Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Healthy Diets and Demand for the Front-of-Package Labeling: Evidence from Consumption of Fresh Pork
Next Article in Special Issue
Crisis Adaptation in a Thai Community-Based Tourism Setting during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Phenomenological Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluating Electronic Customer Relationship Management System Success: The Mediating Role of Customer Satisfaction
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 19
10.3390/su141912313
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Does Greenwashing Influence the Green Product Experience in Emerging Hospitality Markets Post-COVID-19?

by
Hongfan Zhang
1,
Qurat Ul Ainn
2,
Iram Bashir
3,
Junaid Ul Haq
2,* and
Mark A. Bonn
4
1
School of Humanities, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 614202, China
2
Faculty of Management Sciences, Riphah International University, Faisalabad Campus, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
3
Department of Management Sciences, Government College Women University, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
4
Dedman College of Hospitality & Tourism Management (Ret.), Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(19), 12313; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912313
Submission received: 4 August 2022 / Revised: 25 September 2022 / Accepted: 25 September 2022 / Published: 28 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Rebuilding Sustainable Global Tourism after COVID-19)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this research explores the influence that awareness of green products has on greenwashing, green consumer confusion, and its influence on the green product experience following COVID-19. Consumer behavioral outcomes, including repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions, are addressed. A survey was conducted to analyze the proposed hypotheses. Data were obtained from 440 consumers of hotel industry products (overnight guests). Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to observe the collected data’s validity. Structural equational modelling was then used to support hypothesis testing. Findings documented that greenwashing is adversely linked to the consumer’s green product experience, which then leads to negative WOM and lower repurchase intention. Greenwashing leads to negatively affecting the reputation of marketers, as buyers avoid repeat product purchasing. Moreover, dissatisfied buyers spread negative word-of-mouth about those specific products. This study’s contribution identifies consequences of marketers using greenwashing strategies which confuse buyers about products, and negatively affect consumer intention to repurchase hotel products.

1. Introduction

Green products have become widespread, and their commercial appeal is increasing. Sustainable, eco-friendly components make green products less polluting, more renewable, and ultimately less detrimental to the environment [1,2]. Regardless of technological advances made during this current era, evaluating eco-friendly measures and practices are challenging in terms of adoption and implementation. Many buyers are willing to pay more for sustainable and green products [3]. Additionally, the commitment level towards designing and implementing green practices by businesses offers them a competitive advantage among their competitors while establishing a positive reputation. Several recent studies [4,5] found that most consumers believe they should buy more sustainable services and believe service providers and producers should be held accountable for their environmental practices when providing those products/services [6]. Green products and services have experienced steady growth in sales over the last decade. For example, hybrid and electric automobiles accounted for 35% of all new light-duty vehicles in 2020, despite the “total cost of ownership advantage” remaining with conventional cars. In addition, determinants of green services evaluations and characteristics are still unknown, despite research showing the benefits of green, sustainable consumption [6,7] and the values that drive it [8]. Rather, this green product study has concentrated on defining the post COVID-19 green consumer [9,10]. Sustainable green marketing promotes greater green service purchases [11], consumer perceptions [12], the importance of greenness in-service evaluations [13] and the brand [14]. Thus, the post-COVID-19 era must adopt green practices to preserve the environment with respect to pollution reduction and protection of natural resources for future generations. As the world shifts towards green practices to achieve an eco-friendly environment [15,16], businesses have a social obligation to produce and offer green products to support sustainability through consumer purchasing behavior [17].
This research intends to demonstrate that consumers treat green products and services differently when compared to conventional services and brands. The hospitality and travel industry is recognized as the largest emerging market in most developing countries. Thus, the industry, and specifically hotels, needs to substantiate its commitment to follow sustainable practices and continue adopting/using sustainable products/services in light of consumer fears associated with lodging and the COVID-19 pandemic.
The originality of this research is defined by the previous literature [7,18], which has documented that consumers’ awareness of green products also influences their green confusion towards buying such products. Organizations actively sell their products through greenwashing, an intentionally misleading marketing practice, to gain market share. Greenwashing typically involves less-than-accurate statements pertaining to changes made to brands, and/or claims of product sustainability, which in fact are false (Sustain. life, 12 September 2021. “What is Greenwashing?”). Although this marketing tactic is designed to influence the consumer’s decisions when seeking to purchase green products, research has yet to identify the effect that green product awareness has on product confusion due to greenwashing.
This study attempts to fill several existing gaps in the literature [19,20]. First, and most important, is that although consumer willingness to purchase green products exists, organizational greenwashing practices cause consumer confusion about those actual product/service benefits. Thus, greenwashing ultimately results in negative consumer repurchase intention. When marketers untruthfully greenwash or position their products as being ‘green’ [21], many of these products/services fail to establish positive acceptance in the competitive marketplace.
Second, marketers engage in greenwashing to initially attract buyers’ attentions towards products but fail to satisfy them [22,23]. This ambiguity leads buyers to question the credibility of companies positioning their products as being green but are not actually sustainable. Hence, this study suggests that greenwashing leads to consumer confusion, which then creates negative WOM about greenwashed products/services.
Third, high levels of risk involving green purchasing have been well-documented in the existing literature. Consumers experience risk when deciding upon purchasing various green products such as hotel rooms, based upon the way product characteristics are advertised. Consumers seek to justify their green product purchase behavior by selecting the product based upon its advertised descriptions, which may lack transparency. Thus, greenwashing tends to cause consumer confusion when attempting to decide which hotel product to select [24,25,26]. Experiences such as these cause consumers to develop distrust and dissatisfaction towards the lodging brand and its greenwashing practices. Hence, consumers avoid repeating their decisions to repurchase products perceived to be greenwashed, which creates negative WOM for green products.
This research seeks to (1) examine consumer awareness of green products within the context of hospitality products/services, and the influence consumer awareness has upon green confusion and greenwashing; (2) investigate the impact that green product purchasing has upon hotel repurchase intention and WOM; and (3) determine the moderating influence of perceived risk between green consumer confusion, greenwashing and the green product experience within the hospitality setting.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Background

The literature on psychology and sociology has focused on justifying the process of decision-making related to environmental practices [27]. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) [28], in conjunction with the theory of reasoned action (TRA) [29], have attempted to define behavior in terms of action, intention, perception, and social norms [30]. Furthermore, these theories have illustrated that a consumer’s attitude relies on their beliefs about potential product/service outcomes [31]. Prior literature addressing eco-friendly behavior supports the positive relationship between behavior and social norms [25]. For example, Refs. [32,33] suggest that TPB helps explain consumer behavior toward green purchase intention.
TPB and its extensions have been used to investigate and comprehend environmental concerns and knowledge as antecedents of purchasing intention for sustainable green products [34,35,36]. TPB has been used to predict and investigate wide pro-environmental behavior ranging from travel mode choice to water conservation, energy consumption, ethical sustainable investments, food choice [35], and recycling [37,38,39]. Figure 1 represents the proposed conceptual framework to depict the hypotheses as discussed below.

2.2. Hypotheses Construction

2.2.1. Awareness of Green Products and Greenwashing

Brand awareness is significant in the marketing literature [40]. According to [41], brand awareness can increase brand passion, attachment, and image. Brand awareness is best achieved through market communication [42,43]. Most importantly, a brand’s elements, such as a symbol, name, logo, etc., assist the consumer in recognizing the brand. Research [41] has confirmed that promotions and favorable WOM also boost brand awareness. Consumers care about green, sustainable items [44] and purchasers who worry about the environment prefer green products. As a result, companies aspire for brand awareness when marketing a green product [45].
In 1986, Jay Westerveld first used the term “greenwashing” to describe false eco-claims made by firms [34,46,47]. These same studies defined greenwashing as an information communication tool. More recent research defines greenwashing as any verbal action or green advertisement that misleads consumers [48]. Greenwashing is a dishonest act by an organization directly related to deceptive labeling [49]. Greenwashing has been documented to reduces green purchase intent [50]. Consumers’ norms and beliefs can also be altered when they have an awareness of green products [51]. As the consumer becomes aware of the product’s sustainable features, the corporation cannot readily greenwash the consumer.
H1. 
Awareness of green hospitality products negatively influences greenwashing.

2.2.2. Awareness of Green Products and Green Consumer Confusion

Consumers typically do not prefer to purchase products advertised as being green, or sustainable, without having some level of knowledge about that product [52,53]. Most people switch to green products if they find them to represent a more desired alternative [54]. Green advertising and marketing initiatives raise consumer awareness about green products, which have been proven to positively influence buyer decisions [55]. When consumers experience green product confusion, it is generally due to their lack of accurate information regarding green products/services, such as that seen in efforts by hotels to emphasize green rooms, and the property’s sustainable sanitation efforts following the COVID-19 pandemic. This causes potential lodging guests to delay their decision-making due to confusion, which can then lead to reduced levels of consumer loyalty toward the brand [56]. Confusion among buyers is harmful to consumers [57]. Confusion has been proven to reduce consumer pleasure and buying intention. Consumers are confused when there is too much product resemblance and information [58,59], which arises when consumers misunderstand what is being portrayed as green features of hotel products/services. This lack of knowledge regarding green products/services leads to green buyer confusion. Thus, it is proposed that:
H2. 
Awareness of green hospitality products negatively influences green consumer confusion.

2.2.3. Greenwashing and Green Product Experience

Greenwashing is the use of deceptive advertising to improve the value of a would-be sustainable product/service [60]. Companies should consider the environmental impact of their products now more than ever before due to problems such as climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic [61,62] Greenwashing has become a business challenge [61,62], as it affects consumer experiences about utilizing green products. Greenwashing is widely recognized [63] as eroding customer trust [64]. Research identifies that greenwashing has a negative influence on societal outcomes, as it also can create negative behaviors among employees and stakeholders of organizations [60]. In the present research scenario, lodging organizations practicing greenwashing create negative experiences with consumers, eventually lowering consumer behavioral outcomes such as purchase intentions and positive word-of-mouth recommendations. Hence, the following hypothesis states:
H3. 
Greenwashing negatively influences the hospitality consumer’s green product purchasing experience.

2.2.4. Green Consumer Confusion and the Green Product Experience

Confusion arises from product information that differs from consumer knowledge [65]. Consumers are confused in part due to inaccurate product attributes designed to mislead consumers into assuming that a company’s product is unique [58]. Green consumer uncertainty affects consumer decision-making [66,67]. In [68], it was stated that confusion might occur owing to similarities in product/service advertising, labeling, packaging, and other characteristics, reducing consumer purchases. Research conceptualized that a confused consumer cannot identify the quality of a product [58]. This supports that confusion toward lodging properties who advertise their products/services as being sustainable, or green, may lead to a negative experience of those green products/services. When a consumer buys the services of a hotel that promotes itself as abiding by eco-friendly practices, consumers may have a negative experience with the hotel property due to the confusion surrounding the meaning of ‘eco-friendly practices’. Research clarifies that the development of green experiences of consumers influences behavioral outcomes [69,70]. Thus, green consumer confusion is a crucial aspect that regulates the green product experience, ultimately influencing the consumer’s behavioral outcome. The confusion affects consumer decisions, reducing green purchases. Based upon this evidence, the following hypothesis is presented within the hospitality context:
H4. 
Green consumer confusion negatively influences the green product experience.

2.2.5. Green Product Experience and Repurchase Intention

Repurchase intention can be defined as a person’s desire to make additional purchases from the same company due to previous purchasing behavior [71]. Unfavorable consumer behavior in response to green commercials results in negative repurchase intentions for advertised products [72,73]. The consumer believes that environmentally friendly products positively impact the environment [74]. Research documents that the consumer repurchase intention following a positive green purchasing experience was significantly higher than those who had a negative green purchasing experience [69,70]. Consequently, favorable green product experiences increase purchase intentions [75,76], with the reverse also being true.
H5. 
Green product experiences positively influence repurchase intention of hospitality products/services.

2.2.6. Green Product Experience and Green WOM Intension

Word-of-mouth (WOM) is defined as the process of ongoing information-sharing among potential and previous customers regarding a product [59,60,77,78]. Word-of-mouth (WOM) is a critical source of information that influences consumer behavior [79,80], which has an impact on consumer purchasing decisions [81,82,83,84,85]. The greater the satisfaction a consumer receives from a green purchase, the greater the likelihood of seeking other green product experiences. A growing body of evidence also shows the relationship between satisfaction and favorable word-of-mouth intention [86]. Positive WOM is generated when consumers have a pleasant encounter with a green product. Negative word-of-mouth about green products produces negative WOM. Based upon this evidence, the following hypothesis is presented within the hospitality context:
H6. 
Green product experience influences WOM intention.

2.2.7. The Moderating Role of Perceived Risk

Earlier studies [58,87,88] focused on the role of perceived risk in association with green consumer confusion, greenwashing, and green product experience. The higher the product or service price, the greater the perceived risk [89]. Consumers perceive more risk when substantial uncertainty occurs [90]. When perceived risk stays high, the buyer has doubts about buying [91]. Thus, increasing perceived risk reduces the green customer experience and increases consumer misunderstanding. Similarly, when buyers perceive danger, customers become confused and contemplate greenwashing tactics. Potential buyers are more likely to associate greenwashing, consumer confusion, and green product experience with risk [92,93]. Based on these findings, it is hypothesized that the impact of greenwashing and consumer uncertainty on green product experiences within the hospitality setting decreases as perceived risk increases.
H7a. 
Perceived Risk moderates the relationship between greenwashing and green product experience.
H7b. 
Perceived Risk moderates the relationship between green consumer confusion and green product experience.

3. Materials and Methods

Using the hotel industry in one specific developing country following the global COVID-19 pandemic as the setting, this study investigates the influence of green lodging product awareness, greenwashing, and green consumer confusion on the green lodging product/service experience, green purchase intention, and WOM intention with the moderating effect of perceived risk. A total of 20 hotels located in a major province of a developing country advertising their properties as following environmentally sustainable (green) practices were identified through social media. Most of these hotels were associated with international hotel chains. Paper/pencil questionnaires were used to acquire data from hotel guests departing properties at the conclusion of their stay. Guests were intercepted conveniently during randomly selected afternoon time periods when they were more likely to be available for interviews. All potential respondents had the study’s goals/objectives explained to them. They were then asked to complete the 3–5-min questionnaire. They were assured their responses would be held anonymously, that their responses would be added together with hundreds of other responses, that they could discontinue the survey at any point without penalty, and that there was no incentive for their participation. The closed-ended questionnaire was comprised of three parts: (1) an overview of the research; (2) selected demographics; and (3) questions pertaining to the study variables. Data were collected over a five-month post-COVID-19 timeframe in 2021–2022.

3.1. Data Collection Tool

The questionnaire technique, created in English, was used as a data collection tool for this study. The study’s data were collected cross-sectionally. Cross-sectional research supports gathering data conveniently from a large population of potential respondents to generate a sufficiently large and useable sample size [94]. A purposive sampling technique was implemented. The data were collected from individual consumers of hotel products/services. A total of 650 questionnaires were distributed over five months, representing about 33 potential respondents per week being intercepted at various locations, days and times. Using this method, a total of 500 questionnaires were received. From this total, 100 surveys were excluded from the data set due to incomplete responses. This resulted in a total of 400 useable questionnaires used for the study’s analyses. Thus, a 66% useable response rate was achieved. This was deemed acceptable based upon the literature [94], which suggests that data must be ten times larger than the number of study indicators used, which was 28 in this case.
The study demographics reported that 205 males (51%) and 195 (49%) females participated in this research. The detail of the respondents can be viewed in Table 1.

3.2. Scales and Measurements

This study employed pre-defined scales when developing the questionnaire’s 28-item scale. The green consumer confusion scale was based upon six items adapted from [95]. The green product awareness scale consisted of four items and was adapted from [96,97]. The WOM scale represented three items, which were adapted from [98]. The scale representing perceived risk was adapted from [58] and included five items. The greenwashing scale used five items adapted from [99,100]. Finally, the green product awareness scale represented five items, and was adapted from [101,102]. A 5-point Likert scale was incorporated for individuals to rate their responses to all questionnaire statements using 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.

3.3. Applied Statistics

Data was entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 27. The normality, through Q-Q plots, and reliability, through Cronbach Alpha, was observed in SPSS. Convergent and discriminant validity were determined acceptable through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS). Hypotheses were empirically tested in AMOS using structural equation modeling (SEM).

4. Results

4.1. Reliability and Validity

The validity and reliability of the study measurements were tested using a confirmatory factor analysis. Our measurement model demonstrated good fit indexes (CMIN/df = 2.141, CFI = 0.952, NFI = 0.915, RFI = 0.904, IFI = 0.953, TLI = 0.952 and RMSEA = 0.053). Reliability was assessed based on composite reliability (CR) values and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. As presented in Table 2, all CR values fell within the desirable range (greater than 0.70) [94,103]. The reliability of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were all greater than 0.70, supporting the internal consistency of the observed variables belonging to their corresponding constructs. In addition, all factor loadings of the measures ranged from 0.694 to 0.942 and they were all significant. All average variance extracted (AVE) values were all greater than 0.50. Therefore, the convergent validity was supported [104].
Table 3 presents the discriminant validity that square roots of the AVE values are greater than the greatest correlation coefficients (0.631). Thus, the discriminant validity of the study constructs was verified [105,106].

4.2. Hypotheses Testing

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to analyze the proposed hypotheses within the study framework. The structural model showed good fit indexes (CMIN/df = 2.107, CFI = 0.915, NFI = 0.904, RFI = 0.901, IFI = 0.915, TLI = 0.910 and RMSEA = 0.057). As seen in Table 4, the results revealed that “green awareness” significantly improves “green washing” (β = 0.540 *) and green consumer confusion (β = 0.530 *), respectively. However, “green washing” significantly increases “green product experience” (β = 0.114 **), and “green consumer confusion” has a significantly positive impact on “green product experience” (β = 0.522 *). In addition, “green product experience” was found to have a positive relationship with “repurchase intention” (β = 0.490 *) and “WOM intention” (β = 0.490 *). Thus, all hypotheses 1 through 6 were accepted.

4.3. Moderation Test

The results of testing the moderating effect of “perceived risk” on the relationship between greenwashing and green product experience depict that perceived risk provided empirical support for Hypothesis 7a. Figure 2 illustrates that as perceived risk increases, the relationship between greenwashing and green product experience is weakened. In contrast, the relationship between green consumer confusion and green product experience is affected by levels of perceived risks. More specifically, the effect of green consumer confusion on green product experience is enhanced (see Figure 3).

5. Discussion

This study provides useful implications for managers as well as academicians to design accurate and meaningful marketing strategies and research avenues. These strategies are based upon the primary objective of spreading awareness specific to a green product by reducing greenwashing, avoiding green consumer confusion, enhancing the green product experience, reducing perceived risk, increasing consumer retention, and establishing positive consumer WOM about green products/services. The detailed theoretical and practical implications are as follows.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

This research contributed an exclusive body of knowledge in the literature of sustainable hospitality products/services. First, this study designed, tested, and empirically proved a conceptual framework based on sustainable, green variables, which has rarely been published in the scholarly hospitality literature. This study investigated a sustainable model, beginning with the consumer’s awareness of green hospitality products/services, and ending with the consumer’s word-of-mouth intentions. When green product awareness was empirically tested, the results found positive and significant impacts on greenwashing and consumer confusion, which was addressed in the first two hypotheses. Thus, green awareness was proven to be a key variable for the conceptualization of greenwashing and green consumer confusion. Furthermore, greenwashing and consumer confusion played a pivotal role in generating positive green product experience, as shown in hypotheses three and four. Previously, research studies in domains other than hospitality have provided evidence that positive product experiences lead to positive word-of-mouth and repurchase intention [76,77,107]. These study findings support those prior results, as a positive impact of the green product experience results in positive repurchase intention and word-of-mouth within the context of hotels. Second, this is the first study in the post-COVID-19 era applied to the lodging industry that presents the theory of planned behavior based on consumer perceptions of green, sustainable products/services combined with their social norms, beliefs, and attitudes [32,33].
In this present digital era, social media awareness campaigns, communication with the target audience, and eco-centric integrated marketing communication through social media can play a strategic role in consumer education related to green products/services. Our findings conclude that perceived risk about green lodging products moderates consumer perceptions. Hence, social media communication with cyber-oriented consumers can play a crucial role in providing further insight about green lodging product purchasing behavior, mapping consumer repurchase intention, and influencing positive word of mouth.
Theoretical implications for future research identify greenwashing as a critical aspect specific to the hospitality industry. Future studies should focus upon greenwashing within a hospitality context. Second, this research conceptualized consumer confusion with green products/services as an antecedent of green product awareness. Researchers must continue to address this in future studies. Third, these research findings classify for the first time the influence of green product experiences upon repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth intentions. Fourth, this research suggests that a better understanding pertaining to the influence of perceived risk is necessary due to its influential interactive nature. Perceived risk was proven to increase the influences of greenwashing and green consumer confusion upon the development of the green lodging product/service experience.

5.2. Practical Implications

This study offers fruitful suggestions for hospitality managers within the lodging segment on how to create a sustainable environment. First, lodging managers should realize that hotel guest awareness of green products creates a positive impact on greenwashing and reduces confusion. Green awareness is a crucial and challenging factor that marketers must promote to post-COVID-19-era consumers of lodging products/services. Organizations face competitive challenges when consumers seek to purchase green hospitality products/services. The findings of this study align with [41], who reported that awareness of green services has a positive impact on greenwashing.
Thus, communicating to target audiences through social media using eco-centric integrated marketing strategies are paramount. These study findings conclude that perceived risk moderates ’consumer’ perceptions. Hence, social media communication with cyber-savvy consumers can play a crucial role in forecasting consumer intent to repurchase and provide positive word-of-mouth testimonies pertaining to their green lodging experiences. Moreover, social media can lead to further insight about green lodging purchase intentions through information seeking and sharing behavior.
Greenwashing has a potential influence on consumer buyer behavior in terms of sharing their experience with others through WOM and repurchase intention. For that reason, it is essential for marketers to avoid misleading practices as it has been proven to negatively influence the reputation of lodging properties and brands within the marketplace. These results align with an earlier study [108,109,110] that documented that, when companies indulge in greenwashing, it negatively influences consumers’ purchase experiences. Hence, consumers buying greenwashed products become dissatisfied with the company, resulting in negative outcomes. Consumer retention acts as a backbone for any organization regarding their growth and development in the market, and greenwashing practices negatively affect consumer experiences [111,112,113], resulting in buyers sharing negative WOM experiences, which decreases purchase intention.

6. Conclusions

The study fills an important research gap by documenting that lodging greenwashing practices discourage reputable green marketing efforts and discourages consumers from purchasing environmentally friendly lodging products/services. Consequently, this research assists the lodging industry to operate more sustainably by helping them increase consumer green lodging purchases by avoiding greenwashing. This assists in generating lodging profitability through increased consumer trust in their hotel brands. Greenwashing not only affects the customer in terms of their trust and commitment towards the company, but it also impacts the company’s reputation. Consumer uncertainty also represents a significant issue for lodging businesses, as the more confused a consumer is, the less likely they are to purchase a green lodging experience. Consumer uncertainty negatively affects the property’s reputation, and ultimately the consumer’s repurchase intention. This research concludes that the most important factors influencing whether people have a positive or negative green lodging experience are those perceived risks held by consumers. The more consumers perceive purchase danger related to green hotel products/services, the lower the likelihood that they will participate in that experience.
This study concludes that green awareness represents a significant factor when designing marketing strategies to attract lodging consumers’ attention following the COVID-19 pandemic. Green awareness influences purchase intentions of lodging consumers directly and indirectly. This research supports that organizations indulging in misleading marketing involving greenwashing creates buyer confusion and directly affects the hotel guest’s green service experience, because it leads to damaged property/brand reputation in the marketplace and with its potential buyers. Green practices and products remain important in this post-COVID-19 era. For this reason, the world has shifted towards green products, and away from traditional ones, due to their personal safety and environmental benefits. This results in the creation of barriers or constraints for consumers who are considering purchasing green hotel products/services. Using green practices also helps lodging properties to gain competitive market advantages, as it has become a social obligation for organizations to truthfully promote their strategies and policies in an eco-friendly manner.

Limitation and Future Research

Although the current study’s emphasis focused upon contributing to the growth and betterment of the hotel industry, several limitations need to be addressed. First, the current study gathered data using a cross-sectional approach. Future studies should incorporate longitudinal data, as findings may differ. Second, this study proposed and designed a framework applied to the hotel industry in a developing country. Future research should explore other hospitality and tourism sectors in developing countries with respect to greenwashing, such as the food service industry. Research within developed countries is also recommended as different outcomes may be revealed.
Third, this research used specific scales to measure five dimensions associated with greenwashing. It is recommended that future research explore expanded scales and dimensions. Additionally, the influence of different control variables, such as age, gender, and education should be explored to determine their influence upon the green product experience, and specifically upon repurchase intention and WOM. Future studies can also focus on the determinants of greenwashing, such as greenwashing noise and misguided greenwashing. Finally, future research can investigate the role of different mediators and moderators in this model, as results may vary.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.Z. and Q.U.A.; Formal analysis, H.Z.; Methodology, H.Z. and J.U.H.; Software, I.B.; Supervision, J.U.H. and M.A.B.; Validation, I.B.; Writing—original draft, I.B. and J.U.H.; Writing—review & editing, M.A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All the participants were informed that their information would be used collectively and would only be used for research purposes. This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Management Sciences, Riphah International University, Faisalabad Campus, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Brough, A.R.; Wilkie, J.E.; Ma, J.; Isaac, M.S.; Gal, D. Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. J. Consum. Res. 2016, 43, 567–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Costa, C.S.R.; da Costa, M.F.; Maciel, R.G.; Aguiar, E.C.; Wanderley, L.O. Consumer antecedents towards green product purchase intentions. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 313, 127964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nielsen, I.; Majumder, S.; Szwarc, E.; Saha, S. Impact of Strategic Cooperation under Competition on Green Product Manufacturing. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yang, R.; Tang, W.; Zhang, J. Technology improvement strategy for green products under competition: The role of government subsidy. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020, 289, 553–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Young, K. The Rise of Green Consumerism: What do Brands Need to Know. 2018. Available online: https://digitalnomadsasia.com/2021/05/10/the-rise-of-green-consumerism-what-do-brands-need-to-know/ (accessed on 20 March 2019).
  6. Aprianti, V.; Hurriyati, R.; Gaffar, V.; Wibowo, L.A. The Effect of Green Trust and Attitude Toward Purchasing Intention of Green Products: A Case Study of the Green Apparel Industry in Indonesia. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 235–244. [Google Scholar]
  7. Nguyen, H.V.; Nguyen, C.H.; Hoang, T.T.B. Green consumption: Closing the intention-behavior gap. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 27, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. van Doorn, J.; Risselada, H.; Verhoef, P.C. Does sustainability sell? The impact of sustainability claims on the success of national brands’ new product introductions. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 137, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. do Paço, A.; Shiel, C.; Alves, H. A new model for testing green consumer behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 998–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gilbert, J.R.; Stafford, M.B.R.; Sheinin, D.A.; Pounders, K. The dance between darkness and light: A systematic review of advertising’s role in consumer well-being (1980–2020). Int. J. Advert. 2021, 40, 491–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Spielmann, N. Green is the New White: How Virtue Motivates Green Product Purchase. J. Bus. Ethic 2020, 173, 759–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Meiting, L.; Hua, W. Angular or rounded? The effect of the shape of green brand logos on consumer perception. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 279, 123801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gershoff, A.D.; Frels, J.K. What Makes It Green? The Role of Centrality of Green Attributes in Evaluations of the Greenness of Products. J. Mark. 2015, 79, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Beckers, S.F.; Van Doorn, J.; Verhoef, P.C. Good, better, engaged? The effect of company-initiated customer engagement behavior on shareholder value. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2018, 46, 366–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Awan, U.; Nauman, S.; Sroufe, R. Exploring the effect of buyer engagement on green product innovation: Empirical evidence from manufacturers. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2020, 30, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alonso-Calero, J.M.; Cano, J.; Guerrero-Pérez, M.O. Is the “Green Washing” Effect Stronger than Real Scientific Knowledge? Are We Able to Transmit Formal Knowledge in the Face of Marketing Campaigns? Sustainability 2021, 14, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Butt, A.; Khan, S.N.; Zakir, M.M.; Rana, W.; Laila, A. Firms Greenwashing Practices and Consumers’ Perception: Role of Marketing and Non-Marketing External Stake Holders in Firms Greenwashing Practices. Indian J. Econ. Bus. 2021, 20, 689–706. [Google Scholar]
  18. Moon, M.A.; Mohel, S.H.; Farooq, A. I green, you green, we all green: Testing the extended environmental theory of planned behavior among the university students of Pakistan. Soc. Sci. J. 2019, 58, 316–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sreen, N.; Purbey, S.; Sadarangani, P. Impact of culture, behavior and gender on green purchase intention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sreen, N.; Sadarangani, P.H.; Gogoi, B.J. Profiling green consumers through culture, beliefs and demographics: An Indian study. Int. J. Indian Cult. Bus. Manag. 2019, 19, 168–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Khandelwal, M.; Sharma, A.; Jain, V. Greenwashing: A study on the effects of greenwashing on consumer perception and trust build-up. Res. Rev. Int. J. Multidiscip. 2019, 4, 607–612. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nguyen, T.T.H.; Nguyen, K.O.; Cao, T.K.; Le, V.A. The impact of corporate greenwashing behavior on consumers’ purchase intentions of green electronic devices: An empirical study in Vietnam. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 229–240. [Google Scholar]
  23. Tarabieh, S.M.A. The impact of greenwash practices over green purchase intention: The mediating effects of green confusion, Green perceived risk, and green trust. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2021, 11, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, M.; Choudhury, A.H. Using website information to reduce postpurchase dissonance: A mediated moderating role of perceived risk. Psychol. Mark. 2020, 38, 56–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shafieizadeh, K.; Alotaibi, S.; Tao, C.-W.W. How do authenticity and quality perceptions affect dining experiences and recommendations of food trucks? The moderating role of perceived risk. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 93, 102800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Awan, U. Green Marketing: Marketing Strategies for the Swedish Energy Companies. Int. J. Ind. Mark. 2011, 1, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gao, L.; Wang, S.; Li, J.; Li, H. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to understand individual’s energy saving behavior in workplaces. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychol. Bull. 1975, 82, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Morren, M.; Grinstein, A. The cross-cultural challenges of integrating personal norms into the Theory of Planned Behavior: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) approach. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 75, 101593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vesely, S.; Klöckner, C.A.; Brick, C. Pro-environmental behavior as a signal of cooperativeness: Evidence from a social dilemma experiment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 67, 101362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, X.; Wang, Q.-C.; Jian, I.Y.; Chi, H.-L.; Yang, D.; Chan, E.H.-W. Are you an energy saver at home? The personality insights of household energy conservation behaviors based on theory of planned behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 174, 105823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, Z.; He, F.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, R.; Li, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Gao, Z. Experiments and modelling of potassium release behavior from tablet biomass ash for better recycling of ash as eco-friendly fertilizer. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 379–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Maichum, K.; Parichatnon, S.; Peng, K.C. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior model to investigate purchase intention of green products among Thai consumers. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Honkanen, P.; Verplanken, B.; Olsen, S.O. Ethical values and motives driving organic food choice. J. Consum. Behav. Int. Res. Rev. 2006, 5, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Abrar, M.; Sibtain, M.M.; Shabbir, R. Understanding purchase intention towards eco-friendly clothing for generation Y & Z. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1997247. [Google Scholar]
  37. Davies, J.; Foxall, G.R.; Pallister, J. Beyond the intention–behaviour mythology: An integrated model of recycling. Mark. Theory 2002, 2, 29–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Haj-Salem, N.; Al-Hawari, M.A. Predictors of recycling behavior: The role of self-conscious emotions. J. Soc. Mark. 2021, 11, 204–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mufidah, I.; Jiang, B.C.; Lin, S.-C.; Chin, J.; Rachmaniati, Y.P.; Persada, S.F. Understanding the Consumers’ Behavior Intention in Using Green Ecolabel Product through Pro-Environmental Planned Behavior Model in Developing and Developed Regions: Lessons Learned from Taiwan and Indonesia. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cheung, M.L.; Pires, G.D.; Rosenberger, P.J., III. Developing a conceptual model for examining social media marketing effects on brand awareness and brand image. Int. J. Econ. Bus. Res. 2019, 17, 243–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gilal, F.G.; Zhang, J.; Gilal, R.G.; Gilal, N.G. Linking motivational regulation to brand passion in a moderated model of customer gender and age: An organismic integration theory perspective. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2018, 14, 87–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jakeli, K.; Tchumburidze, T. Brand awareness matrix in political marketing area. J. Bus. 2012, 1, 25–28. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ahmed, M.A.; Lodhi, S.A.; Ahmad, Z. Political Brand Equity Model: The Integration of Political Brands in Voter Choice. J. Politi-Mark. 2015, 16, 147–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rahmi, D.Y.; Rozalia, Y.; Chan, D.N.; Anira, Q.; Lita, R.P. Green Brand Image Relation Model, Green Awareness, Green Advertisement, and Ecological Knowledge as Competitive Advantage in Improving Green Purchase Intention and Green Purchase Behavior on Creative Industry Products. J. Econ. Business Account. Ventur. 2017, 20, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Suki, N.M. Young consumer ecological behaviour: The effects of environmental knowledge, healthy food, and healthy way of life with the moderation of gender and age. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2013, 24, 726–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Koh, L.P.; Ghazoul, J.; Butler, R.A.; Laurance, W.F.; Sodhi, N.S.; Mateo-Vega, J.; Bradshaw, C.J.A. Wash and Spin Cycle Threats to Tropical Biodiversity. Biotropica 2009, 42, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Boedhihartono, A.K.; Bongers, F.; Boot, R.G.A.; van Dijk, J.; Jeans, H.; van Kuijk, M.; Koster, H.; Reed, J.; Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; et al. Conservation Science and Practice Must Engage with the Realities of Complex Tropical Landscapes. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2018, 11, 1940082918779571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Parguel, B.; Benoit-Moreau, F.; Russell, C. Can evoking nature in advertising mislead consumers? The power of ‘executional greenwashing’. Int. J. Advert. 2015, 34, 107–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lee, H.C.B.; Cruz, J.M.; Shankar, R. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues in supply chain competition: Should greenwashing be regulated? Decis. Sci. 2018, 49, 1088–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Aji, H.M.; Sutikno, B. The extended consequence of greenwashing: Perceived consumer skepticism. Int. J. Bus. Inf. 2015, 10, 433. [Google Scholar]
  51. Nadányiová, M. Greenwashing and its Impact on Slovak Consumers. Littera Scr. 2016, 2, 68–78. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gan, C.; Wee, H.Y.; Ozanne, L.; Kao, T.H. Consumers’ purchasing behavior towards green products in New Zealand. Innov. Mark. 2008, 4, 93–102. [Google Scholar]
  53. Tan, L.P.; Johnstone, M.L.; Yang, L. Barriers to green consumption behaviours: The roles of consumers’ green perceptions. Australas. Mark. J. 2016, 24, 288–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chaudhuri, D. Analysis of the Awareness of Green Products in the City of Kolkata. J. Glob. Mark. 2014, 27, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Adkin, L. Ecology and labour: Towards a new societal paradigm. In Labour Worldwide in the Era of Globalization; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 1999; pp. 199–217. [Google Scholar]
  56. Garaus, M.; Wagner, U.; Kummer, C. Cognitive fit, retail shopper confusion, and shopping value: Empirical investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1003–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Anninou, I.; Foxall, G.R. The reinforcing and aversive consequences of customer experience. The role of consumer confusion. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 51, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H. Greenwash and Green Trust: The Mediation Effects of Green Consumer Confusion and Green Perceived Risk. J. Bus. Ethic 2012, 114, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Butt, A.; Naeem, M.S.; Ali, P.I.; Hameed, S. Impact of firms’ Greenwashing practices on customer green trust and green brand attachment: Pakistan’s home appliances consumers’ perspective. Pak. Bus. Rev. 2022, 24, 62–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kahle, L.R.; Gurel-Atay, E. Communicating Sustainability for the Green Economy; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  61. Polonsky, M.J. Transformative green marketing: Impediments and opportunities. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 1311–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bhupendra, K.V.; Sangle, S. Benchmarking organisational innovativeness types for sustainability: A study of Indian firms. Benchmarking Int. J. 2021, 29, 345–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mukherjee, R.; Ghosh, I. Greenwashing in India: A darker side of green marketing. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2014, 2, 6–10. [Google Scholar]
  64. Rahman, I.; Park, J.; Chi, C.G.Q. Consequences of “greenwashing”: Consumers’ reactions to hotels’ green initiatives. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 27, 1054–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tjhin, V.U.; Abbas, B.S.; Budiastuti, D.; Kosala, R.; Lusa, S. The role of electronic word-of-mouth on customer confusion in increasing purchase intention. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Hum. 2018, 26, 21. [Google Scholar]
  66. Shim, S.; Gehrt, K.C. Hispanic and Native American adolescents: An exploratory study of their approach to shopping. J. Retail. 1996, 72, 307–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Morisada, M.; Miwa, Y.; Dahana, W.D. Identifying valuable customer segments in online fashion markets: An implication for customer tier programs. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2019, 33, 100822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Angel, T.O.S. A Study of Omni-Channel Retailing: The Impact of Integration Quality on Omni-Satisfaction and Omni-Loyalty in Apparel Retail Business; The Hong Kong Polytechnic University: Hong Kong, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  69. Swinyard, W.R. The impact of shopper mood and retail salesperson credibility on shopper attitudes and behaviour. Int. Rev. Retail. Distrib. Consum. Res. 1995, 5, 488–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Szymkowiak, A.; Gaczek, P.; Jeganathan, K.; Kulawik, P. The impact of emotions on shopping behavior during epidemic. What a business can do to protect customers. J. Consum. Behav. 2020, 20, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Prasetyo, Y.T.; Castillo, A.M.; Salonga, L.J.; Sia, J.A.; Chuenyindee, T.; Young, M.N.; Redi, A.A.N.P. Factors Influencing Repurchase Intention in Drive-Through Fast Food: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Foods 2021, 10, 1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Newell, S.J.; Goldsmith, R.E.; Banzhaf, E.J. The Effect of Misleading Environmental Claims on Consumer Perceptions of Advertisements. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 1998, 6, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Stokes, S.A. Deception in Environmental Advertising: Consumers’ Reactions to Greenwashing. Master’s Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, 2009. Available online: http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/2097/1462/1/StaciStokes2009.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2012).
  74. Kim, Y.; Han, H. Intention to pay conventional-hotel prices at a green hotel—A modification of the theory of planned behavior. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 997–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Paratiwi, D. Factors influencing consumer green product purchase decisions and its effect on repurchase intentions. With specific reference to The Body Shop Indonesia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  76. Suhartanto, D.; Kartikasari, A.; Hapsari, R.; Budianto, B.S.; Najib, M.; Astor, Y. Predicting young customers’ intention to repurchase green plastic products: Incorporating trust model into purchase intention model. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2021, 15, 441–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ismagilova, E.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Slade, E.; Williams, M.D. Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM) in the Marketing Context: A State of the Art Analysis and Future Directions; Spinger: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  78. Talwar, M.; Talwar, S.; Kaur, P.; Islam, A.N.; Dhir, A. Positive and negative word of mouth (WOM) are not necessarily opposites: A reappraisal using the dual factor theory. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Nam, K.; Baker, J.; Ahmad, N.; Goo, J. Dissatisfaction, disconfirmation, and distrust: An empirical examination of value codestruction through negative electronic word-of mouth (Ewom). Inf. Syst. Front. 2018, 22, 113–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Filieri, R.; Raguseo, E.; Vitari, C. When are extreme ratings more helpful? Empirical evidence on the moderating effects of review characteristics and product type. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 88, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jeong, H.J.; Koo, D.M. Combined effects of valence and attributes of e-WOM on consumer judgment for message and product: The moderating effect of brand community type. Internet Res. 2015, 25, 2–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yan, X.; Wang, J.; Chau, M. Customer revisit intention to restaurants: Evidence from online reviews. Inf. Syst. Front. 2013, 17, 645–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Baber, A.; Thurasamy, R.; Malik, M.I.; Sadiq, B.; Islam, S.; Sajjad, M. Online word-of-mouth antecedents, attitude and intentionto-purchase electronic products in Pakistan. Telemat. Inform. 2016, 33, 388–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lee, Y.J.; Keeling, K.B.; Urbaczewski, A. The economic value of online user reviews with ad spending on movie box-office sales. Inf. Syst. Front. 2017, 21, 829–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ismagilova, E.; Slade, E.L.; Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth Communications on Intention to Buy: A Meta-Analysis. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 22, 1203–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Acampora, A.; Preziosi, M.; Lucchetti, M.C.; Merli, R. The Role of Hotel Environmental Communication and Guests’ Environmental Concern in Determining Guests’ Behavioral Intentions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Campbell, M.C.; Goodstein, R.C. The moderating effect of perceived risk on consumers’ evaluations of product incongruity: Preference for the norm. J. Consum. Res. 2001, 28, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Juliana, J.; Djakasaputra, A.; Pramono, R. green perceived risk, green viral communication, green perceived value against green purchase intention through green satisfaction. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. Res. 2020, 1, 124–139. [Google Scholar]
  89. Biswas, D.; Biswas, A.; Das, N. The differential effects of celebrity and expert endorsements on consumer risk perceptions. The role of consumer knowledge, perceived congruency, and product technology orientation. J. Advert. 2006, 35, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ariffin, S.K.; Mohan, T.; Goh, Y.N. Influence of consumers’ perceived risk on consumers’ online purchase intention. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2018, 12, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Rao, Y.; Saleem, A.; Saeed, W.; Haq, J.U. Online Consumer Satisfaction During COVID-19: Perspective of a Developing Country. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 751854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Ladwein, R. Stratégies de marques et concepts de marques. Décisions Mark. 1998, 13, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Grubor, A.; Milovanov, O. Brand strategies in the era of sustainability. Interdiscip. Descr. Complex Syst. 2017, 15, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hair, J., Jr.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R. SEM: An Introduction Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  95. Walsh, G.; Mitchell, V.W. The effect of consumer confusion proneness on word of mouth, trust, and customer satisfaction. Eur. J. Mark. 2010, 44, 838–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kumar, P.; Ghodeswar, B.M. Factors affecting consumers’ green product purchase decisions. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2015, 33, 330–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Han, J.; Seo, Y.; Ko, E. Staging luxury experiences for understanding sustainable fashion consumption: A balance theory application. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 74, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L.; Parasuraman, A. The behavioral consequences of service quality. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Horiuchi, R.; Schuchard, R.; Shea, L.; Townsend, S. Understanding and preventing greenwash: A business guide. In Futerra Sustainability Communications; BSR: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2009; pp. 1–39. [Google Scholar]
  100. Laufer, W.S. Social Accountability and Corporate Greenwashing. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 43, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Chen, T.B.; Chai, L.T. Attitude towards the environment and green products: Consumers’ perspective. Manag. Sci. Eng. 2010, 4, 27–39. [Google Scholar]
  102. Lee, K. Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2008, 26, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Cheah, J.H.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Ramayah, T.; Ting, H. Convergent validity assessment of formatively measured constructs in PLS-SEM: On using single-item versus multi-item measures in redundancy analyses. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 3192–3210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kline, E.; Wilson, C.; Ereshefsky, S.; Tsuji, T.; Schiffman, J.; Pitts, S.; Reeves, G. Convergent and discriminant validity of attenuated psychosis screening tools. Schizophr. Res. 2012, 134, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Spuling, S.M.; Klusmann, V.; Bowen, C.E.; Kornadt, A.E.; Kessler, E.M. The uniqueness of subjective ageing: Convergent and discriminant validity. Eur. J. Ageing 2020, 17, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. López, N.M.; Martín, J.I.V.; Biedermann, A.; Sáenz, J.L.S.; Fernández-Vazquez, A. Projecting More Sustainable Product and Service Designs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Bukhari, S.A.H.; Haq, J.U.; Ishfaq, M.; Ali, A. Females Are More Rational! How Consumer Expertise Moderates Attitude toward Advertisements. J. Promot. Manag. 2021, 28, 359–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Szabo, S.; Webster, J. Perceived greenwashing: The effects of green marketing on environmental and product perceptions. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 171, 719–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Parguel, B.; Benoît-Moreau, F.; Larceneux, F. How Sustainability Ratings Might Deter ‘Greenwashing’: A Closer Look at Ethical Corporate Communication. J. Bus. Ethic 2011, 102, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ye, P.; Liu, L.; Gao, L.; Mei, Q. The effects of green product trust and perception on green purchase intention in China. Int. J. Innov. Comput. Appl. 2021, 12, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Sanusi, S.F. Analisis Pengaruh Supporting Environmental Protection, Drive for Environmental Protection, Green Product Experience, Environmental Friendliness of Companies dan Social Appeal Terhadap Green Purchase Decision: Telaah Pada Sepatu Pijak Bumi. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitas Multimedia Nusantara, Banten, Indonesia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  113. Cambra-Fierro, J.; Gao, L.X.; Melero-Polo, I.; Trifu, A. How do firms handle variability in customer experience? A dynamic approach to better understanding customer retention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 61, 102578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 12313 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Proposed conceptual framework.
Sustainability 14 12313 g001
Sustainability 14 12313 g002 550
Figure 2. Perceived risk weakens the relationship between greenwashing and green product experience.
Figure 2. Perceived risk weakens the relationship between greenwashing and green product experience.
Sustainability 14 12313 g002
Sustainability 14 12313 g003 550
Figure 3. Perceived risk strengthens the relationship between green consumer confusion and green product experience.
Figure 3. Perceived risk strengthens the relationship between green consumer confusion and green product experience.
Sustainability 14 12313 g003
Table
Table 1. Respondent profile.
Table 1. Respondent profile.
DemographicsFrequencyPercent
Gender
Male20551.2
Female19548.8
Profession
Employed20350.7
Self-employed15939.8
Student389.5
Frequency of Hotel Use
3 or more times per quarter26065.0
Less than 3 times per quarter14035.0
Table
Table 2. Results of testing validity and reliability.
Table 2. Results of testing validity and reliability.
Variable NameItemsStandarized Factor LoadingAVECRCronbach’s Alpha
Green awarenessAGP-10.7820.7110.9250.924
AGP-20.769
AGP-30.694
AGP-40.899
AGP-50.874
GreenwashingGW-10.7980.5870.8760.874
GW-20.819
GW-30.829
GW-40.752
GW-50.806
Green consumer confusionGCC-10.7160.6300.9110.910
GCC-20.874
GCC-30.843
GCC-40.893
GCC-50.783
GCC-60.862
Green product experienceGPE-10.8210.6990.9030.902
GPE-20.832
GPE-30.782
GPE-40.823
Repurchase intentionRP-10.8710.7720.9110.910
RP-20.829
RP-30.833
Word-of-mouthWOM-10.8760.7780.9130.912
WOM-20.844
WOM-30.843
Percieved riskGPR-10.8390.7980.9520.952
GPR-20.800
GPR-30.942
GPR-40.922
GPR-50.778
Note: CR is composite reliability, AVE is average variance extracted, CMIN/df = 2.141, CFI = 0.952, NFI = 0.915, RFI = 0.904, IFI = 0.953, TLI = 0.952 and RMSEA = 0.053.
Table
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
WOMAGPGCCGWGPERPIPR
WOM0.882 a
AGP0.4860.843 a
GCC0.6570.5030.794 a
GW0.6690.5180.6310.766 a
GPE0.4640.4470.5220.3310.836 a
RPI0.6040.4350.5230.6150.4390.879 a
PR0.4130.3170.3590.4060.2920.3760.893 a
Note: WOM is word-of-mouth intentions, AGP is awareness of green product, GCC is green consumer confusion, GW is greenwashing, GPE is green product experience, RPI is repurchase intention, and PR is perceived risk. a Diagonals, square root of AVE from the observed variables by the latent variables.
Table
Table 4. Hypothesis testing.
Table 4. Hypothesis testing.
SRHypothesisStandardized EstimatesT ValuesAccepted/Not Accepted
H1Green awareness → Green Washing0.540 *6.304Accepted
H2Green awareness → Green Consumer Confusion0.530 *6.410Accepted
H3Greenwashing → Green Product Experience0.114 **2.218Accepted
H4Green Consumer Confusion → Green Product Experience0.522 *4.278Accepted
H5Green Product Experience → Repurchase Intention0.490 *3.383Accepted
H6Green Product Experience → WOM0.521 *2.448Accepted
* p < 0.001, ** p <0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, H.; Ul Ainn, Q.; Bashir, I.; Ul Haq, J.; Bonn, M.A. Does Greenwashing Influence the Green Product Experience in Emerging Hospitality Markets Post-COVID-19? Sustainability 2022, 14, 12313. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912313

AMA Style

Zhang H, Ul Ainn Q, Bashir I, Ul Haq J, Bonn MA. Does Greenwashing Influence the Green Product Experience in Emerging Hospitality Markets Post-COVID-19? Sustainability. 2022; 14(19):12313. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912313

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Hongfan, Qurat Ul Ainn, Iram Bashir, Junaid Ul Haq, and Mark A. Bonn. 2022. "Does Greenwashing Influence the Green Product Experience in Emerging Hospitality Markets Post-COVID-19?" Sustainability 14, no. 19: 12313. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912313

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop