Next Article in Journal
Preparation of Coal Gangue-Based Porous Ceramics and Its Application on Pb2+ Cycling Adsorption
Previous Article in Journal
Individual Behavior and Attention Distribution during Wayfinding for Emergency Shelter: An Eye-Tracking Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 15
10.3390/su151511881
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

What Influences Green Cosmetics Purchase Intention and Behavior? A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda

by
Yam B. Limbu
1,* and
A. F. M. Jalal Ahamed
2
1
Department of Marketing, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA
2
School of Business, University of Skövde, Högskolevägen 8, SE-541 28 Skövde, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(15), 11881; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511881
Submission received: 5 June 2023 / Revised: 8 July 2023 / Accepted: 31 July 2023 / Published: 2 August 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The green cosmetics industry has witnessed significant growth over the last few years. Simultaneously, scholarly interest in the area has grown. However, overall, the evidence is inconsistent. Despite the growing literature, no systematic review has been carried out to summarize and synthesize the empirical studies that have examined factors associated with green cosmetics purchase intention (GCPI) and green cosmetics purchase behavior (GCPB). This study aims to fill this gap. We conducted this systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. From forty-eight studies that met the inclusion criteria, we identified ten major themes that were significantly associated with GCPI and GCPB. The most frequently demonstrated determinants were the theory of planned behavior components (attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control), followed by marketing mix, consumer consciousness concerns, consumer values, brand-related attributes, experience and knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived barriers. In addition, we identified several gaps that could be addressed through future research. These results will help scholars understand the knowledge boundary and assist marketers in developing effective strategies for promoting green cosmetics.

1. Introduction

At the dawn of civilization, when aesthetic senses emerged, the use of cosmetics began. We observe this evidence in Sumerian, Indus, Mayan, Egyptian, and other ancient cultures. Over time, our sense of beauty and fashion has changed, been refined, and developed, but in any case, the appeal of beauty products has not been compromised; this industry has grown daily. In 2023, the beauty and personal care market revenue was USD 571.1 billion, which is projected to grow at a compound growth rate (CAGR) of 3.8% over the next five years [1]. A sustainable lifestyle is associated with green cosmetic consumption and is fueled by global consumer awareness, the green revolution, and several governmental regulations. Like other industries, the beauty and personal care industry embraces green product concepts [2,3,4]. For example, according to the European Green Deal, European cosmetics and personal care companies have committed to completely stopping greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 [5]; similarly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration bans hundreds of potentially harmful chemical ingredients in a range of cosmetics, which encourages many companies to go full throttle for ‘‘go-green.’’ Hence, we have witnessed significant growth in the green cosmetics segment over the last few years. As an effect, the market value of organic or green cosmetic products is forecasted to be USD 54.5 billion worldwide by 2027 [2]. Various marketing research firms estimate the CAGR of the global natural and organic cosmetics market to be 9.1 [6] to 9.76% [7]. Simultaneously, academic interest in green cosmetics usage and consumption has grown [2,8,9,10].
Green cosmetics refer to natural cosmetics or personal care products that are developed from natural ingredients derived from animals, minerals, or plants. They will eventually preserve the environment, minimize pollution, ensure the responsible utilization of non-renewable resources, and finally preserve species and animal welfare [2,8,11]. The conceptualization of green cosmetics holds two fundamental issues: ingredients and processing. Hence, their definition covers many sustainability attributes such as chemical-free and natural (organic) solutions, traditional renewable raw materials (e.g., renewable plant and bacteria sources), and local ingredients, which are processed using eco-friendly formulations and marketed using environmentally supported packaging.
Cosmetics companies have been increasingly developing and promoting their products as sustainable and using natural claims to influence consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions [12]. Green cosmetics have recently received increasing attention from scholars [9]. However, prior studies reported inconsistent evidence of the determinants of GCPI and GCPB. Several studies examined the effects of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) constructs on green cosmetics consumption, but they reported mixed findings. For example, while some studies found a significant relationship between norms and green cosmetics purchase intention [3,13,14], others reported an insignificant association [8,15]. Green cosmetics are usually costly compared to ordinary cosmetics [3], so the importance of perceived behavioral control is assumed to have a crucial role; however, Shimul et al. [16] reported an insignificant impact of perceived behavioral control on GCPI, while Susanty et al. [17] reported a significant effect. Furthermore, there is an anomaly in the literature regarding the role of values. For instance, challenging preconceptions that pro-environmental beliefs depend on altruistic values, Jaini et al. [18] found no effect of altruistic values on pro-environmental beliefs, while others found significant effects of altruistic values and egoistic motivation [19,20,21]. Moreover, Hansen et al. [13] and Ribeiro et al. [22] did not find a significant impact of openness to change on GCPI; however, Kumar et al. [23] found that openness to change affects behavioral intention through perceived benefits and risk. In addition, functional value [23] was significantly associated with GCPI, but emotional value [24] and perceived safety value [12,25] did not influence GCPI.
Despite a growing literature stream, no systematic review has been carried out to summarize and synthesize the empirical studies that have examined factors predicting green cosmetics purchase intention (GCPI) and green cosmetics purchase behavior (GCPB); hence, global green cosmetic consumer behavior still needs to be fully understood. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the review by Liobikienė and Bernatonienė [26] is the only literature review on green cosmetics; however, their paper focused more on green products than on green cosmetics products, and the main purpose of their investigation was not to assess the factors predicting GCPI and GCPB. As such, there is a need for a systematic review of the factors influencing green cosmetics purchase intention and behavior that will provide state-of-the-art knowledge of the existing literature in the domain and offer future research directions [27]. Hence, the current investigation aims to fill the gap by systematically reviewing studies on the determinants of GCPI and GCPB. More precisely, this systematic review intends to answer the following two questions:
(i)
What were the factors that influenced GCPI and GCPB?
(ii)
What were the focuses of prior research within this domain?
Our research systematically summarizes and synthesizes the determinants of GCPI and GCPB. Therefore, this investigation will help scholars understand the knowledge boundary. Moreover, the findings of this review will help marketers frame their marketing strategies for promoting green cosmetic products.

2. Methodology

We carried out this systematic review following the guidelines recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [28]. According to these guidelines, a systematic review extensively scans all reports published on a subject to find answers to a clearly defined research question. It uses a variety of inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify the reports to be included in the review and synthesize the results. PRISMA flow diagrams describe how reports are identified, screened, and eligible for inclusion; they serve as guides for authors, reviewers, and editors [29,30].

2.1. Search Strategy

To locate relevant articles, we searched Scopus and Web of Science, the two largest abstract and citation databases of peer-reviewed literature, with no limit on the date range. We formed the search strings by combining search terms using Boolean operators. Some search terms included cosmetic, personal care product, green, natural, organic, cruelty-free, eco-friendly, environmentally friendly, buy*, purchase intent*, and purchase behav*.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We limited the search criteria to exclude all literature not relevant to our study, such as conference proceedings and non-English articles. Further, we only included quantitative empirical studies examining the determinants of green cosmetics purchase intention and behavior. The PRISMA flow chart (see Figure 1) presents the study selection process; the number of records identified, screened, and excluded; the reasons for exclusion; and the studies included in the current review [28].
We retrieved 1783 records from the electronic databases. After removing duplicates, 693 records were retained. Next, the titles and abstracts were independently screened by two researchers. After that, 501 records were eliminated. Finally, we assessed the remaining 192 full-text articles. Of these, 43 articles met the eligibility criteria. Five additional eligible studies were identified through a Google Scholar search and a manual reference list search. Forty-eight studies were included in this systematic review.

2.3. Data Extraction and Analysis

The same two researchers performed data extraction independent of one another. Some information extracted from the studies included the author, publication year, journal, country, theory used, population, study design, sample size, co-citations of highly cited authors, keywords, and factors influencing GCPI and GCPB.

3. Results

3.1. Description of Included Studies

This study included forty-eight studies from twenty-three countries, including seven from India, six from Malaysia, four from Indonesia, and three from Portugal (see Table 1). Most of the studies (64.58%) were carried out in Asia, in contrast to 22.92% in Europe, 4.17% in North America, and 4.17% in Africa. However, no research was carried out in Australia.
As shown in Figure 2, no research was published in 2014 or 2016. Then, the number of publications remained flat until 2018. From 2019, there was a wave of publications peaking in 2022 (fifteen articles). Nine studies were published in Sustainability, and four appeared in the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. All studies were cross-sectional. All studies, except two that conducted experiments, employed survey methodologies. The included studies recruited 13,916 respondents, with an average sample size of 376.11 (standard deviation = 262.89), ranging from 100 to 1676. Thirty-four studies focused on the general adult population, and nine studies focused on women. The most commonly used theoretical frameworks included the theory of planned behavior (fifteen studies), value–belief–norm (three studies), and stimulus–organism–response (three studies).

3.2. Factors Influencing Green Cosmetics Purchase Intentions and Behaviors

Figure 3 and Appendix A present the factors associated with green cosmetics purchase intentions and behaviors. As shown in Figure 4, we identified eleven major themes in the studies included in this review that may directly affect GCPI or GCPB. In the following sections, we will discuss these themes.

3.2.1. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)-Related Themes

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) postulates that attitudes (i.e., overall positive or negative evaluations), subjective norms (perceived social pressure from others to engage or not to engage in a particular behavior), and perceived behavioral control (perceptions of people’s ability to perform a given behavior) influence both intentions and behaviors [60]. In line with this argument, several studies reported significant effects of the TPB constructs on GCPI and/or GCPB.

Attitude

Among the TPB variables, attitude was the most frequently demonstrated predictor of GCPI and GCPB (27 times). A variety of attitudes were assessed in the surveyed literature, which ranged from the general attitude to green cosmetics consumption [2,3,9,13,14,15,16,17,32,35,36,41,42,46,48,52,53,57] to other minor attitudes such as hedonic and utilitarian attitudes [58], the attitude toward cannabis-based skincare cosmetics [22], and the attitude toward cruelty-free cosmetics [20,40].

Norms

The findings related to norms are contentious. While the vast majority of studies found positive and significant impacts of subjective norms on behavioral intention [16,40], other studies found insignificant effects of subjective norms on purchase intention [8,15]. Taking the value–belief–norm perspective, Jaini et al. [18] and Quoquab et al. [54] found that a value-induced personal norm significantly affected green purchase behavior. The only study that examined social norms (perceptions of whether others approve or disapprove) reported a significant effect of the social norm on behavioral intention [51].

Perceived Behavioral Control

Several studies (e.g., [2,8,14,15,20,32,35,36,44]) established perceived behavioral control as a significant predictor of GCPI and GCPB. However, other studies reported an insignificant relationship [16,40]. One study [44] found that perceived behavioral control moderates the attitude–purchase intention relationship, signaling that behavioral controls such as price might temper the attitude–intention relationship.

3.2.2. Marketing Mix

Marketing mix was the third most significant predictor of GCPI and GCPB after attitude and norms; marketing mixes were mentioned in the surveyed literature thirteen times. Among the marketing mix variables, price sensitivity/consciousness and product sensory appeal/sensorial expectations were significant predictors of GCPI. For example, Moslehpour et al. [50] showed that price sensitivity, i.e., consumers’ perceptions and responses toward the premium prices of green products, significantly and positively influenced purchasing intention. In addition, sensorial expectations significantly positively impacted the purchase intentions for personal care products that claimed to be natural [12].

3.2.3. Consumers’ Consequence Concerns

Consumers’ consciousness concerns were the fourth most significant predictor of GCPI and GCPB after TPB constructs and marketing mix-related variables; consciousness was mentioned in the surveyed literature eleven times. This included concern for consequences [59], environmentally conscious awareness/concern/value/pro-environmental belief [22,24,52]; health consciousness [19]; awareness of consequences [51], halal green awareness [42], awareness of green cosmetics [56], ethical concern/ethical consumerism [21], animal welfare/well-being concern [40], and self-image/self-appearance/personal appearance concern/consciousness [20,21].

3.2.4. Consumer Values

Consumer values were the next significant predictor of GCPI and GCPB, appearing ten times in the surveyed literature. These included altruistic value, egoistic motivation [19,20,21], functional value/perceived benefits [23,24], and lifestyle/LOHAS consumption tendency [21]. However, some value-related findings were equivocal; for instance, Suphasomboon and Vassanadumrongdee [24] found that perceived emotional value did not significantly impact purchase intention. Contrary to the general assumption, perceived safety value did not significantly affect purchase intention [12,25]. Ribeiro et al. [22] found no statistically significant direct effect of openness to change and conservation (two of the four higher-order fundamental human values of Schwartz) on purchase intention toward cannabis-based skincare products. Further, in contrast to the hypothesized relationship, Bharti et al. [33] found that some exceptional consumer values, such as consumer pessimism, affect organic cosmetic purchase behavior.

3.2.5. Brand-Related Attributes

Several brand-related attributes were positively associated with GCPI and GCPB, including green brand trust/certification trust [45,46,47], brand loyalty [25,31], brand awareness [31], brand attractiveness [39], and green brand value/brand equity [47,48]. Further, the corporate social responsibility issue significantly predicted CGPI [25,51].

3.2.6. Experience and Knowledge

Several studies found that consumers’ prior experience, environmental knowledge, and awareness of green cosmetics significantly influenced GCPI and GCPB. For example, Delistavrou et al. [36] showed that past behavior was positively associated with young consumers’ purchase intentions for ecological personal care products. Consumers’ past experience was positively associated with their purchase intention toward organic personal care products [44]. Green-cosmetics-related knowledge significantly influenced young Vietnamese women’s green cosmetics purchase intention [9]. Similarly, awareness of green cosmetics was positively correlated with purchase intention toward green cosmetics [56]. Environmental knowledge (i.e., knowledge of the environment and related issues) significantly and positively influenced Generation Y’s behavioral intention toward green cosmetics [50]. Environmental knowledge was positively associated with female Portuguese consumers’ buyer behaviors toward cruelty-free cosmetics [20].

3.2.7. Self-Efficacy

Three studies reported a positive relationship between self-efficacy and GCPI [9,17,51]. For example, self-efficacy (i.e., a consumer’s confidence in purchasing green cosmetics effectively) significantly and positively predicted young female Vietnamese consumers’ GCPI [9]. Munerah et al. [51] showed a significant impact of self-efficacy on Malaysians’ purchase intention for green beauty products. Similarly, self-efficacy significantly positively affected consumers’ intentions toward purchasing green personal care products [17].

3.2.8. Perceived Barriers

Sadiq et al. [55] examined the influence of perceived barriers (functional and psychological) on GCPI. They found that psychological barriers such as tradition and image barriers negatively affected eco-friendly cosmetic purchase intentions. However, contrary to the hypothesized relationship, Kumar et al. [23] found that perceived risks did not significantly impact the consumers’ purchase intentions for green cosmetics.

3.2.9. Other Factors

As reported in the Appendix A, several miscellaneous factors significantly directly affect green cosmetics purchase intentions and behaviors. For example, Bharti et al. [33] found that consumers’ subjective well-being significantly impacts purchase behavior. In addition, although it is not a frequently used construct in green purchase behavior, Kumar et al. [23] found that system trust (trust in government rules and regulations) significantly affects green purchase intention. In another interesting finding from a Saudi sample, Khan and Salim [19] revealed that students’ purchase preferences do not have a significant and positive effect on GCPI and that Saudi homemakers’ motivational factors do not have a significant influence on purchase intention. These two findings indicate the emergence of researching GCPI and GCPB in different cultural settings by considering diverse demographic conditions, as GCPI and GCPB are presumed to vary significantly based on context.

4. Discussion

This review shows that the theory of planned behavior constructs (attitude, norms, and perceived behavioral control) were significantly and positively related to GCPI and GCPB. Attitude was the most frequently demonstrated predictor of GCPI and GCPB, followed by norms and perceived behavioral control. These results suggest that the theory of planned behavior can be a suitable framework for understanding consumers’ green purchase intentions and behaviors. When developing promotional campaigns to increase consumers’ intentions toward purchasing green cosmetics, attention should be paid to consumers’ perceptions of green cosmetics to induce a positive attitude [14]. Advertising messages can highlight the influence of social pressure and emphasize green cosmetics purchase behavior as a norm in the current society [51]. Moreover, marketers can focus on enhancing consumers’ confidence in green cosmetics by informing them about their environment-friendly and certified organic products [9,14].
This review shows that marketing mix variables such as price sensitivity, price consciousness, product sensory appeal, and product sensorial expectations were strong predictors of GCPI. Thus, green cosmetics should be sold at reasonable prices; consumers should be fully informed about price differences between green and non-green cosmetics [14]. Furthermore, green cosmetics marketers should educate consumers about their products’ benefits to enhance their purchase intentions. Finally, the sensorial attributes of their products (e.g., color, scent, oiliness, and greasiness) should be considered when developing and marketing their products [12].
Several studies established consumer values and consciousness as essential determinants of GCPI and GCPB. Therefore, when developing green cosmetics, attention should also be given to the hedonic value (e.g., attractive design, packaging, and labeling) rather than solely focusing on the product’s benefits [18]. In addition, the hedonic value can be leveraged by using positive emotional appeals such as pride, pleasure, joy, and affection [8]. Moreover, marketers should consider highlighting the health benefits of their green cosmetics products. Since people with a high level of pessimism resist purchasing green cosmetics, marketing strategies can emphasize green cosmetics’ ecological and health benefits [33].
Our results show that brand-related attributes such as green brand trust, certification trust, corporate social responsibility, and brand equity were positively associated with GCPI and GCPB. Therefore, cosmetics companies manufacturing sustainable products may achieve a competitive advantage through a differentiation strategy by obtaining and promoting sustainability certifications [46]. Furthermore, green cosmetics marketers can promote their CSR initiatives by integrating philanthropic contributions into their business activities, blending their environmental initiatives with commercial procedures, and demonstrating their promises and commitments to improving the environment [51]. When targeting environmentally conscious consumers, it is crucial for cosmetics companies to promote their brands’ environmental sustainability initiatives. The results also demonstrate a dominant effect of brand image on purchase intention, which suggests that green cosmetics marketers can focus on building trust and tailor their communication campaigns to build and promote a brand image by showing their commitment to environmental sustainability and enhancing consumers’ confidence in their brands’ environmental promises [47].
Since psychological barriers such as tradition barriers and image barriers have strong negative associations with eco-friendly cosmetics purchase intentions, marketers and retailers can design promotional campaigns emphasizing the benefits of their green cosmetics over traditional alternatives [55]. To influence the attitudes and behavioral intentions of conscious consumers, promotional campaigns should highlight the benefits of using green cosmetic products regarding environmental well-being, especially ecological beauty, product safety, and affordable prices [44]. Furthermore, using endorsements and recruiting opinion leaders/influencers and public figures can be an effective strategy for advocating for and promoting green cosmetic products and increasing consumer attention to green cosmetics products [3].

5. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The analyzed literature indicates several limitations that could be addressed through future research.

5.1. Sample Diversity and Generalization

An avenue for future research could be related to sample diversity. Scholars indicate that future studies should examine the determinants of GCPI and GCPB in different age groups [32], generations [42,45], genders [9,21], and ethnic groups [52]. Furthermore, it is imperative to consider various sociodemographic conditions, including income, education, religion, and life stages [2,9,15,22,25,32,54,57]. In addition, several scholars suggested that the findings be made more generalizable by employing larger samples extracted from different populations [22,40,53,58] and country-representative samples [8,12,15,48,57], employing cross-country analyses, or collecting data from different countries and cultures [2,10,21,23,24,33,36,38,40,45,46,47,52,55]. In addition, most studies included in this systematic review were carried out in Asia; therefore, future primary studies should be conducted to better understand the factors influencing green cosmetic consumption in Western societies.

5.2. Product Choice

There is also the possibility that each green cosmetic brand will possess its own uniqueness, which may result in differences in consumer perceptions regarding green products. Thus, future research can explore the predictors of GCPI and GCPB by comparing two or more green cosmetic products [23,32,52,57]. In addition, future research may include different natural claims and different percentages of naturalness [12]. Researchers also argued for a comparison between non-green consumers and consumers of green beauty products [51].

5.3. Model Complexities and Moderating Variables

Future research can consider the complexity of research models and moderating variables. Some variables proposed by the researchers include green behavior motivation and prior experience [32] as well as external variables such as merchandising, price, product benefit, atmosphere, user experience, availability, objective product knowledge, willingness to pay, promotional offers, government regulation, barriers to the adoption of green skincare cosmetics, consumers’ morality, advertising appeals (e.g., pride vs. guilt), personality traits, generativity, self-concept, country of origin [8,16,22,23,40,53,57,58], halal trust and halal reputation, brand awareness and willingness to pay [42], consumer satisfaction, loyalty, trust, involvement, and electronic word of mouth [8,14,53]. Some scholars advised considering the supply side of green cosmetics consumption [50].

5.4. Theoretical Underpinning

The theoretical diversity in the relevant research is another potential avenue for future research. For example, researchers advocate for a more diverse theoretical underpinning than merely TPB, including a variety of value theories [2,23], the trait theory of personality and attitude–behavior–contextual theory [33], neutralization theory [51], behavioral reasoning theory [23], or even a combination of two theoretical models [36]. Further, researchers have suggested that actual behavior should be used instead of behavioral intention and then evaluating how intentions affect actual behavior [2,9,13,36,58].

5.5. Data and Method

Future research can focus on data characteristics and methodological choices. Since most of the studies in this review used cross-sectional survey designs, future research should consider using a mix-method or experimental research design [2,9,17,18,33,52] or a longitudinal research design [2,10,14,25,32,33,38,54,58]. Several researchers argue for using data collection diversity rather than self-reported measures, which usually introduce survey biases [25,36,38]. Instead of convenience sampling, future research should rely more on probabilistic and random sampling [20,52,55]. In addition, using a more diverse data analysis technique is more desirable than SEM-PLS [10,42].

6. Conclusions

The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the empirical studies that examined the determinants of GCPI and GCPB. We identified ten clusters of themes for the factors associated with GCPI and GCPB: attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, marketing mix, consumer consciousness concerns, consumer values, brand-related attributes, experience and knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived barriers. These findings will help marketers frame their marketing strategies for promoting green cosmetic products.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.B.L. and A.F.M.J.A.; methodology, Y.B.L. and A.F.M.J.A.; formal analysis, A.F.M.J.A. and Y.B.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.B.L. and A.F.M.J.A.; writing—review and editing, Y.B.L. and A.F.M.J.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval was not required.

Informed Consent Statement

Ethical approval was not required.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Major Themes in Previous Research

ThemeFrequencyStudies
1.Attitude27
Attitude [2,3,9,13,14,15,16,17,32,35,36,41,42,46,48,52,53,57]
Attitude toward (re)purchasing organic/natural PCP [8,44]
Attitude toward cannabis-based skincare cosmetics [22]
Attitude toward the industrial use of cannabis-based skincare cosmetics [22]
Attitude toward cruelty-free cosmetics [20]
Attitude toward “not tested on animals” cosmetic products [40]
Green attitude [45]
Attitude toward green packaging [50]
Hedonic attitude [58]
Utilitarian attitude [58]
2.Norms19
Subjective norm [2,3,9,13,14,15,16,17,20,32,35,36,40,41,44,53]
Personal norm [18,51,54]
Social norm [51]
3.Perceived behavioral control9[2,8,14,15,20,32,35,36,44]
4.Marketing mix13
Price sensitivity/consciousness [34,50]
Product sensory appeal/sensorial expectations [12]
Perceived efficacy [12]
Packaging design [52]
Package’s printed information [52]
No animal testing [49]
Organic product [49]
Recyclable packaging [49]
Customer engagement [38]
Enthusiasm [34]
Perceived quality [31]
Conscious participation [34]
5.Consumers’ consequence concerns11
Concern for consequences [59]
Environmentally conscious awareness/concern/value/pro-environmental belief [22,24,52]
Health consciousness [19]
Awareness of consequences [51]
Halal green awareness [42]
Awareness of green cosmetics [56]
Ethical concern/ethical consumerism [21]
Animal welfare/well-being concern [40]
Self-image/self-appearance/personal appearance concern/consciousness [20,21]
6.Consumer value10
Value (egoistic motivation)/altruistic value/motivation [19,20,21]
Values [34]
Functional value/perceived benefits [23,24]
Lifestyle/LOHAS consumption tendency [21]
Social value [25]
Consumer pessimism [33]
7.Brand-related attributes10
Green brand trust/trust/certification trust [45,46,47]
Green brand value/brand equity [47,48]
Trust in domain-specific information [25]
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) image/environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) [51]
Brand loyalty [25,31]
Brand attractiveness [39]
Brand awareness [31]
8.Experience and knowledge5
Environmental knowledge [20,50]
Past experience/behavior with organic products [36,44]
Green cosmetic knowledge [9]
9.Self-efficacy3[9,17,51]
10.Perceived barriers2
Functional [55]
Psychological [55]
11.Other factors9
Information adoption [10]
Social media influence [37,38]
Motivational factors [19]
Purchase preference [19]
Involvement in skin safety [25]
Subjective well-being [33]
System trust [23]
Source credibility [37]

References

  1. Statista. 2023. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/beauty-personal-care/worldwide (accessed on 8 May 2023).
  2. Ali, S.; Usama Javed, H.M.; Ali, W.; Zahid, H. Decoding men’s behavioral responses toward green cosmetics: An investigation based on the belief decomposition approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2022, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chin, J.; Jiang, B.C.; Mufidah, I.; Persada, S.F.; Noer, B.A. The investigation of consumers’ behavior intention in using green skincare products: A pro-environmental behavior model approach. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Matthes, J.; Wonneberger, A. The skeptical green consumer revisited: Testing the relationship between green consumerism and skepticism toward advertising. J. Advert. 2014, 43, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cosmetics Europe. Annual Report 2022. Available online: https://cosmeticseurope.eu/search/?q=report+2022 (accessed on 8 May 2023).
  6. Research and Markets. Natural and Organic Cosmetics: Global Strategic Business Report; Global Industry Analysis, Inc.: San Jose, CA, USA, 2022; Available online: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5302375/natural-and-organic-cosmetics-global-strategic (accessed on 10 May 2023).
  7. Market Research Future. Natural and Organic Cosmetics Market Size, Share, Segmentation by Type (Skin Care, Hair Care, Oral Care, Makeup Cosmetics and Others), by Consumer Group (Male and Female), by Distribution Channel (Store-Based and Non-Store Based)—Global Forecast till 2027. 2022. Available online: https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/natural-organic-cosmetics-market-7257 (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  8. Ghazali, E.; Soon, P.C.; Mutum, D.S.; Nguyen, B. Health and cosmetics: Investigating consumers’ values for buying organic personal care products. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 39, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Limbu, Y.B.; Pham, L.; Nguyen, T.T.T. Predictors of Green Cosmetics Purchase Intentions among Young Female Consumers in Vietnam. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zollo, L.; Carranza, R.; Faraoni, M.; Díaz, E.; Martín-Consuegra, D. What influences consumers’ intention to purchase organic personal care products? The role of social reassurance. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 60, 102432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lin, Y.; Yang, S.; Hanifah, H.; Iqbal, Q. An exploratory study of consumer attitudes toward green cosmetics in the UK market. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Simao, S.A.V.; Rohden, S.F.; Pinto, D.C. Natural claims and sustainability: The role of perceived efficacy and sensorial expectations. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 34, 505–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hansen, T.; Risborg, M.S.; Steen, C.D. Understanding consumer purchase of free-of cosmetics: A value-driven TRA approach. J. Consum. Behav. 2012, 11, 477–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hsu, C.-L.; Chang, C.-Y.; Yansritakul, C. Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory of planned behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 34, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tengli, A.; Srinivasan, S.H. An Exploratory Study to Identify the Gender-Based Purchase Behavior of Consumers of Natural Cosmetics. Cosmetics 2022, 9, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shimul, A.S.; Cheah, I.; Khan, B.B. Investigating female shoppers’ attitude and purchase intention toward green cosmetics in South Africa. J. Glob. Mark. 2022, 35, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Susanty, A.; Puspitasari, N.B.; Prastawa, H.; Listyawardhani, P.; Tjahjono, B. Antecedent Factors of Green Purchasing Behavior: Learning Experiences, Social Cognitive Factors, and Green Marketing. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 777531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jaini, A.; Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J.; Hussin, N. Antecedents of green purchase behavior of cosmetics products: An empirical investigation among Malaysian consumers. Int. J. Ethics Syst. 2020, 36, 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Khan, S.; Salim, A. Saudi females’ buying behavior of green cosmetics: A pertinent motivational aspect. J. Mark. Commun. 2021, 27, 594–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Magano, J.; Au-Yong-Oliveira, M.; Ferreira, B.; Leite, Â. A Cross-Sectional Study on Ethical Buyer Behavior towards Cruelty-Free Cosmetics: What Consequences for Female Leadership Practices? Sustainability 2022, 14, 7786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pudaruth, S.; Juwaheer, T.D.; Seewoo, Y.D. Gender-based differences in understanding the purchasing patterns of eco-friendly cosmetics and beauty care products in Mauritius: A study of female customers. Soc. Responsib. J. 2015, 11, 179–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ribeiro, N.G.; Añaña, E.S.; Barbosa, B. The Influence of Human Values, Environmental Awareness, and Attitudes on the Intention to Purchase Cannabis-Based Skincare Cosmetics. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kumar, S.; Talwar, S.; Krishnan, S.; Kaur, P.; Dhir, A. Purchasing natural personal care products in the era of fake news? The moderation effect of brand trust. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Suphasomboon, T.; Vassanadumrongdee, S. Toward sustainable consumption of green cosmetics and personal care products: The role of perceived value and ethical concern. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 33, 230–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Choi, E.; Lee, K.C. Effect of trust in domain-specific information of safety, brand loyalty, and perceived value for cosmetics on purchase intentions in mobile e-commerce context. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Liobikienė, G.; Bernatonienė, J. Why determinants of green purchase cannot be treated equally? The case of green cosmetics: Literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Paul, J.; Merchant, A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rose, G. Writing an impactful review article: What do we know and what do we need to know? J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 337–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, W-65–W-94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Selçuk, A.A. A guide for systematic reviews: PRISMA. Turk. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2019, 57, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Al-Haddad, S.; Awad, A.; Albate, D.; Almashhadani, I.; Dirani, W. Factors affecting green cosmetics purchase intention. J. Manag. Inf. Decis. Sci. 2020, 23, 332–342. [Google Scholar]
  32. Askadilla, W.; Krisjanti, M.N. Understanding Indonesian green consumer behavior on cosmetic products: Theory of planned behavior model. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2017, 15, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bharti, K.; Jabeen, F.; Sadiq, M.; Khan, F. Does External Attribution Motivate Pessimistic Consumers to Purchase Organic Cosmetics? Australas. Mark. J. 2022, 14413582221127319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. De Matos, M.L.R.; Nobre, L.H.N.; de Souza Galvão, L.G.; Nobre, F.C. Relationships Between Consumer Engagement and Purchase Intention of Ecological Products. Rev. De Gestão Soc. E Ambient. 2023, 17, e3072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Delistavrou, A.; Tilikidou, I. Consumers’ Intentions to Buy Cosmetics and Detergents with Ingredients Made from Recycled CO2. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Delistavrou, A.; Papaioannou, E.; Assimakopoulos, C. Consumers’ decision to purchase online ecological personal care products: A moderated TPB model. Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag. 2022, 17, 34–47. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dos Santos, R.C.; de Brito Silva, M.J.; da Costa, M.F.; Batista, K. Go vegan! digital influence and social media use in the purchase intention of vegan products in the cosmetics industry. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 2023, 13, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Gani, M.O.; Roy, H.; Rahman, M.S.; Faroque, A.R.; Gupta, V.; Prova, H.T. Effect of social media influence on consumer’s purchase intention of organic beauty products: The role of customer’s engagement and generativity. Int. J. Spa Wellness 2023, 6, 54–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Grădinaru, C.; Obadă, D.-R.; Grădinaru, I.-A.; Dabija, D.-C. Enhancing Sustainable Cosmetics Brand Purchase: A Comprehensive Approach Based on the SOR Model and the Triple Bottom Line. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Grappe, C.G.; Lombart, C.; Louis, D.; Durif, F. “Not tested on animals”: How consumers react to cruelty-free cosmetics proposed by manufacturers and retailers? Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2021, 49, 1532–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ha, B.-C.; Lim, S.-Y.; Lee, C. Impact of Organizations’ Internal Green Supply Chain Management on Consumers’ Purchasing Behavior for Personal Care Products. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2021, 14, 338–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Irfany, M.I.; Khairunnisa, Y.; Tieman, M. Factors influencing Muslim Generation Z consumers’ purchase intention of environmentally friendly halal cosmetic products. J. Islam. Mark. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jaini, A.; Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J.; Hussin, N. “I buy green products, do you…?”: The moderating effect of eWOM on green purchase behavior in Malaysian cosmetics industry. Int. J. Pharm. Healthc. Mark. 2020, 14, 89–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kim, H.Y.; Chung, J.E. Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 18, 40–47. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lavuri, R.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Grebinevych, O.; Roubaud, D. Green factors stimulating the purchase intention of innovative luxury organic beauty products: Implications for sustainable development. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lee, E.J.; Bae, J.; Kim, K.H. The effect of sustainable certification reputation on consumer behavior in the fashion industry: Focusing on the mechanism of congruence. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2020, 11, 137–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lee, Y.-H.; Chen, S.-L. Effect of green attributes transparency on wta for green cosmetics: Mediating effects of CSR and green brand concepts. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Lili, Z.; Al Mamun, A.; Hayat, N.; Salamah, A.A.; Yang, Q.; Ali, M.H. Celebrity Endorsement, Brand Equity, and Green Cosmetics Purchase Intention Among Chinese Youth. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 860177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Marangon, F.; Tempesta, T.; Troiano, S.; Vecchiato, D. Sustainable Agriculture and No-Food Production: An Empirical Investigation on Organic Cosmetics. Riv. Studi Sulla Sostenibilita 2015, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Moslehpour, M.; Chaiyapruk, P.; Faez, S.; Wong, W.-K. Generation Y’s Sustainable Purchasing Intention of Green Personal Care Products. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Munerah, S.; Koay, K.Y.; Thambiah, S. Factors influencing non-green consumers’ purchase intention: A partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Najm, A.A.; Salih, S.A.; Fazry, S.; Law, D.; Azfaralariff, A. Moderated mediation approach to determine the effect of natural packaging factors on intention to purchase natural skincare products among the population of Klang Valley, Malaysia. J. Sens. Stud. 2023, 38, e12811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pop, R.-A.; Săplăcan, Z.; Alt, M.-A. Social media goes green—The impact of social media on green cosmetics purchase motivation and intention. Information 2020, 11, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Quoquab, F.; Jaini, A.; Mohammad, J. Does it matter who exhibits more green purchase behavior of cosmetic products in Asian culture? A multi-group analysis approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Sadiq, M.; Adil, M.; Paul, J. An innovation resistance theory perspective on purchase of eco-friendly cosmetics. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 59, 102369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sharma, M.; Trivedi, P.; Deka, J. A paradigm shift in consumer behaviour towards green cosmetics: An empirical study. Int. J. Green Econ. 2021, 15, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Singhal, A.; Malik, G. The attitude and purchasing of female consumers towards green marketing related to cosmetic industry. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2018, 12, 514–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Vergura, D.T.; Zerbini, C.; Luceri, B. Consumers’ attitude and purchase intention towards organic personal care products. An application of the SOR model. Sinergie Ital. J. Manag. 2020, 38, 121–137. [Google Scholar]
  59. Zahid, M.M.; Ali, B.; Ahmad, M.S.; Thurasamy, R.; Amin, N. Factors affecting purchase intention and social media publicity of green products: The mediating role of concern for consequences. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 11881 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram displaying inclusion and exclusion of studies.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram displaying inclusion and exclusion of studies.
Sustainability 15 11881 g001
Sustainability 15 11881 g002
Figure 2. Number of studies by year.
Figure 2. Number of studies by year.
Sustainability 15 11881 g002
Sustainability 15 11881 g003
Figure 3. The determinants of GCPI and GCPB.
Figure 3. The determinants of GCPI and GCPB.
Sustainability 15 11881 g003
Sustainability 15 11881 g004
Figure 4. Major themes in previous research.
Figure 4. Major themes in previous research.
Sustainability 15 11881 g004
Table 1. Study characteristics and factors influencing GCPI and GCPB.
Table 1. Study characteristics and factors influencing GCPI and GCPB.
Author(s)YearCountryPopulationTheoryFactors Influencing GCPI and GCPB
Ali et al. [2]2022PakistanMaleTPBGCPI: attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavior control
Al-Haddad et al. [31]2020JordanFemaleTCVGCPI: brand awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality
Askadilla and Krisjanti [32]2017IndonesiaGeneral populationTPBGCPI: attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavior
GCPB: green purchase intention, perceived behavior control
Bharti et al. [33]2022IndiaGeneral populationCORGCPB: consumer pessimism, subjective well-being
Moderator: external attribution
Chin et al. [3]2018IndonesiaFemalePERAGCPI: attitude, subjective norms
Choi and Lee [25]2019South KoreaGeneral population GCPI: involvement in skin safety, trust in domain-specific information, brand loyalty, perceived social value
de Matos et al. [34]2023BrazilGeneral population-GCPI: enthusiasm, conscious participation, value, price
Delistavrou and Tilikidou [35]2022GreeceGeneral populationTPBGCPI: attitude, subjective norms, PBC
Moderator: skepticism toward environmental claims
Delistavrou et al. [36]2022GreeceGeneration YTPBGCPI: attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavior control, past behavior
Moderator: health consciousness
Dos Santos et al. [37]2023BrazilGeneral populationSCTGCPI: source credibility, social media use
Gani et al. [38]2023BangladeshGeneral populationSITGCPI: social media influence, customer engagement
Moderator: generativity
Ghazali et al. [8]2017MalaysiaGeneral populationTPBGCPI: attitude, perceived behavior control
Grădinaru et al. [39]2022RomaniaGeneral populationTBL, SORGCPI: brand attractiveness
Grappe et al. [40]2021CanadaGeneral populationTPBGCPI: attitude toward a “not tested on animals” cosmetic product, animal welfare concern, subjective norms
Ha et al. [41]2021South KoreaGeneral populationTPBGCPB: attitude, subjective norm
Hansen et al. [13]2012DenmarkFemaleTRAGCPI: attitude, subjective norm
Hsu et al. [14]2017TaiwanStudentTPBGCPI: attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control
Moderator: country of origin, price sensitivity
Irfany et al. [42]2023IndonesiaGeneration ZTRA, TPBGCPI: halal green awareness, attitude
Jaini et al. [18]2020aMalaysiaGeneral populationVBNGCPB: personal norm
Jaini et al. [43]2020bMalaysiaGeneral populationVBNGCPB: personal norm
Moderator: eWOM (e-word of mouth)
Khan and Salim [19]2020Saudi ArabiaFemale GCPI: motivational factors, purchase preference, health consciousness
Kim and Chung [44]2011USAGeneral populationTPBGCPI: attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavior control, past experience
Moderator: perceived behavior control
Kumar et al. [23]2021IndiaGeneral populationSOBCGCPI: perceived benefits, system trust
Moderator: brand trust
Lavuri et al. [45]2022IndiaGeneral populationS-O-R
DFT		GCPI: trust, attitude
Lee et al. [46]2020South KoreaGeneral populationCTGCPI: attitude toward product, certification trust
Lee and Chen [47]2019TaiwanGeneral population GCPI: green brand trust, green brand equity
Lili et al. [48]2022ChinaGeneral population GCPI: attitudes toward green cosmetics, brand equity
Limbu et al. [9]2022VietnamFemaleIMBGCPI: green-cosmetics-related knowledge, attitude, subjective norms, self-efficacy
Magano et al. [20]2022PortugalGeneral populationTPBGCPB: attitude toward cruelty-free cosmetics, altruism, environmental knowledge, subjective norms
Marangon et al. [49]2015ItalyGeneral populationDCEGCPI: no animal testing, organic product, recyclable packaging
Moslehpour et al. [50]2021ThailandGeneration YTPBGCPI: attitude toward green packaging, environmental knowledge, green price sensitivity
Munerah et al. [51]2021MalaysiaGeneral populationNATGCPI: awareness of consequences, efficacy, social norm, environmental corporate social responsibility initiatives, personal norm.
Najm et al. [52]2023MalaysiaGeneral populationVBN, TPBGCPI: personal attitude, environmental concern, packaging design, package’s printed information
Pop et al. [53]2020Romania, HungaryFemaleTPBGCPI: attitude, subjective norms
Pudaruth [21]2015MauritiusFemale GCPI: lifestyles, self-image, health and economic considerations, ethical consumerism, pharmacological essence of green cosmetics and beauty care products, visual appeal and physical cues in cosmetic stores, price-conscious decisions and effective promotion, belief in ethical claims in green messages, brand image and user experience, sales representatives and social influences
Quoquab et al. [54]2020MalaysiaGeneral populationVBNGCPB: personal norms
Moderator: gender
Ribeiro et al. [22]2022PortugalGeneral populationTPBGCPI: environmental awareness, attitude toward cannabis-based skincare cosmetics, attitude toward the industrial use of cannabis-based skincare cosmetics
Sadiq et al. [55]2021IndiaGeneral populationIRTGCPI: functional barriers (usage, value, risk), psychological barriers (tradition, image)
Moderators: environmental concern, health concern
Sharma et al. [56]2021IndiaGeneral population GCPI: age, educational qualification
Shimul et al. [16]2022South AfricaFemaleTPBGCPI: subjective norm, attitude, perceived behavioral control (NS)
Moderator: consumer involvement
Simão et al. [12]2022PortugalGeneral population GCPI: perceived efficacy, sensorial expectations
Singhal and Malik [57]2018IndiaFemale GCPI: attitude
Suphasomboon and Vassanadumrongdee [24]2022ThailandGeneral populationPVTGCPI: perceived functional value, ethical concern
Susanty et al. [17]2021IndonesiaGeneral populationTPBGCPI: outcome expectation, self-efficacy, subjective norms
GCPB: purchase intention
Moderator: contextual factors
Tengli and Srinivasan [15]2022IndiaGeneral populationTPBGCPI: attitude toward environmentally friendly and natural cosmetics, perceived behavioral control
GCPB: intention, perceived behavioral control
Vergura et al. [58]2020ItalyGeneral populationS-O-RGCPI: hedonic attitude, utilitarian attitude
Zahid et al. [59]2018PakistanGeneral populationTPBGCPI: concern for consequences
Zollo et al. [10]2021Spain, ItalyGeneral populationSPTGCPI: information adoption
Note: GCPI = green cosmetics purchase intention, GCPB = green cosmetics purchase behavior, COR = conservation of resources theory, CT = categorization theory, DCE = discrete choice modeling, DFT = dual factor theory, IRT = innovation resistance theory, PERA = pro-environmental reasoned action, PVT = perceived value theory, NAT = norm activation theory, TBL = triple bottom line, TCV = theory of consumption values, TPB = theory of planned behavior, SCT = source credibility theory, SIT = social influence theory, SPT = social proof theory, S-O-R = stimulus–organism–response, SOBC = stimulus–organism–behavior–consequence; VBN = value–belief–norm.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Limbu, Y.B.; Ahamed, A.F.M.J. What Influences Green Cosmetics Purchase Intention and Behavior? A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11881. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511881

AMA Style

Limbu YB, Ahamed AFMJ. What Influences Green Cosmetics Purchase Intention and Behavior? A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability. 2023; 15(15):11881. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511881

Chicago/Turabian Style

Limbu, Yam B., and A. F. M. Jalal Ahamed. 2023. "What Influences Green Cosmetics Purchase Intention and Behavior? A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda" Sustainability 15, no. 15: 11881. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511881

APA Style

Limbu, Y. B., & Ahamed, A. F. M. J. (2023). What Influences Green Cosmetics Purchase Intention and Behavior? A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability, 15(15), 11881. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511881

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