Generational Differences in Sustainable Consumption Behavior among Chinese Residents: Implications Based on Perceptions of Sustainable Consumption and Lifestyle

Abstract

To deal with the challenges posed by generational differences in China’s sustainable consumption transition, this study’s pioneers using a mixed-methods approach with data mining and literature research to classify Chinese residents into four generations based on the sustainable consumption perspective. We developed a conceptual model of generational differences and conducted an empirical study using structured interviews with a multi-stage random sampling approach. The results highlight significant differences and distinct influencing mechanisms among the four generations regarding perceptions of sustainable consumption, lifestyle, and sustainable consumption behavior. Based on this, multi-generational differentiated green marketing strategies, green product development and green marketing practices, as well as consumer education systems and strategies for stakeholders including the government, enterprises, and society are proposed. The findings contribute to advancing theoretical perspectives in sustainable consumption research, serving as a valuable reference for sustainable consumption research worldwide.

1. Introduction

With the rapid rise in global population and economic progress in the last few years, environmental and climate issues are becoming increasingly prominent. As a response to global environmental and climate change, governments around the world have been advocating for all citizens to actively participate in sustainable consumption characterized by resource conservation and environmental protection through a series of policies and initiatives. Undoubtedly, sustainable consumption has been the most powerful force in contemporary development, and influences all aspects of residents’ daily lives and impacts deeply on the change of values and the transformation of lifestyles.

Sustainable consumption emphasizes the sustainability of consumption, and requires consumers to adopt a simple and moderate [1], green and low-carbon lifestyle [2], which is manifested in ecological awareness and behavior regarding green product use and product reduction, reuse, and recycling in the consumption process. According to the China Sustainable Consumption Report released by dairy company the Yili Group in 2018, awareness of sustainable consumption in China is increasing, with more than 90% of Chinese consumers aware of sustainable consumption. The 2021 Report on Sustainable Consumption in China suggests that 53.8% of respondents choose environmentally and socially friendly products due to “caring about the world and making both the environment and society better through individual actions,” and a further 46.2% hope that by consuming more sustainably would allow the next generation to be able to have a sustainable living environment [3]. This shows that Chinese residents increasingly understand sustainable consumption, yet notable age-related disparities persist. Generational differences increase the complexity and difficulty of sustainable consumption transformation for consumers, resulting in some difficulties and challenges in understanding the dynamics of consumer behavior.

As for consumer behavior, some literature has explored the role of factors such as values [4], knowledge [5], subjective norms [6], and awareness of environmental protection on sustainable consumption behavior, in which the key role of age in the choice of green and socially friendly products has been confirmed [7,8]. Dencker et al. [9] pointed out that people born at different times develop different ways of thinking, experiencing and acting due to differences in their life experiences and social environments, which lead to different consumption habits and behaviors [10]. Many previous studies related to consumption have shown that an individual’s generational identity influences their decision-making processes [11,12] and sustainable consumption behavior [7,13]. Generally, younger generations are more concerned about sustainable consumption than older generations [13,14]. In China, J. Liang et al. [15] explored the mechanisms influencing sustainable consumption perceptions and behavior with lifestyle as a mediating variable. However, limited research has been conducted on how these factors vary across different generations, resulting in difficulties in how to effectively promote sustainable consumption behaviors across different generation cohorts.

Regarding generations, the definition proposed by Kotler et al. [16] seems most suitable for this study. However, it may not be well suited for Chinese residents. This is mainly because the similarities between Chinese residents and cohorts in other countries brought about by globalization do not surpass the generational differences arising from China’s specific social, historical, and political environment [17]. Therefore, it is crucial to select generational classifications that are suitable for Chinese residents when studying sustainable consumption behavior among Chinese residents. Nowadays, the most popular generational categorizations used in Chinese literature and media are based on birth years, namely, the post-1960s, post-1970s, post-1980s, and post-1990s [18,19], which do not fully reveal the differences in sustainable consumption among different generational groups. Therefore, this study examines the generational differences among Chinese residents based on the perspective of sustainable development and explores the relationship among sustainable perceptions, lifestyles, and behaviors. The aim is to broaden the understanding of the mechanisms and perspectives of sustainable consumption, contributing a new theoretical foundation for the promotion of sustainable consumption, as well as providing valuable insights for policymakers and marketers in China and other countries around the world.

The main research questions of this study are as follows.

(1)

Are there significant differences in sustainable consumption perceptions, lifestyles, and sustainable consumption behaviors among different generational cohorts in China?

(2)

Are there differences in the relationship between sustainable consumption perceptions and behaviors among different generational cohorts in China?

(3)

Are there differences in the relationship between lifestyles and sustainable consumption behaviors among different generational cohorts in China?

(4)

Are there differences between generations concerning the influence mechanism of lifestyle on the relationship between sustainable consumption perceptions and behavior?

The general layout of this study is constructed as follows. Section 2 offers an extensive literature review and develops hypotheses, followed by the research methodology in Section 3 and detailed empirical findings in Section 4. Based on a discussion of the findings, the theoretical contributions and managerial implications of this study are put forward in Section 5. Finally, the conclusions and limitations of this study are offered in Section 6.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Sustainable Consumption Behavior

Sustainable consumption, driven by climate change, environmental degradation, economic growth, and population growth [20], was defined by the Oslo Symposium in 1994. It refers to the utilization of products and services designed to fulfill fundamental requirements and enhance overall well-being, all the while reducing reliance on natural resources, limiting the presence of toxic materials, and mitigating waste and pollution emissions, thus ensuring the preservation of future generations’ needs [21]. According to this definition, sustainable consumption is consumption that upholds the capacity for present and future generations to fulfil their requirements without inflicting irreversible harm on the environment or impairing the functionality of natural ecosystems [22]. Transforming consumption behavior and creating more sustainable products and services is the essence of the sustainable consumption concept [23]. Therefore, sustainable consumption behavior has been identified as an effective solution [24] to reduce the negative impacts of consumption on the environment and ecosystems [25] and to encourage sustainable development [24,26].

To explore strategies for inspiring consumer to reorient their consumption practices towards more sustainable ones [27], researchers have extensively explored and conducted in-depth studies on sustainable consumption, yielding fruitful outcomes that have contributed to the rapid development of the field [28]. Studies have shown that changing behavior, especially motivating consumers to engage in more sustainable behaviors, is far from straightforward [27]. Because individual behavior is deeply rooted in the social and institutional context, consumers are often “locked into” unsustainable behaviors despite their well-intentioned sustainable consumption, leading to inconsistency between intentions and behaviors. Social and institutional contexts are important factors that directly or indirectly influence consumer behavior, which includes not only internal antecedents of behavior, such as values, attitudes, and intentions to complement [29], but also external factors, such as norms, institutional constraints, and incentives [30]. Differences between social and institutional contexts in different eras have led to significant differences in the living environments, habits, and lifestyles of different generational cohorts, resulting in differences in the perception, attitudes, and behaviors of different generational cohorts toward sustainable consumption, so generation has been regarded by many scholars as an important factor influencing sustainable consumption behavior.

2.2. Generational Cohort Theory

The generational cohort theory pioneered by German sociologist Karl Mannheim proposes that a generation shares a distinctive set of values, beliefs, attitudes, and behavior [31] that are shaped by significant social, political, and economic events that occurred during the early stage of individuals’ life cycles [24]. According to this theory, a “generation” integrates biological and sociocultural attributes, including age, and refers to a group of people who share a common birth era, age, and significant life events at a critical stage of development [32], leading to convergence in thinking, experience, and action patterns. However, the same sociohistorical events affect generational groups differently, resulting in intergenerational value differences. While individuals in the same generational group may share thinking and behavior patterns, their values are not identical. Individual values are influenced by macroenvironmental changes and personal circumstances, such as social class, gender, race, etc., resulting in variations in understanding and acceptance of historical events and creating value differences within the same generation.

It has been shown that different generational cohorts have different value judgments and behaviors due to diverse upbringing, economic and social backgrounds, and critical events experienced during their formative stages [9]. This leads to significant differences in cohort characteristics regarding values, lifestyles, attitudes, and behaviors across generations [33], sometimes resulting in intergenerational conflicts due to value pluralism [34]. It has been proven that generational differences influence consumers’ purchase patterns, shopping behavior [35,36], and sustainable consumption intentions and behaviors [14,37,38]: “cohort effects are lifelong effects” and “are useful for communication campaigns” [39]. For example, Bulut et al. [40] examined the relationship between sustainable consumption behavior and both gender- and generation-related individual differences in a Turkish sample, and obtained generation as a dimension that influences sustainable consumption behavior. Ivanova et al. [37] studied the differences in the inclination to buy environmentally friendly products between Generation X and Y consumers in France, revealing the role of generational groups in influencing the willingness to consume sustainably. Eastman [41] found significant differences in the purchasing of sustainable wine products between Generation Y and older generations in Italy [42]. This indicates that generational factors have become a more effective variable than gender, income, and education, profoundly influencing consumer sustainable consumption behavior [41].

2.3. Generational Cohort of Chinese Residents

The generation cohort in China was initially proposed by the German scholar Hellmut Schutte [43], dividing Chinese consumers into three generations based on the consumption perspective, namely, the “socialist generation” (before 1945), the “lost generation” (1945–1960), and the “lifestyle generation” (after 1960). Later, Liu et al. proposed a five-generation segmentation of consumers based on living environments, cultural values, and marketing perspectives: the “traditional generation” (before 1945), the “Cultural Revolution generation” (1945–1960), the “lucky generation” (1960–1970), the “transition generation” (1970–1980), and the “E generation “ (after 1980) [44]. Egri and Ralston [45] classified Chinese residents into four generations based on the impact of Chinese historical events on personal values: republican (born in 1930–1950), consolidation (born in 1951–1960), Cultural Revolution (1961–1970), and social reform generations (born after 1970) [45]. Liao and Zhang [46] divided the Chinese public into the 1950s (born in 1950–1959), 1960s (born in 1960–1969), 1970s (born in 1970–1979), 1980s (born in 1980–1989), and 1990s (born in 1990–1999) using decades as periods. Liu, Zheng, and Wu [47] used 1980, when family planning policies were implemented, as the point at which to divide the pre- and post-1980 generations.

There are three types of generational divisions in China: one is the generational division based on the influence of historical or economic events on the values of the general public or employees, another is the generational cohort division of the consumer market based on consumer behavior, and the third is a demographic division based on a decade-by-decade basis. However, over the past few decades, China has experienced notable economic and social transformations, leading to the emergence of distinct generational cohorts with unique characteristics. The homogeneity of the above three types of divisions faces criticism for failing to account for recent changes in technology, globalization, and social structures. This approach may not fully reflect the unique characteristics and experiences of each generation.

Since Jeong et al. successfully identified green consumers based on demographic, psychographic, and behavioral aspects, it appears that dividing generational groups in China from a sustainable consumption perspective is feasible [48]. Consequently, generational classification based on a sustainable consumption perspective should not only consider consumers’ perceptions of sustainable consumption, awareness of resource and environmental protection, and lifestyles but also their acceptance of advanced technologies and new media consumption habits. Therefore, this study took the sixth-wave Chinese samples of the World Value Survey (WVS) as the research object, selected 26 variables, including basic values, environmental values, social networks and their relationships, civic responsibility and subjective identity, and demographic characteristics, and examined the cluster attributes and intergenerational correspondence of Chinese residents born between 1937 and 1995 by executing a clustering algorithm and building a K-means model. Eventually, three generations were obtained: pre-1960, 1960–1982, and 1983–1995. On this basis, combined with the research on the uniqueness of the post-1995 group in the existing literature, we integrated the following four generational groups in China and explored their specific characteristics under the perspective of sustainable consumption.

Pre-1960s: This generation grew up during the pre-Communist era and witnessed China’s transition from a feudal society to a modern nation. They were deeply influenced by Confucianism and other traditional Chinese values. This generation witnessed substantial social and economic transformations during their youth, including the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and witnessed the opening up and reform policies of the 1980s, which led to significant changes in Chinese society. This group is commonly educated at the primary school level or below (which means least educated) [44], characterized by a restricted social range, following tradition and compliance. Due to the poverty and hardship they experienced during growing up, they are accustomed to frugality and self-reliance [49], pay less attention to excitement, enjoyment, and self-direction, have low technology acceptance and weak environmental awareness, and prefer traditional purchasing methods and consumption habits. However, their long-term frugal life makes them possess rich awareness and experience in resource conservation, reuse, and recycling [40], as well as hard work and dedication [14].

1960–1982: This generation is those born before the widespread adoption of digital technology and came of age during the period of China’s modernization and globalization. They experienced major historical events such as the restoration of the college entrance examination system, nationally assigned employment, domestic economic system reform, and the shift from the planned economy to a market-oriented economy. Due to the differences in individual experiences and choices at important stages of life, this group differs greatly in terms of education, social networks, lifestyles, and attitudes and values toward environmental protection. Since this generation’s wealth is accumulated through hard work and innovation, they universally value achievement, tradition, benevolence, and cosmopolitanism, and are dominated by collectivist values, with relatively weak environmental awareness, lower technological acceptance, and a tendency toward traditional purchasing methods and consumption habits [50].

1983–1995: This generation, known as China’s one-child generation and often dubbed “little emperors,” has witnessed the rapid development of the Chinese economy, transitioning from scarcity to abundance in material resources. Alongside this economic boom, they have embraced the burgeoning consumer culture, embraced the rapid proliferation of the internet, and witnessed the profound shift towards digitization in the realm of information and technology carriers [25]. They are often well educated and more individualistic and technologically savvy than previous generations. They are socially oriented, value individualistic values of achievement, self-direction, excitement, power, and pleasure, and are less concerned with collectivist values of conformity and tradition. They are more frequently and intensely using traditional media, especially new media, so they show a high degree of enthusiasm to accept new technologies and concepts, and are generally conscious of environmental protection, resource use, and environmental protection, with nearly two thirds of this generation viewing the environment as a priority over the economy. However, compared to the new generation, this generation is more focused on practicality and experience [51].

Post-1995: This generation grew up in a completely digital era and has been exposed to the internet, social networks, and mobile systems [52], characterized by their familiarity with technology [53], diverse cultural influences, and heightened environmental awareness and resource use and seem to hold well-grounded environmental value [54]. They are largely highly educated due to their better family financial conditions and are willing to experience new consumption patterns such as collaborative apparel consumption [55] and green products to achieve their values [56]. It is because of their proneness to new concepts and digital access to information that this generation is more knowledgeable about sustainable living and gives higher priority to environmentally friendly products, often referred to as “green.” They exude confidence, relish self-expression, and are regarded as the most motivated, promising, and influential generation when it comes to sustainable consumption [57].

2.4. Construction of an Intergenerational Comparative Model of Sustainable Consumption Behavior of Urban Chinese Residents

Regarding generational research on sustainable consumption behavior, many studies focus only on one generation’s sustainable consumption behavior and its influencing mechanisms [58,59,60,61], leading us to know very little about the differences in sustainable consumption behavior of consumers across generations. Among the limited multigenerational cohort studies or cross-generational studies, generational differences in sustainable consumption behavior have been confirmed. For example, Ivanova et al. [37] examined generational cohort effects on responsible consumption behavior in comparison between members of Generations X and Y. Bathmanathan et al. [49] identified the age ranges of baby boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y using a document analysis methodology based on generational theory, and comparatively analyzed the characteristics, behavior, and feasibility of the market potential of each generation. Kamenidou et al. [7] identified differences in sustainable food consumption patterns and consumption behaviors among five generational groups in Greece, namely, Generations Z, Y, X, baby boomers, and the Silent Generation through field study methodology. We develop the hypotheses as follows.

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

There are differences in sustainable consumption behavior (SCB) between different generations of Chinese residents.

As discussed above, individuals of different generations are rooted in different societies and environments, have experienced different significant social, historical, and economic events, and have developed different attitudes and lifestyles, which have led to differences in perceptions and behaviors towards sustainable consumption among different generational groups [33]. For example, Severo et al. [62] confirmed the differences in perception among different generations (baby boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y) regarding sustainable consumption-related factors such as cleaner production, social responsibility, eco-innovation, and environmental awareness. Meanwhile, lifestyle, a crucial factor in predicting consumer behavior [63], represents an individual’s living pattern, which changes with societal changes and also varies due to different periods and environment of experience. Yamane and Kaneko’s research [13] found that younger generations excelled in sustainable lifestyles compared to older ones. In terms of lifestyle, Sheng et al. [64] proposed measuring individual lifestyles (LS) on four dimensions: fashion concern (FC), leadership aspiration (LA), development concern (DC), and price concern (PC). Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

There are differences in the perceptions of sustainable consumption (PSC) among Chinese residents of different generations.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

There are differences in lifestyle (LS), including fashion concern (H3a), leadership aspiration (H3b), price concern (H3c), and development concern (H3d), among Chinese residents of different generations.

Meanwhile, Liang et al. [15] constructed a relationship model based on social practice theory in view of the “perception–action paradox” problem, and confirmed the positive influence of sustainable consumption perception on behavior and the mediating role of lifestyle. However, they did not investigate whether these relationships differ across different generations of Chinese residents. This study develops upon the model proposed by Liang et al. [15] to identify generational differences among Chinese residents in the relationships between sustainable consumption perception, lifestyle, and sustainable consumption behavior.

As for generational cohort, Lin and Chen found that generational cohorts (Generations X, Y, and Z in Taiwan) negatively moderated the relationship between consumer environmental awareness, perception, and sustainable apparel purchase intentions [25]. Casalegno et al. [8] found that generation had a significant influence on the intention to purchase green and sustainable products among three different generations (X, Y, and Z) in Italy. For the Chinese generation, Liang et al. [14] found differences in secondhand clothing purchase intentions and behaviors among Chinese generational groups in terms of consumers’ perceived value, perceived concerns, and descriptive norms. Severo and De Guimaraes et al. [62] confirmed intergenerational moderation effects (baby boomers, Generations X and Y) on the relationships between cleaner production, social responsibility, eco-innovation, and environmental awareness, as well as on the relationship between environmental awareness and sustainable consumption. The studies above suggest that generational cohorts can moderate relationships between variables. The hypotheses developed are as follows.

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

The direct effect of perceptions of sustainable consumption (PSC) on sustainable consumption behavior (SCB) differs from generation to generation in China.

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

The direct effect of perceptions of sustainable consumption (PSC) on lifestyle (LS), including fashion concern (H5a), leadership aspiration (H5b), price concern (H5c), and development concern (H5d), varies by generation in China.

Hypothesis 6 (H6).

The direct effect of lifestyle (LS), including fashion concern (H6a), leadership aspiration (H6b), price concern (H6c), and development concern (H6d), on sustainable consumption behavior (SCB) varies across generations of Chinese residents.

Hypothesis 7 (H7).

The mediating role of lifestyles (LS), including fashion concern (H7a), leadership aspiration (H7b), price concern (H7c), and development concern (H7d), in perceptions of sustainable consumption (PSC) and sustainable consumption behavior (SCB) differs from generation to generation of Chinese residents.

Based on the above analysis, the conceptual model for this study is constructed as shown in Figure 1.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Structured Interview and Instrument Development

The structured interview mainly included basic information of residents, their current knowledge and behavior regarding sustainable consumption, and important variables in this study, such as perceptions of sustainable consumption, lifestyles, and sustainable consumption behavior. All constructs in this study were derived from validated scales, and all items were measured using a Likert-type scale, where 1 denotes strong disagreement, 5 denotes strong agreement, and 3 denotes neutrality. Specific items included in the revised structured interview are detailed in

Table A1. Measurement items of structured interview.

Variables	Items	Manifest Variable	References
Perception of Sustainable Consumption (PSC)	PSC1	Sustainable consumption means conserving resources and protecting the environment.	[72,73,74]
	PSC2	Green products are conducive to resource conservation, environmental protection, and human health.
	PSC3	Equity in sustainable consumption is reflected in the same generation as well as between generations.
	PSC4	I acquire sustainable knowledge through various channels such as government and society.
Fashion Concern (FC)	FC1	I always have fashionable clothes.	[64,75]
	FC2	I am keen to purchase products with new features and technological innovations.
	FC3	I always follow and share new and innovative fashion topics with my friends.
	FC4	I’m always ahead of the people around me in purchasing innovative products to keep up with fashion and trends.
Leadership Aspiration (LA)	LA1	I possess greater self-confidence than most individuals.
	LA2	I tend to make decisions with more independence compared to the majority of people.
	LA3	I am blessed with an attractive personality and the ability to be a fashion leader.
	LA4	I am capable of inspiring others to adopt innovative ideas and practices.
Price Concern (PC)	PC1	I always look out for discounts and promotions.
	PC2	I always shop around.
	PC3	I believe that high quality comes at a high price.
	PC4	I’m willing to pay a premium for green products.
Development Concern (DC)	DC1	I don’t want to recreate the past.
	DC2	Advances in technology will continue to improve our lives.
	DC3	I tend to buy and use green products to protect the ecological environment.
	DC4	I prefer to recycle the waste materials for the benefit of harmony between man and nature.
Sustainable Consumption Behavior (SCB)	SCB1	To conserve energy in the future, I am willing to invest additional funds in green products.	[76]
	SCB 2	I am willing to buy green products as far as I can.
	SCB 3	I have a preference for green products.

in Appendix A.

3.2. Data Collection

A multi-stage sampling approach was employed to collect data for various generational cohorts across different regions in China. Firstly, twelve major cities spanning the east, central, and west regions were chosen based on economic development levels. Secondly, we categorized common units into five types: enterprises, government agencies, schools, private entrepreneurial companies, and service institutions, such as banks and transportation. Face-to-face structured interviews were then conducted using random sampling after obtaining permission from representatives of these units. To ensure accuracy, interviews were conducted in a relaxed and pleasant atmosphere, lasting about 20 min. At the beginning of the interview, respondents were asked about their experience with purchasing and using green or sustainable products. Interviews were terminated if they lacked such experience. Eventually, 2014 valid questionnaires were collected for analysis.

The theoretical basis of this research methodology lies in the application of multi-stage sampling methods and random sampling techniques. Multi-stage sampling methods allow for the stratification of complex population groups, thus better representing the entire population of respondents. On the other hand, random sampling ensures a representative and statistically reliable sample and reduces the possibility of sample bias. The face-to-face structured interviews provide the opportunity to gain insights into the respondents’ views and experiences, contributing to the collection of rich and detailed data. Overall, this research methodology ensured the accuracy and reliability of the data to support an in-depth understanding of the relationship between sustainable consumption perceptions, lifestyles, and behaviors among different generational groups in China.

3.3. Sample Profile

An overview of the sample obtained through descriptive analysis is shown in

Table 1. Sample profile (n = 2014).

Variable		Count (%)
		Pre-1960s	1960–1982	1983–1995	Post-1995
Gender	Male	218 (81)	350 (54)	136 (44.9)	204 (25.7)
	Female	51 (19)	298 (46)	167 (55.1)	590 (74.3)
Education	Elementary school and below	102 (37.9)	154 (23.8)	41 (13.5)	3 (0.4)
	Senior high school	97 (36.1)	174 (26.9)	45 (14.9)	30 (3.8)
	College and bachelor degree	41 (15.2)	222 (34.3)	121 (39.9)	711 (89.5)
	Master’s and above	29 (10.8)	98 (15.1)	96 (31.7)	50 (6.3)
Monthly Income	Less than 3000 CNY	25 (9.3)	72 (11.1)	62 (20.5)	703 (88.5)
	3001–6000 CNY	31 (11.5)	112 (17.3)	83 (27.4)	51 (6.4)
	6001–10,000 CNY	67 (24.9)	157 (24.2)	69 (22.8)	12 (1.5)
	10,001–15,000 CNY	80 (29.7)	180 (27.8)	44 (14.5)	9 (1.1)
	15,000 CNY and more	66 (24.5)	127 (19.6)	45 (14.9)	19 (2.4)
Total		269 (13.4)	648 (32.2)	303 (15.0)	794 (39.4)

. From the total sample, the ratio of males to females is roughly balanced, and most people have advanced education. The pre-1960s generation cohort shows a male bias, 74% of the respondents have an education of junior high school or below, and most of the respondents have an income above 6000 CNY; the 1960–1982 generation cohort has a relatively balanced ratio of males to females, a third of them have a university (including college) education, which is significantly higher than that of the pre-1960s group, and most of the respondents‘ income is between 3000 and 15,000 CNY; the proportion of males and females in the 1983–1992 cohort is relatively balanced, 71.6% of the cohort have a university (including college) education or above, and their income lies between 3000 and 10,000 CNY; the majority of the post-1995 cohort are students, about 90% have a university (including college) education, their monthly fixed income is 3000 CNY and below, and the majority of subjects are females. Compared with the former three generation groups, the education level of this group has significantly improved.

It is noteworthy that respondents born in 1960–1982 and post-1995 or female each represent a larger proportion of the sample. The reasons are mainly that the 1960–1982 cohort is currently taking an important position in society and work, most of them have considerable income and a high quality of life, and most of them are worried about the consequences of environmental problems, and thus are more willing to mitigate environmental pollution and resource waste through their sustainable consumption. The post-1995 cohort, with higher education, are willing to pay for products they consider more environmentally friendly, representing the largest market share of sustainable products. Therefore, the number of people who have engaged in sustainable consumption behaviors in these two groups is significantly higher than that in the other two groups. In addition, females play a dominant role in the purchase of household as well as personal necessities in the daily consumption of Chinese people, and the number of females who have engaged in sustainable consumption behaviors is significantly higher than males [40]. Consequently, more respondents from the abovementioned groups were able to pass the filter question items during the sampling process accordingly. This exactly reflects the concern and interest of these groups of people in sustainable consumption behaviors. Therefore, the sample of the survey is generally representative and in line with the real situation of sustainable consumption behaviors of the current situation of Chinese residents.

4. Empirical Analysis

4.1. Common Method Biases Test

The conceptual model of generational differences in sustainable consumption behavior constructed in this study includes multiple variables such as perceptions of sustainable consumption, four dimensions of lifestyle, and sustainable consumption behaviors. To avoid common method bias (CMB) [65] caused by self-assessment of a single questionnaire, anonymity and reduced semantic ambiguity were used in the questionnaire distribution. In addition, the Harman single-factor test for common method bias was used to ensure the rigor of the study before data analysis.

Harman’s one-factor test using SPSS 22.0 statistical analysis software showed that the total variance explained by the six factors was 77.963%. The explained variance of the initial factor represented 31.001% of the overall variance, which was much less than 50% [66], suggesting no single or common factor played a major role in explaining the variance. Furthermore, the results of the common method biases test for a typical multi-factor model fit (see

Table 2. Results of common method biases test.

No.	Models	χ2	df	χ2/df	RMSEA	CFI	NFI	NNFI
1	Single-factor model (PSC + FC + LA + PC + DC + SCB)	13,143.783	189	69.544	0.185	0.429	0.567	0.528
2	Three-factor model (PSC, FC + LA + PC + DC, SCB)	8766.449	206	42.556	0.144	0.667	0.662	0.627
3	Six-factor model (PSC, FC, LA, PC, DC, SCB)	891.4	194	4.595	0.042	0.973	0.966	0.968
Accepted value		/	/	<5	<0.08	>0.9	>0.9	>0.9

Notes: PSC: perception of sustainable consumption, FC: fashion concern, LA: leadership aspiration, PC: price concern, DC: development concern, SCB: sustainable consumption behavior. df: degrees of freedom; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation, CFI: comparative fit index; NFI: normed fit index; NNFI: non-normed fit index.

) showed that the single-factor model fit was poor (χ²/df = 69.544, CFI = 0.429, NFI = 0.567, NNFI = 0.528 and RMSEA = 0.185) and that there was no serious common method bias in this study. As can be seen from Table 2, the six-factor model has good data fit and better discriminant validity in measuring the scales of each variable, and the fit results are significantly better than the other models. Among them, χ²/df = 4.595 < 5, CFI = 0.973, NFI = 0.966, and NNFI = 0.968, which are all greater than 0.9, and RMSEA = 0.042 < 0.08, which indicates that the model constructed in this study has a better fit and is acceptable.

4.2. Reliability and Validity Test

To measure the reliability of the constructs, Cronbach’s alpha value was used in this study. The results of the reliability analysis (see

Table 3. Reliability and validity test.

Constructs	Items	Unstd.	S.E.	z	p	Std.	Cronbach’s Alpha (α)	CR	AVE
Perception of Sustainable Consumption (PSC)	SCP1	1.000	-	-	-	0.835	0.908	0.908	0.712
	SCP2	1.011	0.022	46.151	0.000	0.857
	SCP3	1.042	0.022	46.686	0.000	0.864
	SCP4	0.973	0.023	43.090	0.000	0.817
Fashion Concern (FC)	FC1	1.000	-	-	-	0.794	0.897	0.896	0.682
	FC2	1.038	0.026	39.749	0.000	0.818
	FC3	1.010	0.024	42.096	0.000	0.858
	FC4	1.014	0.025	40.931	0.000	0.838
Leadership Aspiration (LA)	LA1	1.000	-	-	-	0.781	0.876	0.876	0.639
	LA2	0.987	0.028	35.267	0.000	0.769
	LA3	1.040	0.028	37.350	0.000	0.810
	LA4	1.075	0.028	38.624	0.000	0.836
Price Concern (PC)	PC1	1.000	-	-	-	0.733	0.843	0.842	0.572
	PC2	1.012	0.032	31.357	0.000	0.767
	PC3	1.008	0.032	31.237	0.000	0.764
	PC4	1.023	0.033	31.169	0.000	0.762
Development Concern (DC)	DC2	1.000	-	-	0.000	0.754	0.837	0.837	0.631
	DC3	1.041	0.030	34.582	0.000	0.835
	DC4	1.009	0.030	33.607	0.000	0.797
Sustainable Consumption Behavior (SCB)	EB1	1.000	-	-	-	0.835	0.880	0.881	0.711
	EB2	0.986	0.023	42.537	0.000	0.843
	EB3	1.071	0.025	42.872	0.000	0.850

Notes: CR: composite value; AVE: average variance extracted.

) showed that Cronbach’s alpha values for sustainable consumption perception, fashion concern, leadership aspiration, price concern, development concern, and sustainable consumption behavior were 0.908, 0.897, 0.876, 0.843, 0.837 and 0.880 respectively, which exceeded the critical value of 0.7 [38], indicating that all scales passed the reliability test.

Based on the reliability test, the convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs were examined. All CR values (see Table 3) are above the critical value of 0.7 and all AVE values exceed the critical threshold of 0.5. Additionally, the square root of the AVE values for all constructs (shown in

Table 4. Discriminatory validity test of potential variables.

Variables	Mean	S.E.	SCP	FC	LA	PC	DC	EB
Perception of Sustainable Consumption (PSC)	4.069	0.967	0.844
Fashion Concern (FC)	3.030	1.042	0.233 **	0.826
Leadership Aspiration (LA)	3.211	0.948	0.232 **	0.480 **	0.799
Price Concern (PC)	3.634	0.891	0.287 **	0.262 **	0.231 **	0.756
Development Concern (DC)	3.787	0.795	0.420 *	0.293 **	0.293 **	0.398 **	0.794
Sustainable Consumption Behavior (SCB)	3.671	0.968	0.361 **	0.268 **	0.233 **	0.391 **	0.430 *	0.843

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed). Diagonals (in bold) stand for the square roots of average variance extracted (AVE), while off-diagonals represent Pearson correlation coefficients.

) surpassed the Pearson correlation coefficients between each construct and others in the conceptual model, suggesting that there was a statistical difference between each construct and the other construct [67]. The results of the study are therefore highly reliable and valid.

4.3. Tests of Intergenerational Variability on Sustainable Consumption Behavior, Sustainable Consumption Perceptions, and Lifestyle

The theoretical model of this study contains six variables apart from generations, i.e., sustainable consumption perceptions, four dimensions of lifestyle, and sustainable consumption behavior. Since there are four cluster variables for generations, we took the generational cohort as the independent variable, sustainable consumption behavior, perceptions, and four dimensions of lifestyle as the dependent variables in the ANOVA model, and implemented one-way ANOVA to test whether there were differences between generations in the above six variables, i.e., to examine whether hypotheses H1–H3 are valid. The test of homogeneity of variance revealed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated for the above six variables in four generations. Therefore, Welch’s ANOVA was conducted to perform a corrected one-way ANOVA and obtain robust tests of equality of means. Given the unequal sample sizes and uneven variance of the four generational cohorts in this study, Welch’s F-test was used instead of the traditional F-test to compare the means of four generations on six variables, while Tamhane’s T2 was adopted for multiple comparisons. The results showed that all variables differed significantly between the four generational groups: sustainable consumption behavior (F(3, 745.954) = 15.675, p < 0.05), sustainable consumption perception (F(3, 753.541) = 26.532, p < 0.05), fashion concern (F(3, 757.448) = 117.352, p < 0.05), leadership aspiration (F(3, 750.152) = 33.818, p < 0.05), price concern (F(3, 741.921) = 10.589, p < 0.05), and development concern (F(3, 794.408) = 73.263, p < 0.05).

Table 5. ANOVA tests between sustainable consumption behavior and generational cohorts (Tamhane T2).

Dependent Variable	Generation Cohorts	Mean	SD	F	Sig.	Group Comparison	Hypothesis
Sustainable Consumption Behavior (SCB)	Pre-1960s	3.3420	1.13603	15.675	0.000	Post-1995 >1983–1995 > Pre-1960s * Post-1995 >1960–1982 > Pre-1960s * 1960–1982, 1983–1995 (NS)	H1 is partially verified
	1960–1982	3.6523	0.99654
	1983–1995	3.6106	0.99824
	Post-1995	3.8199	0.83207

* Indicates significance at a p-value of 0.05; NS means no significance.

presents the outcome of one-way ANOVA tests for sustainable consumption behavior. Post hoc comparisons using Tamhane’s T2 method revealed significant differences among four generations (See Table 5). The results show that the post-1995 group performed best in terms of sustainable consumption behavior, while the pre-1960s group performed worst. There were significant differences in sustainable consumption behavior among the post-1995, 1983–1995, and pre-1960s groups and also among the post-1995, 1960–1982, and pre-1960s groups, but no significant differences in sustainable consumption behavior between the 1960–1982 and 1983–1995 groups. Meanwhile, the mean values for the three manifest items of sustainable consumption behavior also indicates a difference between the four generations (see Figure 2), so Hypothesis 1 is partially verified.

The results of the multiple comparisons of sustainable consumption perceptions across the four generations are shown in

Table 6. ANOVA tests between perception of sustainable consumption and generational cohorts (Tamhane T2).

Dependent Variable	Generation Cohorts	Mean	SD	F	Sig.	Group Comparison	Hypothesis
Perception of Sustainable Consumption (PSC)	Pre-1960s	3.6431	1.05092	26.532	0.000	Post-1995 >1960–1982 > Pre-1960s *; Post-1995 >1983–1995 > Pre-1960s *; 1960–1982, 1983–1995 (NS)	H2 is partially verified
	1960–1982	4.0278	0.96670
	1983–1995	4.0561	1.03185
	Post-1995	4.2516	0.85802

* Indicates significance at p-value of 0.05; NS means not significant.

. It is worth noting that there is no significant difference in behavior between the 1960–1982 and 1983–1995 generation groups. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is also partially validated.

Multiple one-way ANOVA was conducted to test H3 regarding the differences among the four generations in their fashion concern (H3a), leadership aspiration (H3b), price concern (H3c), and development concern (H3d). Significant differences were identified among the generation cohorts in the four dimensions of lifestyle (shown in

Table 7. ANOVA tests between lifestyle and generational cohorts (Tamhane T2).

Dependent Variable	Generation Cohorts	Mean	SD	F	Sig.	Group Comparison	Hypothesis
Fashion Concern (FC)	Pre–1960s	2.3783	1.02388	117.352	0.000	Post-1995 > 1983–1995 > 1960–1982 > Pre-1960s *	H3 is partially verified
	1960–1982	2.7689	1.05185
	1983–1995	3.0149	1.01591
	Post–1995	3.4698	0.84317
Leadership Aspiration (LA)	Pre–1960s	2.8838	1.05126	33.818	0.000	Post-1995 > 1983–1995 > Pre-1960s * Post-1995 > 1960–1982 * Pre-1960s, 1960–1982, 1983–1995 (NS)
	1960–1982	3.0698	0.97419
	1983–1995	3.1889	0.98077
	Post–1995	3.4449	0.81271
Price Concern (PC)	Pre–1960s	3.3532	1.13308	10.589	0.000	Post-1995 > Pre-1960s * 1983–1995 > Pre-1960s * 1960–1982 > Pre-1960s * Post-1995, 1960–1982, 1983–1995 (NS)
	1960–1982	3.6215	0.91558
	1983–1995	3.6172	0.87405
	Post–1995	3.7456	0.75319
Development Concern (DC)	Pre–1960s	3.2807	0.67969	73.263	0.000	Post-1995 > 1983–1995 > Pre-1960s * Post-1995 > 1960–1982 > Pre-1960s * 1960–1982, 1983–1995 (NS)
	1960–1982	3.7079	0.74533
	1983–1995	3.8259	0.81329
	Post–1995	4.0082	0.77553

* Indicates significance at p-value of 0.05; NS means not significant.

). For fashion concern, the four generational groups differed significantly, in descending order, from post-1995, 1983–1995, 1960–1982, to pre-1960s, so H3a passes validation; for leadership aspiration, significant differences existed among post-1995, 1983–1995 and pre-1960s, as well as between post-1995 and 1960–1982, but no significant differences were found among pre-1960s, 1960–1982 and 1983–1995, so H3b partially passes the validation; for price concern, pre-1960s is significantly different from post-1995, 1960–1982, and 1983–1995, but no significant difference is found among the latter three, so H3c partially passes the validation. In addition, the results for developmental concern of the four generational cohorts were similar to those for their sustainable consumption behavior and perceptions, and H3d is partially verified. It is easy to conclude that the 1960–1982 generation and the 1983–1995 generation do not differ significantly in the other three dimensions except for fashion concern. Therefore, H3 is partially supported.

4.4. Direct Path Relationship Test among Different Generations

Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test H4, H5, and H6, and the results reveal differences in the relationships between the three variables of sustainable consumption perceptions, lifestyle, and sustainable consumption behavior among the four Chinese generations (

Table 8. Results of the direct effect of sustainable consumption perceptions on behavior across four generations.

X → Y	Generation Cohorts	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	p	Hypothesis
		B	Std. Error	Beta
PSC → SCB	Pre-1960s	0.005	0.066	0.004	0.072	0.942	H4 is verified
	1960–1982	0.281	0.039	0.273	7.206	0.000 **
	1983–1995	0.390	0.051	0.403	7.64	0.000 **
	Post-1995	0.223	0.033	0.23	6.704	0.000 **

Note: ** p < 0.01.

,

Table 9. Direct effect of perceptions of sustainable consumption on lifestyles across four generations.

X → Y	Generation Cohorts	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	p	Hypothesis
		B	Std. Error	Beta
PSC → FC	Pre-1960s	−0.158	0.062	−0.154	−2.541	0.012 *	H5 is partially verified
	1960–1982	0.180	0.042	0.166	4.269	0.000 **
	1983–1995	0.242	0.055	0.246	4.399	0.000 **
	Post-1995	0.314	0.033	0.320	9.506	0.000 **
PSC → LA	Pre-1960s	−0.043	0.061	−0.043	−0.709	0.479
	1960–1982	0.176	0.039	0.175	4.506	0.000 **
	1983–1995	0.237	0.053	0.249	4.464	0.000 **
	Post-1995	0.314	0.032	0.331	9.877	0.000 **
PSC → PC	Pre-1960s	0.027	0.057	0.029	0.475	0.635
	1960–1982	0.118	0.037	0.124	3.179	0.002 **
	1983–1995	0.311	0.045	0.367	6.844	0.000 **
	Post-1995	0.462	0.027	0.526	17.4	0.000 **
PSC → DC	Pre-1960s	0.051	0.095	0.033	0.540	0.590
	1960–1982	0.300	0.028	0.389	10.748	0.000 **
	1983–1995	0.404	0.039	0.513	10.356	0.000 **
	Post-1995	0.606	0.024	0.671	25.441	0.000 **

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

and

Table 10. Direct effect of lifestyles on sustainable consumption behavior across four generations.

X → Y	Generation Cohorts	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	p	Hypothesis
		B	Std. Error	Beta
FC → SCB	Pre-1960s	−0.043	0.068	−0.039	−0.632	0.528	H6 is partially validated
	1960–1982	0.149	0.037	0.158	4.058	0.000 **
	1983–1995	0.287	0.054	0.292	5.302	0.000 **
	Post-1995	0.121	0.037	0.122	3.296	0.001 **
LA → SCB	Pre-1960s	−0.177	0.065	−0.164	−2.716	0.007 **
	1960–1982	0.158	0.040	0.155	3.979	0.000 **
	1983–1995	0.341	0.055	0.335	6.168	0.000 **
	Post-1995	0.001	0.039	0.001	0.029	0.977
PC → SCB	Pre-1960s	0.198	0.060	0.198	3.294	0.001 **
	1960–1982	0.326	0.041	0.300	7.982	0.000 **
	1983–1995	0.437	0.061	0.383	7.192	0.000 **
	Post-1995	0.181	0.045	0.164	3.982	0.000 **
DC → SCB	Pre-1960s	0.253	0.101	0.151	2.504	0.013 *
	1960–1982	0.536	0.048	0.401	11.113	0.000 **
	1983–1995	0.534	0.064	0.435	8.387	0.000 **
	Post-1995	0.348	0.045	0.324	7.67	0.000 **

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

). As can be seen from Table 8, except for the pre-1960s group, the perception of sustainable consumption in the other three generations, i.e., 1960–1982, 1983–1995, and post-1995, had a significant direct effect on their behavior, so H4 is verified. The direct effect of sustainable consumption perceptions on fashion concern did not differ significantly from each other, while for the direct effect of sustainable consumption perceptions on leadership aspiration, price concern, and development concern, the three generation groups—1960–1982, 1983–1995, and post-1995—all showed a significant direct effect, with the exception of the pre-1960s group. Therefore, H5 also partially passes the validation (shown in Table 9). Regarding the direct influence effect of the four lifestyle dimensions on sustainable consumption behavior (shown in Table 10), all of them showed a significant direct influence effect except for fashion concern in the pre-1960s group and leadership concern in the post-1995 group, which did not have a significant influence effect on sustainable consumption behavior. Therefore, H6a and H6b partially pass the validation and H6c and H6d are not supported. Therefore, H6 is partially validated.

4.5. Mediation Test among Different Generations

For the four dimensions of lifestyle across the four generational cohorts, the research model in this study covers 16 mediating pathways between sustainable consumption perceptions and behavior. The test of bootstrap confidence intervals was used to test for mediating effects. The bootstrap sampling was set at 5000 times to verify whether the 95% confidence interval included zero. In cases where it does not include zero, the mediating effect is present and vice versa.

The results of the test for the mediating effect of the four lifestyle dimensions in the relationship between sustainable consumption perceptions and behavior are shown in

Table 11. The mediating effect of bootstrapping.

Hypothesized Path	Generational Cohort	c	a	b	ab	ab (95% Boot CI)	c’	Results	ab/c (%)	Hypothesis
PSC → FC → SCB	Pre-1960s	0.005	−0.150 *	−0.029	0.004	−0.017~0.031	−0.016	NS	/	H7 is partially validated
	1960–1982	0.281 **	0.180 **	0.007	0.001	−0.013~0.020	0.130 **	NS	/
	1983–1995	0.390 **	0.242 **	0.09	0.022	−0.014~0.057	0.185 **	NS	/
	Post-1995	0.556 **	0.314 **	0.121 **	0.038	0.013~0.070	0.223 **	PM	6.84
PSC → LA → SCB	Pre-1960s	0.005	−0.043	−0.163 *	0.007	−0.014~0.033	−0.016	NS	/
	1960–1982	0.281 **	0.176 **	0.036	0.006	−0.009~0.025	0.130 **	NS	/
	1983–1995	0.390 **	0.237 **	0.111	0.026	−0.010~0.072	0.185 **	NS	/
	Post-1995	0.556 **	0.314 **	0.001	0.000	−0.028~0.031	0.223 **	NS	/
PSC → PC → SCB	Pre-1960s	0.005	0.031	0.146 *	0.005	−0.017~0.030	−0.016	NS	/
	1960–1982	0.281 **	0.118 **	0.235 **	0.028	0.006~0.050	0.130 **	PM	9.96
	1983–1995	0.390 **	0.311 **	0.221 **	0.069	0.020~0.132	0.185 **	PM	17.69
	Post-1995	0.556 **	0.462 **	0.181 **	0.084	0.032~0.140	0.223 **	PM	15.11
PSC → DC → SCB	Pre-1960s	0.005	0.021	0.214 *	0.005	−0.016~0.029	−0.016	NS	/
	1960–1982	0.281 **	0.300 **	0.386 **	0.116	0.070~0.159	0.130 **	PM	41.28
	1983–1995	0.390 **	0.404 **	0.218 **	0.088	0.012~0.171	0.185 **	PM	22.56
	Post–1995	0.556 **	0.606 **	0.348 **	0.211	0.154~0.283	0.223 **	PM	37.95

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; NS means not significant; PM means partial mediation.

. The results show that only fashion concern of the post-1995 group partially mediates the relationship between sustainable consumption perceptions and behavior, while others are not significant, and H7a is partially verified. The mediating effect of leadership aspiration between sustainable consumption perceptions and efficiency behavior is not significantly mediated by any of the four generational cohorts, so H7b is not supported. For the mediating effect of price concern and development concern between sustainable consumption perceptions and sustainable consumption behaviors, the four generational groups performed basically the same, i.e., all three generational groups except the pre-1960s group showed a significant partial mediating effect, so H7c and H7d both partially pass the validation. As such, H7 is partially validated.

Table 12. The proportion of mediated and direct effects in the total effect for the four generations.

Generation	c	ab Effect				c’
		FC	LA	PC	DC
Pre-1960s	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
1960–1982	0.281 **	NS	NS	0.028 ** (9.96%)	0.116 ** (41.28%)	0.130 ** (46.26%)
1983–1995	0.390 **	NS	NS	0.069 ** (17.69%)	0.088 ** (22.56%)	0.185 ** (47.44%)
Post-1995	0.556 **	0.038 ** (6.84%)	NS	0.084 ** (15.11%)	0.211 ** (37.95%)	0.223 ** (40.12%)

Note: ** p < 0.01, () presents the ratio of director or indirect to total effect; NS means no significance.

summarizes the proportion of mediated and direct effects in the total effect for the four generations. It is easy to identify the mediating variables with the largest share in each generation, which provides the basis for the subsequent countermeasures.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to explore the sustainable consumption behavior of the four generations in China and influencing mechanisms by constructing a conceptual model based on generational differences. Based on the above data analysis, the following conclusions are obtained.

Firstly, there are significant differences among the four generational cohorts in China regarding perceptions and behaviors related to sustainable consumption. Comparing these cohorts, the post-1995 and pre-1960s groups show the most notable differences. Specifically, the post-1995 group exhibits the highest performance, while the pre-1960s group demonstrates the lowest. The 1960–1982 and 1983–1995 groups fall in between, with no significant difference observed between them. The findings that the youngest Generation Z participants in this study exhibit more profound cognitive engagement with sustainability issues compared to the other three generations aligns with Duquaine et al.’s findings [68] and Dragolea et al.’s findings [69]. The differences in sustainable consumption behavior among generations found in this study support Bulut et al.’s view [40] that young consumers tend to have a higher propensity for sustainable consumption behavior than older ones, but does not support the views of Ramayah et al. or Sidique et al. [70,71]. This highlights that the post-1995 cohort in China is more receptive to new media and technology, easily accepts new ideas, and thus exhibits better perception and behavior towards sustainable consumption than the other three generations. This further proves the viewpoint of Liang’s [15]. The pre-1960s generation is now largely retired and does not have access to the knowledge, concepts, and technologies related to sustainable consumption. Their current cohort and the information channels available are severely restricted, leading to a limited comprehension of sustainable consumption behavior, low awareness or insufficient power to take action [69].

Secondly, there are significant differences among the four generational groups on the four dimensions of lifestyle. Overall, it remains the case that the pre-1960s group scores the lowest and the post-1995 group scores the highest. To the best of our knowledge, this has not been found in previous studies. For the pre-1960s group, the means for fashion concern and leadership aspiration were significantly lower than that of the other groups. This indicates that this group, influenced by previous harsh living conditions, exhibits less concern about fashion and generally possesses a strong awareness and experience in resource conservation, despite now having higher disposable income [49]. On the other hand, due to a significant lack of development concern and price concern, they prefer a traditional, conservative consumption pattern and a frugal lifestyle. Compared to the other three generations, the post-1995 group shows higher fashion and leadership aspirations, as well as more environmentally friendly lifestyles [24]. This further suggests that the post-1995 group will become the main driving force of sustainable consumption in China. There remains no significant distinction between the 1983–1995 and 1960–1982 groups across the four lifestyle dimensions. Both groups exhibit higher levels of development and price concern compared to fashion concern and leadership aspiration, indicating robust developmental concepts and sustainable consumption potential. They are poised to be significant contributors to sustainable consumption in Chinese society. However, compared with the post-1995 generation, these two generations significantly lack demonstration and guidance power, so the strategy of multi-generational differential education and guidance for sustainable consumption in China should be used by strengthening the demonstration effect of the post-1995 generation and focusing on cultivating the sustainable consumption potential of the 1983–1995 generation and the 1960–1982 generation.

Thirdly, there are significant differences in the direct influence of sustainable consumption perception on behavior and lifestyle and the direct influence of lifestyle on behavior across the four generational cohorts in China. As far as we know, this finding has not been reported in previous studies. For the pre-1960s generation, sustainable consumption perceptions significantly affect only fashion concern, but not sustainable consumption behavior, leadership aspiration, price concern, or development concern. This means that the pre-1960s group’s sustainable consumption behavior is most influenced by development concern, followed by price concern, while sustainable consumption perception and fashion concern have no effect. The influence mechanism is similar for the 1960–1982 and 1983–1995 generations, i.e., sustainable consumption perception significantly and positively influences their behavior and the four dimensions of lifestyles. Simultaneously, the four lifestyle dimensions also notably affect behavior, with the degree of influence ranked as follows: development concern > price concern > sustainable consumption perception. The sole distinction is that the direct effect observed in the 1983–1995 generation is significantly greater than that of the 1960–1982 generation. This suggests that the guidance of sustainable consumption behavior for these two groups should integrate both perception and lifestyle. For the post-1995 group, sustainable consumption perception significantly and directly affects behavior and all lifestyle dimensions, and all the other three lifestyle dimensions except leadership aspiration significantly and directly affect behavior. Among them, sustainable consumption perception has the greatest impact on their development concern and price concern, and development concern has the greatest impact on behavior, suggesting that for the post-1995 group, the focus should be on improving their sustainable consumption perception and development concern. Therefore, for the four generations, it is crucial to focus on improving development concern, which is currently in a poor state, but has high potential and significant direct impact. For the post-1995 group, improving perceptions of sustainable consumption can have multiple effects, both promoting sustainable consumption behavior and contributing to decarbonizing lifestyles.

Fourthly, the mediating role of the four lifestyle dimensions between sustainable consumption perceptions and behavior differs significantly across the four generational cohorts. To the best of our knowledge, this has not been seen in previous studies. For the pre-1960s cohort, the four lifestyle dimensions have only direct effects on their behaviors, rather than mediating effects. For the 1960–1982 generation, development concern and price concern have significant mediating effects, while fashion concern and leadership aspiration do not, the mediating effect of developmental concern accounts for a much larger proportion of the total effect (41.28%) than that of price concern (9.96%), and the direct effect ratio is up to 46.26%, suggesting that this group should focus on perception and developmental concern guidance. For the 1983–1995 generation, fashion concern and leadership aspiration have no mediating effect, while the mediating effect ratios of development concern (22.56%) and price concern (17.69%) are relatively similar to each other and the direct effect ratio is quite high at 47.44%, indicating that the leadership of this group should mainly focus on improving perception and development concern, supplemented by price concern. For the post-1995 group, all three dimensions except leadership aspiration have a significant mediating effect, and their mediating effect ratios are, in descending order, development concern (37.95%) > price concern (15.11%) > fashion concern (6.84%), with a direct effect share of 40.12%, suggesting that cognitive enhancement and development concern should be the dominant dimension, followed by price concern, and also taking into account the leadership of fashion concern. Therefore, it can be seen that the pre-1960s group only considers the direct effect of lifestyle on sustainable consumption behavior, while the other three generational groups show the most significant mediating effect of development concern in the relationship between perception and behavior, followed by price concern, indicating that the above three generational groups need to focus on sustainable consumption perception, development concern, and price concern in guiding the decarbonization of their lifestyles.

The study’s findings have several implications for governments, enterprise, and other stakeholders to develop more targeted policies and practices to promote sustainable consumption.

Firstly, the multi-generational green marketing strategies that address generational differences should be developed by policymakers from national government agencies. From the government’s perspective, it is important to formulate multi-generational appropriate policies and coercive mechanisms focusing on the relationship between consumption and the environment and to encourage Chinese residents to consciously consider environmental factors in the consumption process. Generation Z exhibits the highest levels of sustainable consumption perception, lifestyle, and behavior, with significant positive effects on sustainable consumption, the pre-1960s generation shows lower levels in these respects, and no significant difference exists between the 1960–1982 and 1983–1995 cohorts. Therefore, national policies, social incentives, and corporate publicity efforts should adopt a multi-generational differentiated green marketing strategy. This involves nurturing Generation Z as the forefront and leader of sustainable consumption, utilizing the 1960–1982 and 1983–1995 cohorts as the main force, and making efforts to cultivate the pre-1960s generation as followers. This approach ensures that each generation assumes distinct roles and statuses based on their characteristics, thus achieving the collective leadership of all people in China’s sustainable consumption. Furthermore, the government should develop inclusive policies that consider the needs and preferences of consumers across different age groups to ensure the effective implementation of green marketing strategies.

Secondly, it is crucial for enterprises to develop multi-generational differentiated green products and green marketing practices suited to the characteristics of different generations. On one hand, to address the “price concern” of different generations towards green products, enterprises should enhance technology level to break through technical bottlenecks, accelerate the implementation of clean production, improve the development technology of green products, and decrease the premium level of green products. On the other hand, in order to promote consumers’ “development concern” towards the environment and sustainability, green concepts, green labeling and green marketing practices should be implemented for different generations, aiming to establish green consumption profiles for target groups. For instance, considering Generation Z’s strong perception of green marketing practices and their willingness to spread green concepts, we should develop green products that meet Generation Z’s needs at competitive prices and incentivize green consumption through a green point system, guiding them to shift focus from product quantity to product quality. Additionally, by optimizing enterprise green marketing strategies and disseminating green consumption concepts, we can raise awareness of sustainability among each generational group and promote the formation of universal governance through peer-to-peer influence.

Finally, multi-generational differential consumer education systems and strategies should be established for society and other stakeholders to suit different generational characteristics and life contexts. This system aims to cultivate positive development concern, correct price concern, and foster favorable fashion concern among residents. For the pre-1960s generation, education and guidance should focus on traditional Chinese cultural values of “abhorring extravagance and respecting frugality.” Leadership, price concern, and development concern can be promoted through community, interpersonal, and traditional media channels like TV in their living contexts. For the 1960–1982 generation, fostering a sense of responsibility towards the country, society, and the environment is crucial. This involves publicizing national policies, social norms, and corporate strategies related to sustainable consumption via official and social media. For the 1983–1995 generation, combining social media with school education and social propaganda is key. Emphasis should be placed on highlighting the environmental benefits and premium quality of green products to encourage action. For the post-1995 group, education should start in schools and government initiatives, guiding them to balance fashion consumption with environmental protection with limited income. Cultivating sustainable fashion concern, price awareness, and environmental responsibility is essential. Additionally, encouraging active dissemination of sustainable consumption concepts through social media can help them become advocates and leaders in this field.

6. Conclusions and Research Limitations

This research aimed to investigate generational differences in sustainable consumption behavior of Chinese residents. A significant contribution of this study is the conceptual model highlighting generational differences in sustainable consumption, lifestyles, and behavior. The study reveals different influencing mechanisms among the four generations and proposes multi-generational specific policies and strategies tailored to their characteristics, roles, life situations, and educational systems in China. For the first time, this study identifies distinct functions of sustainable consumption perception among the four generations. It identifies significant differences in the mediating roles of lifestyle dimensions between sustainable consumption perception and behavior across generations. Moreover, it specifies the crucial roles of “development concern” and “price concern” in enhancing the sustainable consumption practices of Chinese residents. These findings contribute to expanding theoretical perspectives of sustainable consumption research and offer targeted policy recommendations and market guidance for promoting sustainable consumption in Chinese society. They also provide new insights and references for sustainable consumption research and practices in other countries worldwide.

It should be noted that the present study has some limitations, such as a relatively small and not very balanced sample for each generational cohort, mainly due to the practical difficulties of random sampling from different generations and limited funding. Future studies are expected to continue collecting more samples from different generational cohorts to thoroughly validate the results. Additionally, while this study mainly focuses on Chinese urban residents, it is hoped that more samples from different generations will be gathered from Chinese rural residents using diverse survey methods. Consequently, future research directions will likely involve comparative studies on intergenerational differences between urban and rural residents in China. Similarly, the approach used in this study to classify generations using data mining methods and to examine generational differences empirically can also be applicable to comparative studies of generations in China as well as in other countries in terms of sustainable consumption.