens from a passive recipient of electricity to an active participant in decentralized, renewable-based energy systems [10]. In this context, green consumer values function as a foundational condition for broad social acceptance and grassroots engagement in energy innovation.

Studies on Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) demonstrate that individuals with strong GCV are more likely to engage as prosumers, participate in shared PV installations, or advocate for local energy autonomy [9,10]. Moreover, such individuals may be more receptive to collective incentive schemes promoting equity and low-carbon behavior. As Hoffmann-Burdzińska et al. [2] observe, the off-site behavioral impact of GCV- such as encouraging others to save energy or participating in community-level initiatives—suggests their catalytic role in the diffusion of energy transition norms beyond the individual household.

Furthermore, Kuyer et al. [11] note that digital energy nudging strategies, if designed ethically and transparently, could be more effective when targeting individuals with high environmental value orientations. Thus, value-based segmentation can significantly enhance the efficacy of both market-based mechanisms (e.g., dynamic tariffs) and policy-driven tools (e.g., demand-side management or green labeling).

In sum, GCV are not merely latent personality traits but actionable levers in the emerging ecosystem of sustainable energy. Their predictive validity across various domains position them as a vital asset for energy transition policies aiming to build a culture of environmental responsibility, innovation, and participation.

2.2. Consumer Energy Awareness

Consumer Energy Awareness (CEA) is a multidimensional construct referring to individuals’ cognitive understanding, informational literacy, and behavioral responsiveness regarding energy production, consumption, and its environmental consequences [2]. It plays an increasingly vital role in shaping sustainable consumption and in empowering citizens to take part in the global energy transition.

Recent scholarship has reinforced the centrality of energy awareness in a variety of domains. For example, Jaber et al. [3] found that CEA is a strong predictor of solar energy adoption among Jordanian households. Their research demonstrated that even in contexts of moderate income and partial energy poverty, awareness significantly enhances the intention to adopt solar panels, mediating the influence of perceived behavioral control.

Similarly, Nakai et al. [12] found that consumers with higher awareness of energy costs and environmental implications were more likely to pay for highly efficient air conditioning appliances, and less susceptible to rebound effects, thus contributing meaningfully to climate mitigation goals.

Xia et al. [13] further validated the role of energy awareness in the domain of electric mobility. In their study of BEV adoption, energy and environmental awareness emerged as significant predictors of both product familiarity and purchase intention, alongside sociodemographic factors such as education and age. These results indicate that awareness is not a passive knowledge base, but an active enabler of sustainable market behavior.

Moreover, Nong and Xue [14] proposed a chain mediation model in which energy and environmental awareness indirectly influenced new energy vehicle (NEV) purchase intention through green self-efficacy and offline experiential behavior. Their findings underscore the behavioral transformation potential of awareness when combined with motivational and affective components.

Although conceptually distinct, Consumer Energy Awareness (CEA) and Green Consumer Values (GCV) are closely interrelated constructs. GCV refer to deep-seated moral and normative beliefs regarding environmental responsibility in consumption [1], whereas CEA reflects situational knowledge and behavioral relevance in the energy domain. However, numerous empirical findings suggest that GCV function as a motivational foundation, while CEA mediates between values and action [9,14].

In particular, GCV may predict the development of CEA, as individuals with high environmental value salience are more likely to seek out information, engage with sustainability discourse, and increase their domain-specific knowledge over time. Conversely, growing awareness—facilitated by policy campaigns or peer communication—may reinforce green values by providing cognitive justification for environmentally aligned behavior.

This bidirectional relationship aligns with value–attitude–behavior models [15] and helps explain why some individuals with high GCV fail to act sustainably: because their energy awareness remains low. Conversely, targeted awareness interventions can act as triggers for value activation, making abstract environmental commitments tangible through everyday decisions such as electricity use or appliance purchases.

Both constructs—CEA and GCV—play foundational roles in enabling a just, inclusive, and effective energy transition. As shown in recent studies, prosumer participation in Renewable Energy Communities [10], responsiveness to dynamic energy tariffs [16], and support for circular resource use [17] are all significantly strengthened when consumers combine strong environmental values with high levels of energy awareness.

Moreover, digital and behavioral policy instruments—such as opt-in tariffs, energy labeling, or participatory planning—are more effective when targeted at value-aware, energy-literate segments of the population [11,13]. These citizens not only engage in sustainable behavior, but also influence peer norms, generating spillover effects that accelerate systemic change.

In sum, the combined presence of Green Consumer Values and Consumer Energy Awareness constitutes a powerful catalyst for energy transformation. While values anchor behavior in identity and morality, awareness provides the practical tools and context-specific knowledge to translate intention into action. As such, both constructs should be integrated into the design of energy transition strategies, public policy, and sustainability marketing campaigns.

2.3. Knowledge of Energy Savings

The importance of energy-saving behaviors has been noticed by researchers [18]. Numerous studies imply that consumers more aware of the importance of energy-saving activities are more willing to practice energy-saving behaviors [19]. The impact of both internal (such as knowledge, attitudes, concern, responsibility and values) and external factors (such as policies and social norms) on energy-saving has been studied extensively [20], with often contradicting or inconclusive results. One of the internal factors studied in the literature is consumers’ knowledge. Although knowledge does not always lead to the expected behavioral results, there is a strong relationship between them, leading from knowledge to behavior through acceptance and intention [21]. As the functioning of the modern societies becomes more knowledge intensive, the role of knowledge in shaping individual perceptions and awareness becomes more important [22]. Numerous studies confirmed the importance of consumer knowledge in various contexts of adoption of green technologies and behaviors. The more knowledge consumers have, or they perceive they have on specific green technologies, the more they can appreciate their benefits [23]. Knowledge of products or technologies can influence the decision to adopt or reject them, slowing the diffusion of beneficial solutions across markets [24]. Perkins et al. [23] found that the perceived knowledge of energy systems and technologies significantly increased consumers’ adoption intention. Although research of knowledge of green energy technologies is still limited, and focusing on specific products or solutions, the general picture emerges that the more knowledge consumers have or think they have, the stronger is their intention to adopt them. More knowledgeable consumers tend to have more positive attitudes towards various environmental public policies [25]. Hence, knowledge is instrumental to achieve their effects [26]. Environmental knowledge can increase intention to adopt green energy solutions like solar PV panels [27]. Knowledge is also linked to stronger willingness to pay for green energy [28]. Consumer knowledge in various contexts is also linked to their innovativeness, which in turn impacts the adoption of green solutions [25]. Knowledge of energy-saving is one of the factors that impacts energy-saving behaviors [2]. The greater the knowledge consumers have about energy use, the stronger motivation they exhibit to change their behaviors and to improve the efficiency of their energy use [29]. Knowledge also impacts consumers’ willingness to control energy consumption and spending [30]. Consumers can exhibit energy-saving behaviors both at home and outside of it. At home, energy-saving behaviors may include more efficient use of already owned appliances, buying and using energy-efficient ones, or unplugging unused devices. Similar activities can be undertaken in workplaces and public spaces such as educational facilities. Energy-saving behaviors can manifest themselves with more frequent use of public transportation instead of private cars. A number of studies confirmed the role of knowledge in the context of purchases of energy-saving appliances. For example, Pothitou, Hanna and Chalvatzis [31] found that environmental knowledge and household energy-saving were positively correlated. However, they found only limited evidence for relationship between environmental knowledge and ownership and frequency of use of household appliances.

2.4. Perception of Energy-Saving Costs

Consumers tend to choose solutions that bring them the most perceived benefits relative to the perceived costs involved [5]. The total perceived cost is a subjective result of evaluation of various types of perceived sub-costs incurred, such as financial, temporal, psychological, processual, comfort and convenience-related, many of which are often difficult to account for. When it comes to energy-saving, numerous perceived benefits such as the economic benefits of lower electricity bills, psychological benefits of being environmentally responsible or social benefits of “doing the right thing” can be diminished by various perceived costs such as financial cost of investment in energy-efficient appliances or cost of effort and lowered comfort of life. The perceived costs of energy-saving may constitute a barrier to energy conservation and reduce consumers’ willingness to reduce energy consumption. Sheoran and Kumar [32] found high purchase price to be primary barrier to energy-saving. Zamanipour and Keppo [33] pointed at comfort to be important factor. Limited knowledge about energy can negatively impact cost perception of energy-saving solutions. Less knowledgeable consumers were found to overestimate the cost of their energy consumption [6]. Consumers may have problems with accurate estimation of real cost of energy and benefits of energy-saving, as their assessments are biased; for example they use home appliances under imperfect knowledge about their marginal cost. At the same time, consumers who perceive their electricity bills as too high tend to spend more on energy-saving solutions [34], which is evident especially with bigger home appliances, such as fridges [35]. The results of some studies suggest that high perceived costs of energy-saving can be offset by spikes in electricity prices. These play crucial role in shaping energy consumption patterns, both through selection and utilization of appliances and altering energy consumption habits [20].

2.5. Energy Efficiency Behaviors and Curtailment Behaviors

Pro-environmental behaviors do not constitute a homogeneous category. The literature clearly distinguishes such behaviors based on the type of decision involved [15,36]. Some types of decisions, such as infrequent ones concerning the purchase of large household appliances, typically have a much greater environmental impact than others, such as changes in the way the appliance is used. The outcomes of these decisions comprise two complementary types of actions: Energy Efficiency Behaviors (EEB) and Curtailment Behaviors (CB) [37,38,39]. Both of these types can be regarded as end results of an individual’s engagement in environmental protection efforts.

Energy Efficiency Behaviors are associated with increasing energy efficiency and are defined as high-commitment purchase decisions. These actions aim for a permanent reduction in energy consumption through infrastructure modernization or the purchase of new equipment. This includes, for example, investing in energy-saving light bulbs, replacing old and inefficient household appliances with new, high-energy-class ones, upgrading heating systems, insulating buildings, or installing smart energy management systems [39]. Such behaviors are infrequent but relatively costly and require financial resources, knowledge, and planning capabilities [40]. Energy Efficiency Behaviors are strongly linked to mechanisms described in the Theory of Planned Behavior [41], particularly the concept of perceived behavioral control, i.e., the sense of control over one’s actions and belief in their feasibility. EEB-related decisions are influenced not only by rational calculations but also by susceptibility to social influence. Consumers more susceptible to peer opinions are more likely to undertake investment actions if they are socially approved [42]. EEBs are considered a form of pro-environmental behavior grounded in both cognitive resources and social conditions. It is also worth noting that these behaviors have a significant environmental impact only at the collective level, when many individuals independently act in the same way [43].

Curtailment Behaviors focus on the daily reduction in resource consumption through changes in habits and routines. These include, among others, saving water, reducing energy use, or limiting car usage. Specific actions in this category encompass turning off lights, taking shorter showers, avoiding unnecessary use of electrical devices, or lowering heating temperatures [44,45,46]. Curtailment Behaviors are continuous, repetitive, and low-cost, yet they require regular effort from consumers, which may pose certain inconveniences. Crucially, they demand systematic self-control and intrinsic motivation [15]. Unlike EEB, CB does not require technical knowledge or financial resources. Their effectiveness relies on the internalization of norms and pro-environmental identity. These actions often represent the first step on the path to environmental engagement and may lead to further involvement, such as purchasing energy-efficient appliances [39]. Curtailment Behaviors are primarily explained by the Value-Belief-Norm Theory (VBN) [15], in which the activation of personal norms—internal moral obligations to act in line with pro-environmental values—plays a key role. A high level of environmental awareness and a belief in the impact of one’s own behavior on the environment are important predictors of CB adoption [47,48].

Both types of behaviors—Energy Efficiency Behaviors (EEB) and Curtailment Behaviors (CB)—are considered key components of consumers’ pro-environmental behavior. While EEB generates greater savings in the long term, CB is more accessible and easier to implement. An effective energy transition requires the presence of both types of actions, and their synergistic interaction enables the achievement of lasting and scalable environmental outcomes. Research on Energy Efficiency Behaviors (EEB) and Curtailment Behaviors (CB) has been conducted by, among others, Thøgersen and Grønhøj [49], Poortinga et al. [50], Bolderdijk et al. [51], and Jaciow et al. [52]. However, these studies investigated similar constructs in different social and cultural contexts.

2.6. Model Development

In the proposed model, Green Consumer Values play a crucial role in shaping their cognitive and perceptual processes related to energy conservation. These values positively influence both knowledge about energy-savings and consumer awareness of energy usage, which reflect consumers’ understanding and attentiveness to energy-saving practices. As a result, both knowledge and awareness help shape consumers’ perceptions of the costs associated with energy-saving measures. Generally, increased knowledge tends to reduce the perceived sacrifices tied to adopting energy-efficient behaviors. This suggests that consumers who are better informed and driven by green values are more likely to view energy-saving actions as less costly or more beneficial. Ultimately, these interconnected factors impact pro-environmental behaviors: while a negative perception of costs can hinder such behaviors, knowledge and awareness serve as positive influences, each strengthening different types of energy-saving actions.

The conceptual framework of this study is grounded in both the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory [15] and the Theory of Planned Behavior [41]. Such an integration of these two theories is a commonly applied approach in studies examining the determinants of pro-environmental consumer behavior [53,54,55,56]. Stern [57] introduced the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory, which suggests that personal values affect pro-environmental behavior indirectly through environmental beliefs and the activation of personal norms [58]. The validity of the VBN framework has been supported by empirical studies examining behavioral intentions related to ecological and environmental protection. According to the VBN theory, actions guided by personal norms stem from an individual’s commitment to certain core values, their recognition of threats to what they value, and their belief that personal behavior can effectively counteract these threats and help preserve those values [59].

In the proposed model, Green Consumer Values act as personal values that drive knowledge of energy-savings and enhance consumer awareness of energy issues. This increased knowledge and awareness, in turn, affect how individuals perceive the costs associated with energy-saving measures. Knowledge and awareness are integral components of environmental beliefs and understanding of consequences. The perceived costs can be seen as factors that influence the evaluation of the outcomes of actions and the perceived barriers to taking those actions. Ultimately, pro-environmental behavior is seen as the result of acting in accordance with internalized norms.

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [41] suggests that the influence factors of individual behavior can be attributed to personal attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [53]. TPB expands upon the theory of reasoned action (TRA), which incorporates perceived behavioral control. TPB has become a widely applied framework in green marketing research, especially in the context of analyzing pro-environmental consumer behavior [60]. In the proposed model, consumer values influence attitudes; knowledge and awareness enhance the sense of control and the intention to act, while the perception of costs reduces both perceived control and motivation.

The interaction between the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) framework and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in our model highlights complementary mechanisms through which pro-environmental behaviors are formed. Green Consumer Values (GCV) act as antecedent values within the VBN chain, shaping moral orientations and fostering the activation of personal norms toward energy conservation. These values also enhance Knowledge of Energy Saving (KES) and Consumer Energy Awareness (CEA), which function as belief components that both strengthen normative commitments (VBN) and, within the TPB framework, build perceived behavioral control by providing individuals with informational and cognitive resources. In this way, KES is closely linked to high-commitment, investment-oriented Energy Efficiency Behaviors (EEB), while CEA facilitates more routine, low-cost Curtailment Behaviors (CB). At the same time, Perception Energy-Saving Costs (PESC) operate as a barrier across both frameworks—weakening the activation of personal norms and diminishing perceived behavioral control—thereby reducing the likelihood of behavioral enactment. This integrated view demonstrates that values-driven norm activation (VBN) and enhanced perceptions of control (TPB) jointly underpin pro-environmental behaviors, but their translation into action is contingent on mitigating perceived cost barriers.

Building on the literature review findings, we developed a research model, as shown in Figure 1.

The following research hypotheses were formulated:

H1. 

Green Customer Values Positively affect the Knowledge of Energy Saving.

H2. 

Green Customer Values Negatively affect the Perception of Energy-Saving Costs.

H3. 

Green Customer Values positively affect Consumer Energy Awareness.

H4. 

Knowledge of Energy-Saving negatively affects the Perception of Energy-Saving Costs.

H5. 

Consumer Energy Awareness positively affects the Perception of Energy-Saving Costs.

H6. 

Knowledge of Energy-Saving positively affects Energy Efficiency Behavior.

H7. 

Consumer Energy Awareness positively affects Curtailment Behavior.

H8. 

Perception of Energy-Saving Costs negatively affects Energy Efficiency Behavior.

H9. 

Perception of Energy-Saving Costs negatively affects Curtailment Behavior.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Questionnaire Development

A questionnaire based on the literature was used in the study (Table 1). Respondents were asked to express their opinions using a standardized five-point Likert scale (ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”). The questionnaire was divided into sections measuring specific constructs. The section on Green Consumer Value (GCV) was based on the scale proposed by Nair, Gustavsson, and Mahapatra [61]. The scales concerning Knowledge of Energy Saving (KES) and Consumer Energy Awareness (CEA) were developed on the basis of social research conducted by RWE Polska [62], Ropuszyńska-Surma and Węglarz [63], CBOS [64], and Słupik [65]. The subsequent part of the questionnaire included the Perception of Energy-Saving Costs (PESC) scale, adapted from Frederiks et al. [5]. The research tool also incorporated a scale for Curtailment Behavior (CB), developed by Kaiser and Wilson [66]. To measure Energy Efficiency Behavior (EEB), the scales of Khare [42] and Kaiser and Wilson [66] were employed. The questionnaire also collected data on respondents’ characteristics, including gender, age, education, number of household members, place of residence, and self-assessment of material status. The use of a five-point Likert scale played a crucial role in capturing nuanced differences in respondents’ attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors. This scale not only allowed for the operationalization of latent constructs in line with the theoretical model but also enabled structural equation modeling that incorporated cognitive components (knowledge and awareness), perceptual elements (perceived costs), and behavioral outcomes (energy-saving behaviors). The Likert scale made it possible to observe the internal variation in the intensity of green consumer values and their translation into specific actions from high-commitment investments in energy-efficient technologies to habitual curtailment behaviors. The uniform measurement structure enhanced the analytical consistency of the model and allowed for precise estimation of the mediating and moderating roles of psychological constructs along the decision-making pathways leading to pro-environmental behavior.

Table 1. Measuring scales’ items.

Measuring Scales’ Items
Green Consumer Values (GCV) based on [61]
1. I care about products that are safe for the environment 2. I often reflect on how my choices might affect nature before deciding 3. Environmental issues play a role in how I decide what to purchase 4. I am worried about the overuse and waste of our planet’s resources 5. I see myself as someone who makes environmentally conscious decisions
Knowledge on Energy Saving (KES) based on [62,63,64,65]
1. I know some good ways to save energy 2. I know energy ratings of home appliances 3. I understand bulb efficiency classes 4. I know how much energy devices use 5. I am aware that energy use affects the environment
Consumer Energy Awareness (CEA) based on [62,63,64,65]
1. I know my electricity tariff 2. I understand my energy bill 3. I know electricity prices 4. I’m aware of my electricity costs 5. I track how much electricity I use
Perception of Energy-Saving Costs (PESC) based on [5]
1. It takes a lot of effort to save energy 2. Saving energy reduces comfort 3. Buying energy-efficient products doesn’t pay off 4. Saving energy is hard to do every day
Curtailment Behavior (CB) based on [66]
1. We unplug chargers when not in use 2. We switch off lights when leaving a room 3. We use ECO mode on the washer/dishwasher 4. We boil only as much water as needed 5. We cook with lids on 6. We use the dishwasher only when fully loaded
Energy Efficiency Behavior (EEB) baded on [42,66]
1. I choose appliances with top energy efficiency 2. I have bought energy-saving bulbs, even if they cost more 3. My home is equipped with energy-saving appliances

Source: Own preparation based on: [5,42,61,62,63,64,65,66].

Table 1. Measuring scales’ items.

Measuring Scales’ Items
Green Consumer Values (GCV) based on [61]
1. I care about products that are safe for the environment 2. I often reflect on how my choices might affect nature before deciding 3. Environmental issues play a role in how I decide what to purchase 4. I am worried about the overuse and waste of our planet’s resources 5. I see myself as someone who makes environmentally conscious decisions
Knowledge on Energy Saving (KES) based on [62,63,64,65]
1. I know some good ways to save energy 2. I know energy ratings of home appliances 3. I understand bulb efficiency classes 4. I know how much energy devices use 5. I am aware that energy use affects the environment
Consumer Energy Awareness (CEA) based on [62,63,64,65]
1. I know my electricity tariff 2. I understand my energy bill 3. I know electricity prices 4. I’m aware of my electricity costs 5. I track how much electricity I use
Perception of Energy-Saving Costs (PESC) based on [5]
1. It takes a lot of effort to save energy 2. Saving energy reduces comfort 3. Buying energy-efficient products doesn’t pay off 4. Saving energy is hard to do every day
Curtailment Behavior (CB) based on [66]
1. We unplug chargers when not in use 2. We switch off lights when leaving a room 3. We use ECO mode on the washer/dishwasher 4. We boil only as much water as needed 5. We cook with lids on 6. We use the dishwasher only when fully loaded
Energy Efficiency Behavior (EEB) baded on [42,66]
1. I choose appliances with top energy efficiency 2. I have bought energy-saving bulbs, even if they cost more 3. My home is equipped with energy-saving appliances

Source: Own preparation based on: [5,42,61,62,63,64,65,66].

3.2. Data Collections

This study is grounded in the results of a quantitative survey conducted using the CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing) method. The CAWI method offers several advantages, including low implementation costs, rapid data collection, and the ability to reach a wide and diverse group of respondents. However, it also entails certain limitations, such as the exclusion of individuals without internet access and the potential for lower response quality due to the absence of interviewer support. Despite these constraints, the method remains effective when the survey is carefully designed, and the questions are clearly formulated. At the outset, respondents were informed about the aim and scope of the research, and assured of full anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. All personal data were collected in a completely anonymous manner.

Before the main study, a pilot test was conducted to refine the preliminary version of the questionnaire. Thirty households participated in this pre-test phase. The research team carefully reviewed the translation of individual items, defining specific variables, into the respondents’ native language. The linguistic adaptation of a research instrument aims to improve its validity and reliability by adjusting the translation of items to fit the language and cultural context of the respondents, ensuring semantic equivalence with the original version of the test. Additionally, based on an initial reliability analysis (Cronbach’s alpha), several items that lowered the internal consistency within certain constructs were removed. These procedures enhanced both the content and validity of the questionnaire. As a result, a revised and more effective research instrument was developed and subsequently used in the main study.

Subsequently, the improved version of the survey was scaled and implemented on a broader sample. The final data collection was conducted in 2022 and provided insights into energy efficiency and deliberate sustainable energy use among Polish households. The study initially involved 1500 participants. Following a comprehensive data cleaning process aimed at verifying response accuracy and completeness, the final dataset comprised 1405 valid cases for analysis.

3.3. Sample

A non-random, purposive sampling method was used to select individuals from specific age groups in Poland, aiming for high representativeness among Generation X and Generation Y, each making up slightly over 31% of the total respondents. The research sample included individuals from all 16 voivodeships in Poland. In total 1405 questionnaires were accepted for analysis after verification.

Women had a slight advantage over men in the survey sample (55.4% vs. 41.8%); 2.8% of respondents refused to answer this question.

Considering age, two groups dominated: 23–40 years old (31.2%) and 41–52 years old (31.6%). The youngest (18–22 years old) and the oldest (53 years and older) groups were smaller but similarly represented, accounting for 18.1% and 19.1% of respondents, respectively.

More than half of the respondents (55.6%) had higher education, 36.0% had secondary education, while 6.4% and 2.0% had vocational and primary education, respectively.

In terms of household size, four-person households (27.3%) and two-person households (26.0%) were the most common, followed by three-person households (22.2%). The largest households (five or more persons) accounted for 14.9%, while one-person households made up 9.6% of the sample.

About one-quarter of the respondents (24.8%) lived in rural areas, with a similarly sized group (26.7%) coming from small towns with up to 100,000 residents. Medium-sized cities (up to 500,000 residents) account for 31.6% of respondents, while the largest cities (over 500,000 residents) represent 16.9%.

Based on the type of property occupied, 50.1% of respondents reported living in an apartment in multi-family housing, 41.6% in a detached house, and 8.3% in a terraced house.

Analyzing the sample structure in terms of average monthly energy costs, one in three respondents (34.7%) pays between 23 and 44 euros, and one in four (25.5%) pays between 45 and 66 euros. For 17.1% of respondents, the energy bill does not exceed 22 euros. Relatively high bills (67–88 euros) are paid by 13.0% of respondents, while the highest costs (89 euros or more) were reported by 9.7%.

Considering the electricity tariff type, the fixed tariff was predominant, selected by 78.2% of respondents, whereas 21.8% reported using a variable tariff.

3.4. Methods of Empirical Analysis

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is commonly employed to simultaneously illustrate and assess multiple statistical relationships through visualization and model validation [67]. The data in the form of latent variable indicators were analyzed using the covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) methodology with IBM SPSS AMOS 29 software. The model was estimated using the maximum-likelihood (ML) estimator. CB-SEM has become widely used in management research [68,69]. It is important to highlight several key advantages of this method. It integrates advanced multivariate techniques like path analysis and factor analysis, enabling examining complex relationships within a unified framework. CB-SEM also accounts for measurement error in predictor and outcome variables, leading to more accurate parameter estimates and better control over observed and latent constructs. Additionally, it allows for the comparison of competing theoretical models, helping to identify those that are theoretically sound and statistically precise while balancing model complexity and explanatory power [68,70].

4. Results

The reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. Values between 0.7 and 0.9 are acceptable for both indicators [70]. The actual reliability is between Cronbach’s Alpha and Composite Reliability. The measure used to assess the convergent validity of a construct is the average variance extracted (AVE) for all elements of each construct. An acceptable AVE value is 0.50 or higher. As shown in

Table 2. Reliability and validity of the construct.

Latent Variables	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Green Consumer Values	0.891	0.920	0.698
Knowledge of Energy Saving	0.834	0.883	0.602
Consumer Energy Awareness	0.893	0.923	0.702
Perception of Energy-Saving Cost	0.809	0.874	0.636
Energy Efficiency Behavior	0.822	0.893	0.737
Curtailment Behavior	0.707	0.802	0.503

Source: own calculation.

, all the indicators described have reached the desired value.

Discriminant validity was assessed according to the Fornel–Lackner criterion. The square root of AVE should be greater than the correlations of a given construct with other constructs (

Table 3. Discriminant validity, Fornell-Lackner criterion.

	Consumer Energy Awareness	Curtailment Behavior	Energy Efficiency Behavior	Green Consumer Values	Knowledge of Energy Saving	Perception of Energy-Saving Cost
Consumer Energy Awareness	0.838
Curtailment Behavior	0.320	0.709
Energy Efficiency Behavior	0.196	0.561	0.859
Green Consumer Values	0.136	0.346	0.372	0.835
Knowledge of Energy Saving	0.517	0.446	0.465	0.381	0.776
Perception of Energy-Saving Cost	−0.044	−0.242	−0.273	−0.340	0.249	797

Source: own calculation.

).

The model presents a good fit to the data. The dependent variables are explained by the model, with R² reaching 0.35 for energy efficient behavior and 0.21 for curtailment behavior (Figure 2).

The impact of green consumer values on knowledge energy-saving is significant and positive (0.434, p < 0.001) as is the impact of green consumer values on consumer energy awareness (0.185, p < 0.001). In turn, green consumer values negatively affect perception of energy-saving cost (−0.344, p < 0.000). Knowledge of energy-saving impacts energy efficiency behavior (0.488, p < 0.000). This impact is stronger than the influence of consumer energy awareness on curtailment behavior (0.355, p < 0.001). In turn, perception of energy-saving cost negatively influences both energy efficiency behavior (−0.213, p = 0.000) and curtailment behavior (−0.302, p < 0.01). Model fit: CMIN/df = 4.211; GFI = 0.935; AGFI = 0.917; TLI = 0.932; RMSEA 0.048. As shown in

Table 4. Evaluation of the proposed model: accuracy and robustness metrics.

Metrics	Threshold	Value Obtained	Interpretation
Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI)	>0.95 (0.90 too)	0.935	Acceptable
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI)	>0.9	0.917	Acceptable
Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI)	≥0.9 >0.95	0.932	Acceptable
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)	<0.08	0.048	Good model fit
CMIN/df	<3.0 (even <5.0)	4.211	Acceptable
Composite Reliability (CR)	≥0.7	0.802–0.923	High construct reliability
Average Variance Extracted (AVE)	>0.5	0.503–0.737	Good convergent validity
Cronbach’s alpha	≥0.7	0.707–0.891	Acceptable

Source: Own calculations; thresholds based on: [67,70].

, the model demonstrates good fit and strong construct reliability.

The hypotheses formulated have, thus, all been positively verified (

Table 5. Hypothesis verification.

Latent Variables	Estimate	p-Value	Verification
H1: Green Customer Values positively affect the Knowledge of Energy Saving	0.434	p < 0.001	Supported
H2: Green Customer Values negatively affect the Perception of Energy-Saving Costs	−0.344	p < 0.001	Supported
H3: Green Customer Values positively affect Consumer Energy Awareness	0.185	p < 0.001	Supported
H4: Knowledge of Energy Saving negatively affects the Perception of Energy-Saving Costs	0.629	p < 0.001	Supported
H5: Consumer Energy Awareness positively affects the Perception of Energy-Saving Costs	−0.163	p < 0.01	Supported
H6: Knowledge of Energy Saving positively affects Energy Efficiency Behavior	0.488	p < 0.001	Supported
H7: Consumer Energy Awareness positively affects Curtailment Behavior	0.355	p < 0.001	Supported
H8: Perception of Energy-Saving Costs negatively affects Energy Efficiency Behavior	−0.213	p < 0.001	Supported
H9: Perception of Energy-Saving Costs negatively affects Curtailment Behavior	−0.302	p < 0.001	Supported

Source: Own study.

).

5. Discussion

The results presented follow the theoretical model of the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory in that pro-environmental behavior is argued to be the product of strongly held values, moderated by beliefs and triggered norms [71,72,73]. Empirical results of the study portray Green Consumer Values as the antecedent base, showing a strong direct impact on energy-related awareness and knowledge. These two structures of belief—knowledge and awareness of energy-saving—are belief-determined variables that reinforce the premise of duty to environmentally meaningful action. High positive correlations between green values and knowledge (0.434 standardized coefficient) and awareness (0.185 standardized coefficient) confirm the VBN sequence in which values shape beliefs that ultimately bring forth morally guided behavior [74].

The internalized moral obligation, or personal standard, as operationalized in the VBN model [75,76], is measured indirectly in the study with two conceptually related but behaviorally independent outcomes: Energy Efficiency Behavior (EEB) and Curtailment Behavior (CB). The results verify that perceived cost of energy-saving—an evaluative assessment on the basis of anticipated inconvenience or resource expense—negatively affects both EEB and CB. These beliefs are obstacles in the VBN process, potentially negating the translation of activated norms to actual action [77]. But when consumers are cognitively empowered with a sufficient amount of information and awareness, such cognitive empowerment diminishes the perceived cost and makes the normative commitment to manifest behaviorally. The statistically significant findings obtained confirm the model’s hypothesis that values and beliefs not only are but also are under conditions of a change in behavior; they need to be supplemented with cognitive accessibility, and reduced psychological or practical hurdles.

The EEB/CB distinction allows for more precise understanding of VBN dynamics in daily choice-making procedures [78,79]. EEB, being knowledge-based and low-frequency behavior, are more reliant on rational consideration and empowerment through knowledge, in accordance with the VBN theory priority on cognitive thinking in terms of consequences. CB, however, is based on habit, low-cost behavior spurred by internalized norms and self-regulation. Findings show that even though both knowledge and awareness are predominant, their respective impacts vary—knowledge impacts EEB more (β = 0.488), while awareness impacts CB more (β = 0.355). This branch expands the VBN model’s explanatory power in the domain of various behavioral modalities by stressing that although values and beliefs are the source of action, the way to enactment is subject to conditions based on the type of behavior and related costs and cognitive burdens.

The structural model verifies that explanatory power is preserved for VBN theory when combined with perceptual variables like cost appraisals and in the case of energy consumer behaviors in Poland [56,59]. The sum of explained variance—35% for energy-saving behavior and 21% for reducing behavior—witnessed empirical evidence for the predictive validity of the VBN theory in applied contexts. The research not only substantiates the conceptual underpinnings of the theory but also demonstrates how transplanted green values, relocated to a modern socio-economic setting, can stimulate systemic change in energy consumption behavior. In its empirically grounded application of the VBN instrument, the research adds further weight to the theory’s core contention: that value-based belief systems trigger sustainable change, and that these, stimulated by awareness and reduced perceived cost, precipitate norm-consistent, ecologically appropriate action [80,81].

The empirical results of the paper support the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which assumes behavior as a function of intention, in turn controlled by three inherent factors: personal attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [82,83,84]. In terms of energy-saving and environmentally conscious activities, the research verifies that consumer knowledge of saving energy and energy awareness—constructed as cognitive-affective correlates—are positively affected by Green Consumer Values. These effects indirectly reinforce constructive attitudes towards energy-saving behaviors, implying that people with internalized environmental values are apt to regard energy-saving practices as desirable, ethical, and congruent with the self-concept. Therefore, attitudinal dispositions that come from value salience constitute the first level of motivation of the TPB model [83].

The evidence also demonstrates that awareness and knowledge contribute to perceived behavioral control by providing people with informational resources and self-efficacy to achieve energy-saving behavior. The positive effect of knowledge on energy-efficient behavior (β = 0.488) substantiates TPB’s assertion that perceived competence and access to resources—indicatively termed herein as informational and cognitive resources—are principal facilitators of intention translation to action [84,85]. Concurrently, the negative effect between perceived costs of saving energy and both energy-efficient and curtailment behaviors confirms the bar-rising effect of anticipated effort, in-convenience, or cost. These cost perceptions are to be taken in the sense of perceived behavioral barriers lowering the probability of behavior enactment, particularly when not supplemented by firm attitudinal commitment or normative pressure [3,86].

Subjective norms—albeit not directly measured—are necessarily embedded in the nature of curtailment behaviors, which are low-cost, repetitive, and frequently socially visible. The positive influence of consumer energy consciousness on curtailment behavior (β = 0.355) could imply that as individuals have knowledge about their own energy usage and its social impact, they adhere to assumed social norms. In the TPB model, conformity is equivalent to normative influence, particularly if reinforced through social stories about conserving energy [87,88]. Thus, the current study provides empirical support for the applicability of the TPB to environmental behavior, with the statement that pro-environmental behavior is not so much a matter of value or intention but also a product of situationally perceived barriers, social influence, and belief in behavior feasibility [89,90].

To strengthen the theoretical contribution of our work, it is important to explicitly articulate how the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) framework and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) complement each other in explaining our findings. In our model, Green Consumer Values (GCV) initiate the VBN sequence by fostering moral and cognitive orientations that activate personal norms toward energy conservation. This is reflected in their significant influence on both Knowledge of Energy Saving (KES; β = 0.434) and Consumer Energy Awareness (CEA; β = 0.185), which function as belief components enabling norm activation. Simultaneously, these same constructs serve a crucial role in the TPB framework by enhancing perceived behavioral control (PBC): KES equips individuals with domain-specific knowledge required for high-commitment Energy Efficiency Behaviors (EEB), while CEA strengthens contextual understanding and self-efficacy supporting Curtailment Behaviors (CB). Thus, the pathways observed in our results can be interpreted as complementary processes, where values-driven norm activation (VBN) and enhanced control perceptions (TPB) jointly drive pro-environmental action. Importantly, the negative impact of Perception Energy-Saving Costs (PESC) on both EEB (β = −0.213) and CB (β = −0.302) highlights its dual role as a barrier, simultaneously suppressing the translation of activated norms into behavior and undermining perceived control. This integration underscores the need for interventions that not only strengthen green values but also lower perceived behavioral barriers, thereby aligning normative commitments with feasible action.

Seasonal fluctuations—particularly high winter demand for heating and rising summer demand for cooling—strongly affect both energy awareness and subjective savings costs of energy. Polish consumers receive considerably more costly heating in winter, particularly in regions which are reliant on old coal-based networks (e.g., Upper Silesia or parts of Małopolska). This likely peaks at PESC due to higher bills and inefficiencies in infrastructure, perhaps encouraging high-commitment investment (e.g., insulation, heat pumps) but simultaneously discouraging day-to-day curtailing activity via discomfort trade-offs. Summer months, while less energy-demanding in absolute terms, also possess regional stressors—i.e., city air conditioning—that serve to redistribute sensitivity to energy usage, particularly those living in apartment complexes in urban agglomerations. Such a cycle of repeated realignment of energy price and energy practice implies that PESC is not a constant value; rather, it is continuously fine-tuned by ambient temperature and behavioral flexibility for particular months.

Poland has significant territorial inhomogeneity of power infrastructure quality, district heat supply, and renewable energy penetration:

• Higher grid modernization and local PV penetration of Zachodniopomorskie and Wielkopolskie voivodeships in the West and North, respectively, could decrease actual and perceived expenditures of energy-saving activities.
• Eastern and Southeastern provinces (i.e., Podkarpackie, Lubelskie) with dispersed grids and coal hangover dependence have more infrastructural barriers and can view energy-saving investment as less practicable or more burdensome.

These spatial differences mold the dynamics of Green Consumer Values, Awareness, and Behavior since they actually determine the efficacy and feasibility of energy-saving behavior. There could be a rural respondent with high Green Consumer Values but with very high PESC-the expression of which in behavior is going to be constrained.

Longitudinal research designs should, therefore, become part of future studies to better observe these spatiotemporal processes. Methodological steps that could be recommended include the following:

• Panel data capture at quarterly intervals, monitoring the same households’ behavior, awareness, and perceived costs through winter and summer. This enables analysis of change through time and causal inference.
• Time series from smart metering, linking real-time consumption with self-reported PESC and behavioral response over an entire annual cycle. This linkage enables the detection of lag effects, i.e., where awareness builds step by step prior to expression in behavior.
• Cross-lagged path models, which are suitable to find out if awareness change causes or leads to behavioral adaptation can also disentangle the mediation process direction of the structural equation model.

Identifying seasonal and local moderators would be one way of pinpointing the psychological model within context-sensitive ecological rationality. Instead of values, awareness, and PESC as invariable constructs, they instead would have to be conceptualized as plastic and subject to external modification—climatic or infrastructural.

Such finer-grained modeling would

• Offer more predictive accuracy for interventions aimed at particular time windows (e.g., heat-retention measures before winter);
• Enable responsive policy making, synchronizing subsidy windows or information campaigns with periods of peak cognitive receptivity and behavioral necessity;
• Promote equitable energy transition principles through recognition of inherent differences in regional energy exposure and cost incidence.

The results of this research, while based in the Polish socio-economic and cultural context, find an echo in trends in other international contexts, especially in the mediating function of knowledge and awareness in translating green consumer attitudes into behavior. For example, recent studies in Jordan and the Philippines validated that consumer awareness has a positive influence on the acceptance of renewable energy technologies despite energy poverty (Jaber et al. [3]; Lloyd & Nakamura [4]). In the same way, Xia et al. [13] and Nakai et al. [12] illustrated that greater consumer awareness is associated with greater acceptance of energy-efficient appliances and electric vehicles. Yet, for all these similarities, the Polish situation presents different structural and institutional parameters—e.g., post-transition consumer cynicism, legacy infrastructure, and comparatively low interaction with smart grid systems—that will likely moderate the role of knowledge and awareness by themselves. The implication is that while the cognitive pathways are identical, the threshold for their translation into action in Poland will demand more vigorous cost-cutting endeavors and institutional trust-building.

The influence of perceived energy-saving costs (PESC) as a behavioral barrier seems stronger in the Polish setting than in certain Western European research referred to indirectly via general literature overviews (e.g., Broberg & Kažukauskas [6]). The research validates that PESC exerts a negative effect on both high-commitment (EEB) and low-cost (CB) behavior, yet Polish consumers—particularly less knowledgeable ones—tend to overestimate both the cost and usefulness of energy-saving technologies. This distortion can be caused by historically low energy prices, lack of consumer protection agencies, or scarcity of open energy information systems. Whereas Cam-bra-Fierro et al. [9] and Kuyer et al. [11] identified green values and nudge policies as determinative across the European energy systems, the Polish findings indicate a more constrained behavior elasticity where values and awareness need to be supplemented with policy mechanisms targeting subjective cost inflation. These divergences indicate that infrastructural and cultural heritage powerfully shape the interpretation of psychological variables into household energy behavior in post-communist economies.

For Jordan, adoption of photovoltaic systems is highly triggered by energy awareness level even in a state of limited energy poverty. Evidence in this context indicates that awareness, or knowledge about technologies, cost, and expected saving, is enough to make investment in renewable energy considerably more likely [91,92]. In comparison with Polish research, this reveals a great contrast: while consumer energy awareness (CEA) also positively influences pro-environmental behavior in Poland, its relative influence on high-commitment efficiency investments (EEB) is lower than the influence of chosen knowledge of energy saving (KES). Awareness and knowledge are also much impeded by the perception of energy-saving costs (PESC). In Jordan, though, perceived cost seems a lesser barrier—possibly because of greater social acceptance or generous subsidy schemes. In the case of Poland, therefore, awareness is not by itself an action stimulus, except as accompanied by cost-cutting policies, whereas in Jordan awareness works more immediately as a starter for behavior.

Pro-environmental con-sum-per awareness behavior in the Philippines is a more complex dynamic. While higher awareness goes hand in hand with the use of energy-saving appliances, the efficacy of such awareness also depends on whether people can associate the consumption of these appliances as being cost-effective and whether they trust eco-labeling schemes. Literature indicates that Filipino consumers do not only make cognitive but also affective choices founded on responses to environmental labeling and perceived credibility of information sources [12,93,94,95,96,97]. Comparatively to the Polish context, where awareness of energy is pivotal in curtailment behaviors (CB) (β = 0.355), yet is restricted by perceived costs (β = −0.302), the Philippine case underscores social construction and communication of awareness. This implies that although awareness plays a mediating function between action and green values in both nations, its influence in Poland is conditional on institutional trust and cost control, whereas in the Philippines communicative framing and social resonance matter more.

6. Conclusions

The empirical evidence of the research reports that green consumer values (GCV) have a significant and complex impact on consumer cognitions and behaviors towards energy (RQ1). With the structural equation model, GCV has a positive influence on energy-saving knowledge (standardized path coefficient β = 0.434, p < 0.001) and consumer energy consciousness (β = 0.185, p < 0.001), suggesting that those high in environmental concern tend to be conscious and responsive to energy matters. These cognitive factors, in turn, moderate the role of values to yield two pathways of pro-environmental action: energy efficiency behavior (EEB), e.g., purchasing high-efficiency appliances, and curtailment behavior (CB), e.g., routine conservation action. The evidence verifies that knowledge is a good indicator of EEB (β = 0.488), whereas awareness is well correlated with CB (β = 0.355). Additionally, GCV decreased direct perception of energy-saving costs (β = −0.344), previous psychological or financial inhibitions to action. The research thus verifies that GCV was an antecedent building block enabling both cognitive structure (perception and knowledge) and behavioral involvement to energy change, as stipulated by the Value-Belief-Norm theory.

The research gives empirical evidence that perceived energy-saving costs (PESC) have statistically significant and negative effects on energy efficiency behavior (EEB) and curtailment behavior (CB), serving as a psychological and real deterrent to pro-environmental participation (RQ2). Particularly, awareness of high costs associated with energy-saving behavior lowers the chance of investment in energy-saving (β = −0.213, p < 0.001) and lowers the frequency of habitual conservation behavior (β = −0.302, p < 0.001). These outcomes indicate that even when respondents are well-equipped with knowledge and concern about the environment, their behavioral intention might be repressed if they think that energy-saving is costly, effort-insistent, or inconvenient. Strikingly, this subjective cost inhibits otherwise positive impacts of green values and cognitive awareness, underlining its status as a key intervening variable in the value-belief-action chain. Consequently, research implies that subjective and objective cost hurdles should be lessened—via policy incentives, information transparency, or techno-logical ease—to facilitate greater behavioral enactment of sustainability-focused consumer attitudes.

The research indicates that both consumer knowledge of energy-saving practices (KES) and consumer knowledge of energy issues (CEA) are significant mediators in the Green Consumer Values (GCV) and environmentally sustainable behaviors. GCV strongly predict both high levels of KES (β = 0.434, p < 0.001) and CEA (β = 0.185, p < 0.001), both directly influencing two different behavioral domains: energy efficiency behavior (EEB) and curtailment behavior (CB). To our surprise, knowledge is a stronger predictor of EEB (β = 0.488, p < 0.001) because it can be used in investment-type, high-commitment decisions, while awareness is more linked to CB (β = 0.355, p < 0.001), like automatized, low-cost changes. This two-step model of mediation shows that the impact of green values on action is indirect but mediated by cognitive mechanisms yielding informational and contextual bases required for the action to be executed. By bridging the attitudinal-behavioral gap, KES and CEA convert intangible commitments to the environment into context-specific action, thus validating their central role in implementing value-based sustain-ability following the Value-Belief-Norm theory and the Theory of Planned Behavior (RQ3).

On the basis of conducted research the following policy recommendations and action plans are put forward to enhance regional energy efficiency in Poland (though of broader applicability):

I. Policy actions towards promoting green consumer values

• Integrate environmental education into curriculum from pre-school to university for the fostering of long-term ecological responsibility and value creation;
• Build pro-environmental identity through public campaigns associating environmentally sensitive behavior with valued social roles and normative conduct;
• Encourage collective-level activities (e.g., local energy cooperatives, conservation competitions) that facilitate collective action and identity through shared values.

II. Activities to facilitate consumer energy awareness

• Make schemes for electricity billing simple, e.g., real-time visualization of consumption and cost segmentation to build informational literacy;
• Establish compelling digital platforms (e.g., dashboards or mobile apps) that track energy consumption, offer hints at saving, and encourage behavior through feedback mechanisms and gamification;
• Encourage utilities to provide comparative personalized energy user reports with similar households to engage social comparison and sensitivity;

III. Strategies for increasing knowledge of energy-saving

• Adopt mass media and web promotions for effective energy-saving measures (e.g., tips on appliance usage, benefits of insulation);
• Offer technical training and web-based learning modules, especially for senior age groups and low-income households, to minimize energy expenditure and efficiency;
• Offer standard energy-conserving guidelines with new appliance purchases, explaining energy labels, optimal operation, and cost savings over the life of the equipment.

IV. Perceived energy-saving costs—cost reduction strategies

• Increase accessibility of subsidies or tax credits for energy-efficient equipment, retrofitting houses, and solar or wind systems;
• Increase availability of zero- or low-interest green home remodeling loans, especially for low- and middle-income families;
• Simplify administrative procedures for accessing energy-efficiency benefits (e.g., rebate application form, audit request), reducing “processual costs”;
• Promote shared ownership strategies (e.g., collective purchase of solar panels or heat pumps) to reduce initial costs through economies of scale;
• Offer free or low-cost energy-efficient appliances (e.g., LED bulbs, smart plugs) to show tangible savings with little effort.

V. Systemic and cross-sectoral integration

• Coordinate ministry of education, environment, infrastructure, and digital affairs’ efforts to offer systematic home energy-saving action.
• Enable social influencers and local leaders as trustworthy behavior messengers for sustainable practice and disperse behavior spillover.
• Monitoring on a regular basis and household-level evaluation of energy behavior on the basis of smart meter data (with consent), in order to inform policy through regional and socio-demographic variation.

The paper’s core scientific contribution is its empirical testing of the effects of psychological variables—namely, Green Consumer Values, energy-saving behavior knowledge, and consumer energy consciousness—on aggregate patterns of pro-environmental behavior. In its comparison of high-commitment energy efficiency acts to low-cost curtailment acts, the study depicts the process by which perceptual and cognitive variables translate environmental concern into action. The post hoc model, built on the large and representative sample of Polish consumers, identifies the central role of self-perceived energy-saving spending as a barrier mediating behavioral outcomes, even for environmentally concerned consumers. The multi-level analysis transcends cause-and-effect relations and advances the emerging new field of behavioral energy research with its distinguished framework for modeling psychological drivers of sustainable consumption. These conclusions are especially helpful in determining intervention points where policy and communication approaches can best promote energy-saving behavior among various kinds of consumers.

7. Limitations and Future Research

As with any survey, our study has limitations. Relying on the web-based CAWI survey skews our sample toward households with digital devices, potentially missing demographic segments with limited internet access. Using the CAWI survey inherently excludes those without reliable internet access or with lower levels of digital literacy, potentially skewing the results toward more technology-oriented demographic groups. To address this issue, future studies should adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining online surveys with telephone and in-person interviews. This would allow for the inclusion of underrepresented groups and improve the overall representativeness of the sample. Such a methodological extension would enhance the generalizability of the findings to populations less connected to digital technologies, providing a more comprehensive and balanced perspective on the phenomena under investigation. It is worth noting that our cross-sectional review does not account for seasonal and contextual changes such as winter heating spikes or summer cooling demand, which may alter both awareness and perceived energy costs. In this regard, longitudinal designs that include panel data or time-series smart meter readings would shed light on temporal dynamics. Finally, although we conducted a large-scale study across Poland, regional differences in energy infrastructure, local policies, and cultural norms may moderate the relationship between citizens’ awareness of green values and their energy efficiency behavior. Therefore, future comparative subnational or cross-country analyses would clarify how contextual factors shape the pathways of our model.

Building on these pathways, future studies could experiment with adaptive interventions, such as personalized digital incentives based on real-time consumption data, or immersive tools (e.g., virtual reality home audits) to test causal effects for both high-involvement investments and everyday constraints. Integrating machine learning algorithms to predict individual response to different incentive structures could also enable more targeted design of energy policies. Finally, examining the role of emerging phenomena such as peer-to-peer electricity trading or solar cooperatives could expand our understanding of collective and societal influences on sustainable energy practices.