Next Article in Journal
Students’ Expectations Regarding the Achievement of Educational Outcomes in Terms of Knowledge, Practical Skills, and Social Competencies as Determinants of Sustainable Education
Previous Article in Journal
How Does Artificial Intelligence Impact Green Development? Evidence from China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 3
10.3390/su16031262
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

The Impact of Public Policies and Civil Society on the Sustainable Behavior of Romanian Consumers of Electrical and Electronic Products

by
Florin Vaduva
1,
Luiela Magdalena Csorba
2,
Dan-Cristian Dabija
3,* and
George Lăzăroiu
4,5,6
1
Faculty of Economic Sciences, Titu Maiorescu University Bucharest, 040051 Bucharest, Romania
2
Faculty of Economic Sciences, Aurel Vlaicu University of Arad, 77, Revoluției Str., 310130 Arad, Romania
3
Department of Marketing, Babeș-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca, 400591 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
4
Faculty of Science and Engineering, Curtin University, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
5
The Intelligent Communications and Computing Lab, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON M5B 1G3, Canada
6
Department of Economic Sciences, Spiru Haret University, 030045 Bucharest, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(3), 1262; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031262
Submission received: 31 December 2023 / Revised: 22 January 2024 / Accepted: 31 January 2024 / Published: 2 February 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The negative impact of the waste generated by long-lasting products is a pressing issue for humanity. As such, socio-economic activities worldwide must be carried out according to sustainability principles, and governments have been increasingly pressured to develop laws and policies that protect the environment. The influence of civil society can boost the impact of public policies. For Romania, an emerging country, a well-developed legislation is needed, as well as the involvement of the administrative and civil sectors, not only in raising consumers’ awareness regarding the importance of recovering and recycling waste, but also in changing their purchasing behavior in the direction of ecological products. An empirical investigation was conducted to identify the direct and mediation effects of external factors on the behavior of electrical and electronic product consumers. Data were collected from 421 respondents and evaluated with latent variable analyses in the R statistical program. The originality of the study resides in articulating a novel relationship between recovery and recycling intentions and the preference for ecological products, enhancing understanding about sustainability in relation to electrical and electronic products. The link between recovering and recycling intentions and consumers’ preferences for ecological products was validated for the first time in our investigation. The study concludes that external factors have a meaningful direct and mediating effect on Romanian consumers’ green behavior.

1. Introduction

Contemporary society has increasing expectations regarding the protection of the planet. This is due to the multiplicity of negative effects of economic development on the environment, with a huge impact on a global level [1]. This is why both producers and consumers must be concerned with the effects of goods/services production and consumption on the environment. It is also why public and non-profit organizations (NGOs) need to regulate and support the environmental dimension of sustainability and pay greater attention to how products are produced and sold [2]. To target consumers’ needs while at the same time protecting nature and human health, governments and NGOs all over the world must better understand all aspects of consumer behavior [3]. More precisely, governments must come up with concrete legislative measures to stimulate the conscious purchase of green, ecological, and long-lasting products with low energy consumption [4]. Indeed, one purpose of a civil society is to inform and educate people towards the purchase of sustainable and ecological products [5]. In the circular economy context, the propensity to recover, recycle, or buy long-lasting and ecological products represents a key factor in cleaner production and consumption, according to the green principles of sustainable development [4,6].
Our investigation aims to identify the direct and mediating influence of external factors on consumer behavior in buying, using, and recycling electrical and electronic products (EEP). By external factors, we mean the effect of governmental public policies, governmental regulations regarding recycling, and civil society on Romanian consumers’ green and long-lasting behavior. The main purpose of our research was to identify to what extent public policies and, at the same time, the strategies of civil society can favorably influence the green and long-lasting EEP markets and their recycling processes to protect nature and consumer health. In this context, through our statistical research, we will focus on EEP purchasing and on disposing of electrical waste (e-waste). Our paper analyzes the attitude of Romanian consumers toward the purchase and consumption of EEP from two perspectives: the purchase of long-lasting and green products, and the extent to which external factors can influence consumers’ sustainable behavior (more exactly, their attitude towards e-waste recovery and recycling).
The novelty of the research consists in developing a model that highlights new relations between constructs, identifying the mediators, and finally quantifying the direct and indirect effects of public administration and civil society on consumers’ behavior when buying and recycling EEP. As not much research has been conducted in this regard, especially from an Eastern European perspective, this paper tries to cover this gap by also enhancing consumer understanding towards sustainable behavior in this region. Furthermore, the research unveils a novel relationship between recovery/recycling concerns and the preference for ecological products, which was not previously available in the literature. The results confirm that external factors significantly impact consumer behavior, with the mediated impact being higher than the direct impact. The identified mediators are product features, green behavior, and recovering and recycling intentions.
The paper is structured as follows: the introduction section, the literature review, the methodology of the research, the findings and discussion section, and finally the conclusions.

2. Literature Review

The circular economy is developed on the principle of “3R” (reduce, reuse, recycle) and refers to a production process that uses energy and waste for multiple purposes, including cleaner production [7]. Electrical and electronic products belong to the category that can be recovered, remanufactured, or recycled [8]. In this context, it is important to analyze not only attitudes towards the need to recycle EEP, but also governmental and civil society concerns for developing and implementing public policies that can stimulate consumers’ ecological behavior, as well as legislative measures and regulations to diminish the harmful influence of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) on nature and human health [9]. Governments need to use efficient instruments to change consumers’ behaviors, each government having specific modalities to implement its policies and strategies in the domain of e-waste recycling. The effectiveness of environmental policies depends on the relationship between environmental activity and governmental strategies [10]. The major policy instruments that can stimulate changes in consumer behavior are incentives, bans and mandates, communication, and nudges [11]. Government departments can thus play a guiding role in promoting e-waste recovery and recycling [12] in terms of environmental, social, and corporate performance, bringing about green innovation in enterprises [13], driving circular economy practices pivotal for the sustainable development of renewable energy practices [14], of environmental quality demand for cleaner energy [15], of green finance furthering renewable energy technologies [16], of sustainable organization management [17], and of sustainable development of innovative industrial infrastructures [18]. It is not only governments but also non-governmental organizations that can intervene in informing and educating consumers in this direction. For example, consumer protection and environmental protection NGOs can play a major role in the process, being active not only while collecting WEEE [19] but also in informing and educating people to act in a sustainable way. Legislative measures are also of great importance in informing people about e-waste related policies, regulations, and handling processes [20]. The EU legislation Directive 2012/19/EU refers to aspects concerning the protection of the environment from the adverse effects of WEEE generation. To protect consumer health, the legislation was revised so that it not only concerned the individual’s position in the market, but also gives new opportunities to consumers choosing ecological, environmentally friendly, and long-lasting products that can be repaired [21].
EEPs include toxic rechargeable batteries, barium, cadmium, zinc, chromium, mercury, lithium, and significant amounts of other toxic substances [22]. Due to the fine particles emitted, pollution from WEEE can affect the quality of air, soil, and water within a radius of thousands of kilometers from where they are recycled. When they reach the soil, they can harm plants and water ecosystems. Soil pollution primarily affects crops, which end up being contaminated and leading to illness among those who consume them. These toxins enter the food we eat, resulting in chronic disease, congenital disabilities, and even cancer [23]. The entire ecosystem can be unbalanced [24], and consumers’ health would be at risk. If these toxic particles end up in incinerators, EEPs can pollute the air through the smoke and toxic gases released in the process [25,26,27].
Consumers’ position on the environmental problems raised by the integrated management of WEEE is different from one continent to another, and from one country to another, due to the particularities of each area [28,29,30]. The specialized literature considers positive factors in the direction of waste recycling in terms of legislative norms [31], namely the increasing interest in waste recovery due to the introduction of financial incentives systems such as bonuses or cards for purchasing EEP [32]. There are several moderators of the positive outcomes of social norms and regulations on consumer behavior, with communication and environmental factors being of particular interest in our analysis [33,34]. Social norms are part of collectivism; individuals being inclined to behave in an ecologically friendly manner as it is good for the collective (for example, composting and recycling, or selecting eco-friendly products) [35]. Collectivism has a favorable influence on environmentally friendly behavior, especially if it is driven by the activity of NGOs, which can stimulate civic responsibility by educating and informing consumers [36]. These regulators, defined as external regulation [37], can guide human behavior in the direction of a green attitude towards both inclinations: conscious disposal of WEEEs and the acquisition of long-lasting electrical and electronic goods. As such, we define the first hypothesis:
H1. 
External factors that generate consumers’ intention to recycle EEP positively influences their preference for long-lasting products.
The premature decaying of long-lasting consumer products has advantages (a permanent renewal trend, adoption of the latest technical innovation, etc.), but also disadvantages (purchased products not meeting expectations, or consumers’ wish to enjoy them for a longer period) [38]. Dissatisfaction also comes from the need to replace products that are partially worn out, putting pressure on consumer budgets, and ultimately it costing more to repair items than to replace them. However, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers’ attitudes towards health and environmental issues have changed, generating a growing interest in living in harmony with nature [39]. Awareness of the importance of human health and environmental problems has led companies to resort to the production of green and long-lasting goods [40]. A change in the attitude of consumers towards more sustainable and ecological behavior is needed, that is, introducing instruments that favor the purchase of long-lasting products. Developing consumer environmental knowledge can positively affect green consumption behavior [41]. Furthermore, consumer concern with nature and the environment can directly and significantly affect purchasing intention of long-lasting products [42]. A consumer interested in environmental issues buys green products [43]. Long-lasting goods are made of more durable/long-lasting materials, spare parts are available, and they can be repaired, which means that they can be used for 10–20 years, so they do not need to be replaced as frequently. Reducing new purchases reduces excessive consumption and pollution. Therefore, a consumer who is “green” (environmentally friendly) will prefer to buy long-lasting household appliances. We therefore state that:
H2. 
Green behavior intentions influence consumers’ preference for long-lasting products.
Regardless of how much legislation or other regulations are involved in protecting consumers’ health and environmental equilibrium, people should be careful when dealing with retailers and should gather reliable and relevant information from the point of sale regarding long-lastingness and spare parts, repair possibilities, quality, and guarantees with respect to all aspects of the sales contracts of long-lasting products [38]. In an ideal circular economy scenario, consumers will acquire new products starting from the following criteria: maintainability, reparability, recyclability, the content of reprocessed or reconditioned material, lastingness, and noxiousness of the used substances [44]. Sustainable consumption behavior is often determined by quality, durability, price, etc. [45]. Product quality is a major criterion when buying long-lasting items [46]. In this context, we formulate the following hypothesis:
H3. 
Product features favorably influences consumers preferences for long-lasting products.
Today, the environmental policy instruments used worldwide appear insufficient in achieving final global environmental objectives [39,47]. There is a major and positive link between governmental support and the propensity to buy green products [48], with the former positively shaping consumer attitudes towards purchasing green products [49,50]. Collectivism has a beneficial influence on consumers’ intention to buy long-lasting or ecological goods [36], but, more than that, information, learning, and knowledge can drive consumers to engage in eco-friendly actions [51]. Pro-sociality plays an important role in changing consumers’ attitudes towards the environment, motivating them to buy ecological products. In this way, a direct relationship between social and environmental organizations and altruistic ecological consumption behavior can be established [52]. Thus, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H4. 
External factors that generate consumers’ intention to recycle EEP positively influence their preference for ecological products.
Ref. [53] studied the link between consumers’ environmental attitudes and purchasing choice in the food industry, finding a strong and direct link between the two constructs. A similar result was obtained in a piece of research from India’s textile industry, concluding that there is a positive link between environmental consciousness and the intention of consumers to buy green products [54]. Hence, the following hypothesis is defined:
H5. 
Consumers’ green behavior intentions positively influence their preference for ecological products.
Ecological products play a huge role in ensuring a sustainable green economy. High quality new products or technically innovative products are associated with consumers’ ecological behavior in developing countries [55]. The eco-social design of a product and its green impact index has a positive influence on the environmental impact [56]. We formulate the following hypothesis:
H6. 
Product features favorably influence consumer’s interest towards ecological products.
Consumers who are involved in eco-movements or eco-friendly actions tend to be more interested and motivated to buy green products. Sometimes, pushed by legislation, consumers are active in solving green ecological problems [57]. Therefore, there is a positive link between the green practices of consumers and their propensity to purchase green products [48]. If we consider that green practice is a consumer’s recovery and recycling propensity, we must emphasize that some governments (for example, those in China or UK) use e-waste recycling strategies to motivate producers to design green products, capable of reducing the negative impact of waste on nature [58]. We propose the following hypothesis, which was not validated in the literature in the below-defined form:
H7. 
The consumer’s recovery and recycling intentions favorably influence their preference for ecological products.
Concerns with understanding consumers’ attitudes towards recycling are not recent. Some authors consider primary factors that determine consumer behavior towards WEEE recovery: awareness of the harmful side of WEEE [46], recovery methods [46,59], and the impact of legislation and environmental policies/practices on consumers’ attitudes [60]. External conditions can influence the perception of consumers toward the recycling process. External factors (for example, government policies and incentives) are efficiently used to influence consumers’ recycling propensity [61]. Financial incentives offered by retailers or through the legislative system are extremely important at the time of disposal of a long-lasting product [62]. For example, the Chinese government, through its departments, published policies between 2001 and 2016 intended to motivate producers to design green electrical and electronic equipment, and developed strategies to replace old electrical equipment with new versions, while enabling an efficient e-waste recycling process [12]. Because law and regulation do not always significantly impact consumer behavior, incentives and facilities may be a successful way to encourage people’s inclination towards environmental sustainability [63]. From the considerations stated above, we propose the following assumption:
H8. 
External factors of recycling behavior influence consumers’ recovery and recycling intentions.
The literature has analyzed and validated numerous determinants of recycling behavior. The authors in [35] identified variables with influence on recycling attitudes: demographic variables, variables that assess population awareness regarding the current state of the natural environment, and variables related to past behavior (past propensity to recycle). Eco-conscious consumers are interested in environmentally friendly use, typically having a recycling attitude [61]. Consumers with a propensity to recycle have ecological and environmental beliefs [59]. The way in which products are disposed is influenced by the positive opinions regarding environmental equilibrium [46]. We define the following hypothesis:
H9. 
Consumers green behavior intentions positively influence their recovering and recycling intentions.
People’s concern with environmental issues can mediate the link between the intention to buy green and ecological products and different external factors [36]. Green consumption that protects both the environmental equilibrium and consumer health is the goal of numerous companies. That is why environmental policies and sustainable development have become a reality, supported increasingly by strategies, plans, and policies proposed by governments and NGOs [40]. Regulations are an efficient way to influence consumers and producers to behave in a sustainable manner, while policies regarding WEEE recycling behavior have a positive impact on the reuse, buy-back, and EEP recycling programs [64]. The next hypotheses agree with other authors [11,50]:
H10. 
External factors of recycling behavior positively influence consumers’ green behavior intentions.
H11. 
External factors favorably influence consumers’ habits in relation to the features of a product.
To evaluate the mediated impact of external factors on Romanian consumer behavior when buying long-lasting and ecological EEP while taking into account the analyzed mediator constructs (product features, green behavior intentions, and recovering and recycling intentions), we state the following hypotheses:
H12. 
Product features mediates the influence of the external factors and consumers’ preference for long-lasting products.
H13. 
Green behavior intentions mediate the influence of the external factors on consumers’ preference for long-lasting products.
H14. 
Green behavior intentions mediate the influence of the external factors and the consumer’s intention to buy ecological products.
H15. 
Product features mediate the influence of the external factors and the consumer’s intention to buy ecological products.
H16. 
Recovering and recycling intentions mediate the influence of the external factors and the consumer’s intention to buy ecological products.
H17. 
Green behavior intentions mediate the influence of the external factors and the recovering and recycling intentions.
H18. 
Green behavior and recovering and recycling intentions mediate the influence of the external factors and the consumer’s preference for ecological products.
In conformity with these arguments, our research configures the investigation model in Figure 1.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study intends to determine the direct and mediating consequences of external factors in changing Romanian consumers’ behavior in a sustainable way towards a preference for long-lasting EEP in addition to recovering and recycling intentions when generating E-waste. To analyze the mediating impact, we used three latent variables that quantify the product features (PF), green behavior intentions (GBI), and the recovering or recycling intentions (RRI). Data were collected using an online questionnaire between May and July 2022, and the sample was built by employing the snowball sampling procedure. We received 421 valid responses. Most of the respondents, 66.75%, are women, and 76.72% are domiciled in urban areas; 86.94% of respondents were 19–40 years old, and 10.93% were 41–73 years old; 52.73% received secondary education, 28.98% hold bachelor’s degrees, and 18.98% are postgraduates; 27.32% had a monthly average income lower than 600 EUR, 30.64% had monthly incomes between 601 and 1000 EUR, and 42.04% earned more than 1000 EUR. The respondents had to assess the characteristics of each construct on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from total disagreement to total agreement (see Table 1).
The model described in Figure 1 was analyzed with structural equation models in Lavaan 06-12 from R software version 4.2.1. Because the model variables are ordinal, obtained by the Likert scale, the researchers used the weighted robust least squares approach to assess the values of the model according to the literature recommendations [65,67]. Our choice of the Lavaan CB-SEM method was motivated by the research objectives regarding factor-based model estimation and evaluation of a complex mediation model [68]. We used the dual-stage approach suggested by [69,70] for model evaluation. This supposes evaluating the measurement and the structural model.

3.2. Measurement Model Assessment

In the measurement models, we evaluated the validity and reliability of the proposed constructs (Table 1 and Table 2) to see if the respondents correctly interpreted the questions asked, and to assess if the constructs were representative for our research [71]. We used Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability indicators to evaluate internal consistency reliability. Cronbach’s alpha values are between 0.873 and 0.9 (Table 1), exceeding the minimum value recommended by most researchers [65,72,73]. The composite reliability is between 0.886 and 0.927, more significant than 0.7, the threshold value indicated by the literature [66,72]. To analyze the convergent validity, factor loadings and indicators extracted from average variance were used (Table 1). The minimum value of these indicators is 0.763 for both, exceeding 0.7 and 0.5, the minimum values recommended for loadings, respectively, for average variance extracted indicators [66,72].
To analyze the discriminant validity of the constructs, the Fornell–Larcker criterion [74] was employed. The values in Table 2 show that all the constructs met the requirements.

3.3. Evaluation of the Structural Model

The structural model evaluates the links between the constructs to test the research hypotheses. The first step in this evaluation is to ensure that there is no collinearity between the variables [75]. We calculate the variance influence factor (VIF). The maximum value is 1.992 (GBI→PLLP), which is below 3, the maximum value recommended by [76]. The second step was to evaluate the model using structural equation modelling analysis. Because the variables are ordinal, the robust weighted least squares method (WLSMW) was used to assess the model, according to recommendations made in [65,67]. The Tucker and Lewis’s Reliability Coefficient (TLI) and the robust values of the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) are 0.991 and 0.993, respectively, < 0.95, the minimum recommended value. The Approximate Root Mean Square Error (RMSEA) is 0.055, with confidence interval of 0.047–0.064, and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) is 0.037, which is below the maximum value of 0.08 specified by [65,77]. All these indicators validate the model and allow us to consider the model results shown in Figure 2 and Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6.
The study aimed to identify the direct and mediation effects of the external factors of recycling behavior (EF) on both the preference for long-lasting products (PLLP) and ecological products (PEP). As mediators, we consider the features of the product (PF), green behavior intentions (GBI), and recovering and recycling intentions (RRI).

4. Results and Discussion

Our previous findings led us to accept all hypotheses involving direct effects between the analyzed constructs.
H1 assumed that Romanian external factors could influence consumers’ preference for long-lasting products. The findings (β = 0.164; Z-value = 3.188; p = 0.001) show a moderate and significant positive link between these two constructs, highlighting the results obtained in the literature regarding the effect of legislation on the tendency to buy long-lasting products [31,32,33], and also the impact of civil society on consumers’ purchasing behavior [36]. These findings allow us to accept H1.
H2 assumed that consumers’ green behavior intentions could impact the preference for long-lasting products. The results (β = 0.246; Z-value = 4.264; p = 0.000) indicate a moderate and significant positive link between these two latent variables, as previous research identified [39,40,41,42], some of them linking awareness of the environmental equilibrium with green behavior intentions and consumer health. These approaches allow us to accept H2.
H3 stated that Romanian consumers’ interest in the features of a product could influence the preference for long-lasting products. The findings (β = 0.393; Z-value = 8.127; p = 0.000) support the hypothesis, showing a strong and significant positive relationship. The relationship was validated by other studies [45,46]. Furthermore, consumers’ interest in product features has a substantial impact on the preference for long-lasting products among the analyzed variables. Thus, H3 is supported.
H4 assumed that external measures could influence consumers’ preference for ecological products. The results (β = 0.107; Z-value = 2.914; p = 0.004) show a moderate and relevant positive relationship between these two constructs, validating similar hypotheses according to which governmental support positively influences the propensity to buy green products [48,49,50]. These allow us to accept H4.
H5 inferred that green behavior intentions could impact the preference for ecological products. The results (β = 0.48; Z-value = 11.001; p = 0.000) display a strong and significant positive link between these two constructs, thus agreeing with the results of [53] in the case of the food industry and with the conclusion of [54], which is relevant for the textile industry. Thus, H5 is supported by empirical data.
H6 assumed that product features could impact the preference for ecological products. The results (β = 0.082; Z-value = 2.051; p = 0.040) show a low and relevant positive relationship. This hypothesis was validated in another form by [55], who defined product features as being facilitating conditions, and the preference for ecological products as being the intention towards using eco-friendly products. Therefore, H6 is accepted.
H7 supposed that recovery/recycling intentions could influence the preference for ecological products. The findings (β = 0.308; Z-value = 6.851; p = 0.000) display a strong and significant positive link between these two constructs, as do results from [48]. If legislation pushes consumers to act in a green way, ecological issues like recycling or recovery can be solved [57]. Thus, H7 is supported by empirical data.
H8 hypothesized that external factors could influence the recovery/recycling intentions. The H8 hypothesis was confirmed as the results (β = 0.263; Z-value = 6.47; p = 0.000) show a moderate and relevant positive relationship between these two latent variables [12,61]. The authors in [52] made a distinction between the effects of legislation and the consequences of incentives and facilities on consumers’ propensity to behave in a green way. We validate this hypothesis.
H9 assumed that green behavior intentions could impact recovery/recycling intentions. The results (β = 0.524; Z-value = 12.804; p = 0.000) display a strong and significant positive relationship between these two constructs. Consumers with ecological behavior are interested in the recovery/recycling process [46,59,61]. Our findings are similar, which is why empirical data support H9.
H10 assumed that external factors could influence consumer green behavior. The results (β = 0.45; Z-value = 10.936; p = 0.000) display a strong and significant positive relationship between these two constructs, in agreement with the results of [36,40]. This allows us to accept H10.
H11 inferred that external factors could have an impact on the required features of the products. The H11 hypothesis was confirmed as the results (β = 0.396; Z-value = 7.633; p = 0.000) display a strong and significant positive relationship between these two variables. Other studies [11,50,60] allow us to revalidate the presumption.
Synthesizing the findings, we intend to highlight the implications of the hypotheses with a direct effect on Romanian consumers when buying and recycling EEP. The external factors can have a direct influence on the preference for long-lasting [33,36] and ecological products [48,50], as hypotheses H1 and H4 suggest. Furthermore, external factors can influence recovery and recycling intentions [12,61], green behavior intentions [36,40] and product features [50] according to hypotheses H10 and H11. Green behavior intentions can influence the preference for long-lasting products [39,40,41] and ecological products [53,54], but also the recovery and recycling intentions [61], pinpointed through hypotheses H2, H5, and H9. Hypothesis H7 highlights a strong relationship between the desire to recover/recycle and the preference for ecological products [48,57]. Finally, there is a direct effect between the product features and the preference for long-lasting products [45,46] and ecological products, as hypotheses H3 and H6 stated [55].
Another objective of the study, which is also a research contribution, was to inspect the mediated effects of external factors on Romanian consumer behavior in buying long-lasting and ecological EEP. We stated and tested hypotheses H12–H18. The results shown in Table 4 validate all the hypotheses.
H12 stated that product features could act as a mediator between the construct’s external factors and the preference for long-lasting products. The results (β = 0.156; Z-value = 5.2; p = 0.000) show a moderate and significant positive link, which allows us to accept H12. H13 assumed that green behavior intentions could be a mediator between external factors and the preference for long-lasting products. The findings (β = 0.111; Z-value = 4.09; p = 0.000) display a moderate and significant positive link, which allows us to accept H13. H14 assumed that green behavior intentions could be a mediator between external factors and the preference for ecological products. The results (β = 0.216; Z-value = 7.908; p = 0.000) display a moderate and significant positive relationship. Thus, H14 is supported by empirical data.
H15 inferred the action of product features as a mediator between the external factors and the preference for ecological products. The results (β = 0.032; Z-value = 1.97; p = 0.049) display a low and significant positive link. Hence, H15 is accepted. H16 stated that recovering and recycling intention could be a mediator between the external factors and the preference for ecological products. The results (β = 0.081; Z-value = 4.476; p = 0.000) display a low and significant positive link. Hence, H16 is accepted. H17 assumed that green behavior intentions could be a mediator between external factors and recovering and recycling intentions. The hypothesis was confirmed as the results (β = 0.236; Z-value = 8.05; p = 0.000) show a moderate and significant positive relationship.
H18 assumed that green behavior intentions and recovering and recycling intentions could be mediators for the external factors and for the preference for ecological products. The results (β = 0.073; Z-value = 5.481; p = 0.000) display a low and significant positive link. Hence, H18 is accepted. These seven hypotheses suggest the mediation effect between the chosen constructs. Hypotheses H12 and H15 proved that product features could be a mediator between the external factors and consumers’ preference for buying long-lasting and ecological products. Green behavior intentions can play a mediator role between the external factors, the above-mentioned preferences (H13 and H14), and recovery/recycling intentions (H17). Consumers’ desire to recover EEP can be a mediator between external factors and the preference for ecological products (H16), while green behavior and recycling intentions are mediators between external factors and the preference for ecological products (H18).
In Table 5 and Table 6, we have calculated the total effects of the interactions stated. The statistical results validate all interactions. Thus, the total impact of external factors on the preference for ecological products, the preference to buy long-lasting products, and recovery and recycling intentions are relatively high (β coefficients: 0.508, 0.421, 0.499) and strongly statistically significant (p-value = 0.000). This shows that indirect effects are more important than direct effects.

5. Conclusions and Policy Implications

The society in which we live is increasingly wasteful. With the waste generated by high consumer demand and the frequent purchase of new products under the impetus of advanced technologies, nature is suffering more and more. The issue of purchasing EEP while disposing of WEEE without it ending up in nature, but instead re-entering into the circular economy, is a global one, which all countries must face. Each country’s collection and recovery rates differ, with different concepts regarding consumers’ propensity to buy eco-friendly and sustainable EEP.
Consumers’ behavior towards the WEEE recycling process and the desire to purchase environmentally friendly and sustainable long-lasting products are influenced by several factors: green behavior intention, the desire to buy long-lasting products, recover/recycling intentions, etc. These are grouped into constructs and inserted in a research model, establishing correlations between them, with the aim of analyzing the direct and mediated impact of external factors on the sustainable behavior of the Romanian consumer.
From a theoretical perspective, the novelty brought about by this research consists not only in the way in which the variables are distributed in the model and the relations between them, but also in the fact that the hypotheses deriving from the research are grouped into two categories: those with direct impact and those with mediated impact on the chosen variables. At the same time, the seventh hypothesis was not available in the specialized literature in the form in which it is defined in the present research (the relationship between recovery/recycling intentions and the preference for ecological products). Furthermore, Hypotheses H1, H2, H4, H5, H7, and H9 were validated for the first time in Romania.
Romania is an emerging country that does not yet have efficient management of WEEE but is taking its first steps in this direction. While the Romanian EEP market indicates, at first glance, that consumers are not particularly attracted to purchasing sustainable and ecological goods, primarily because of their high prices, our study shows the opposite, confirming all the proposed hypotheses. In the context of the need to reduce the ecological impact of EEP and to sustain the advancement of the green economy, the findings of the study show that public administration can have a meaningful effect on consumers’ green behavior intentions by adopting adequate legislation measures, implementing efficient public policies, and supporting the activity of Romanian NGOs to educate and inform consumers so that they favorably change their behavior towards the environmental problems raised by the acquisition and consumption of EEP. The indirect effects of the external factors (public policies, legislation, and NGO activities) on the preference for ecological/long-lasting products and on recovery/recycling intentions are stronger than the direct effects. In this context, environmental protection can be considered one of the major responsibilities of the Romanian government.
The limitations of our investigation relate to the chosen sample. It was impossible to collect relevant data from the entire Romanian population, or to consider every representative region of the country. For this reason, the answers collected from the respondents were provided primarily from the West and Centre of Romania, while the EEP consumers whose behavior was studied did not necessarily work in the governmental or civil sector. Furthermore, it would be decisive to find out, in future research, the opinions of the specialists responsible for drafting the legislation, and of those from governmental or non-governmental sectors. Considering more representative regions and increasingly diverse participant profiles would enhance the robustness of subsequent studies and expand the scope of the topic.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.V., L.M.C. and D.-C.D.; methodology, F.V.; software, F.V.; validation, F.V.; formal analysis, F.V.; investigation, F.V., L.M.C. and D.-C.D.; resources, G.L., L.M.C. and D.-C.D.; data curation, F.V. and L.M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, G.L., F.V. and L.M.C.; writing—review and editing, G.L., L.M.C. and D.-C.D.; visualization, F.V., L.M.C. and D.-C.D.; supervision, F.V., L.M.C. and D.-C.D.; project administration, G.L., F.V., L.M.C. and D.-C.D.; funding acquisition, F.V., L.M.C. and D.-C.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper was also made possible by the project funded by CNCS—UEFISCDI, no. PNIII-RU-TE-2021-0795.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all respondents involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Söderholm, P. The green economy transition: The challenges of technological change for sustainability. Sustain. Earth 2020, 3, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gossen, M.; Kropfeld, M.I. “Choose nature. Buy less.” Exploring sufficiency-oriented marketing and consumption practices in the outdoor industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 30, 720–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Machová, R.; Ambrus, R.; Zsigmond, T.; Bakó, F. The impact of green marketing on consumer behavior in the market of palm oil products. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Riskos, K.; Dekoulou, P.; Mylonas, N.; Tsourvakas, G. Ecolabels and the attitude–behavior relationship towards green product purchase: A multiple mediation model. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Thøgersen, J. Consumer behavior and climate change: Consumers need considerable assistance. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2021, 42, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lăzăroiu, G.; Andronie, M.; Uţă, C.; Hurloiu, I. Trust management in organic agriculture: Sustainable consumption behavior, environmentally conscious purchase intention, and healthy food choices. Front. Public Health 2019, 7, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lăzăroiu, G.; Ionescu, L.; Andronie, M.; Dijmărescu, I. Sustainability management and performance in the urban corporate economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Toader, C.-S.; Rujescu, C.I.; Feher, A.; Sălășan, C.; Cuc, L.D.; Bodnar, K. Generation differences in the behaviour of household consumers in Romania related to voluntary measures to reduce electric energy consumption. Amfiteatru Econ. 2023, 25, 710–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alves, R.; Ferreira, K.L.A.; Lima, R.; Moraes, F.T.F. An action research study for elaborating and implementing an electronic waste collection program in Brazil. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2021, 34, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shaharudin, M.S.; Fernando, Y.; Ahmed, E.R.; Shahudin, F. Environmental NGOs involvement in dismantling illegal plastic recycling factory operations in Malaysia. J. Gov. Integr. 2020, 4, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tummers, L. Public policy and behavior change. Public Adm. Rev. 2019, 79, 925–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yang, X.; Miao, X.; Wu, J.; Duan, Z.; Yang, R.; Tang, Y. Towards holistic governance of China’s E-Waste recycling: Evolution of networked policies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Fu, Q.; Zhao, X.; Chang, C.-P. Does ESG performance bring to enterprises’ green innovation? Yes, evidence from 118 countries. Oeconomia Copernic. 2023, 14, 795–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jakubelskas, U.; Skvarciany, V. Circular economy practices as a tool for sustainable development in the context of renewable energy: What are the opportunities for the EU? Oeconomia Copernic. 2023, 14, 833–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sánchez García, J.; Galdeano Gómez, E. What drives the preferences for cleaner energy? Parametrizing the elasticities of environmental quality demand for greenhouse gases. Oeconomia Copernic. 2023, 14, 449–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zheng, M.; Feng, G.-F.; Chang, C.-P. Is green finance capable of promoting renewable energy technology? Empirical investigation for 64 economies worldwide. Oeconomia Copernic. 2023, 14, 483–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ogutu, H.; El Archi, Y.; Dénes Dávid, L. Current trends in sustainable organization management: A bibliometric analysis. Oeconomia Copernic. 2023, 14, 11–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Brodny, J.; Tutak, M. The level of implementing sustainable development goal "Industry, innovation and infrastructure" of Agenda 2030 in the European Union countries: Application of MCDM methods. Oeconomia Copernic. 2023, 14, 47–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Deniz, P.Ö.; Aydın, Ç.Y.; Kiraz, E.D.E. Electronic waste awareness among students of engineering department. Cukurova Med. J. 2019, 44, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nguyen, H.; Lee, C.-H.; Hung, R.-J. Willingness of end users to pay for e-waste recycling. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2021, 7, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on Certain Aspects Concerning Contracts for the Sale of Goods, Amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and Repealing Directive 1999/44/EC. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L0771 (accessed on 3 February 2023).
  22. Jain, A. Development and evaluation of existing policies and regulations for E-waste in India. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology, Tempe, AZ, USA, 18–20 May 2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. Weila, L.; Varenyam, A. Environmental and health impacts due to e-waste disposal in China—A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 737, 139745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Okereafor, U.; Makhatha, M.; Mekuto, L.; Uche-Okereafor, N.; Sebola, T.; Mavumengwana, V. Toxic metal implications on agricultural soils, plants, animals, aquatic life and human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Sahle-Demessie, E.; Mezgebe, B.; Dietrich, J.; Shan, Y.; Harmon, S.; Lee, C.C. Material recovery from electronic waste using pyrolysis: Emissions measurements and risk assessment. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 104943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fernando, X.; Lăzăroiu, G. Spectrum sensing, clustering algorithms, and energy-harvesting technology for cognitive-radio-based internet-of-things networks. Sensors 2023, 23, 7792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Sultana, A.; Fernando, X. Intelligent reflecting surface-aided device-to-device communication: A deep reinforcement learning approach. Future Internet 2022, 14, 256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shukla, N. The Environmental Impact of Broken Technology and the Right to Repair Movement. Americas Europe: Pollution Solutions 2021. Available online: https://earth.org/the-environmental-impact-of-broken-technology-and-the-right-to-repair-movement/ (accessed on 3 February 2023).
  29. Andronie, M.; Lăzăroiu, G.; Iatagan, M.; Hurloiu, I.; Dijmărescu, I. Sustainable cyber-physical production systems in big data-driven smart urban economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Andronie, M.; Lăzăroiu, G.; Ștefănescu, R.; Uță, C.; Dijmărescu, I. Sustainable, smart, and sensing technologies for cyber-physical manufacturing systems: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Colesca, S.E.; Ciocoiu, C.N.; Popescu, M.L. Determinants of WEEE recycling behavior in Romania: A fuzzy approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2014, 8, 353–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shevchenko, T.; Laitala, K.; Danko, Y. Understanding consumer E-Waste recycling. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Melnyk, V.; Carrillat, F.A.; Melnyk, V. The influence of social norms on consumer behavior: A Meta-Analysis. J. Mark. 2022, 86, 98–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lăzăroiu, G.; Ionescu, L.; Uță, C.; Hurloiu, I.; Andronie, M.; Dijmărescu, I. Environmentally responsible behavior and sustainability policy adoption in green public procurement. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Oskamp, S.; Harrington, M.J.; Edwards, T.C.; Sherwood, D.L.; Oku-da, S.M.; Swanson, D.C. Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environ. Behav. 1991, 23, 494–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hussain, S.; Huang, J. The impact of cultural values on green purchase intentions through ecological awareness and perceived consumer effectiveness: An empirical investigation. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 985200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wijekoon, R.; Sabri, M.F. Determinants that influence green product purchase intention and behavior: A literature review and guiding framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Prakash, S.; Stamminger, R.; Ines, O. Faktencheck Obsoleszenz: Analyse der Entwicklung der Lebens- und Nutzungsdauer von ausgewählten Elektro- und elektronikgeräten. In Obsoleszenzinterdisziplinär. Vorzeitiger Verschleißaus Sicht von Wissenschaft und Praxis; Brönneke, T., Wechsler, A., Eds.; Nomos Verlag: Baden-Baden, Germany, 2015; pp. 98–99. [Google Scholar]
  39. Röös, E.; Larsson, J.; Resare Sahlin, K.; Jonell, M.; Lindahl, T.; André, E.; Säll, S.; Harring, N.; Persson, M. Policy options for sustainable food consumption: Review and recommendations for Sweden. Mistra Sustain. Consum. Rep. 2021, 1, 10. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ali, M.; Ullah, S.; Ahmad, M.S.; Cheok, M.Y.; Alenezi, H. Assessing the impact of green consumption behavior and green purchase intention among millennials toward sustainable environment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 23335–23347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Anuar, M.M.; Omar, K.; Ahmed, Z.U.; Saputra, J.; Yakoop, A.Y. Drivers of green consumption behavior and their implications for management. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 21, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Persson, J. A Study about Purchase Intentions for a Green Durable Good. Master’s Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden, 2018. Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1239176/FULLTEXT02 (accessed on 14 January 2023).
  43. Dabija, D.C.; Bejan, B.; Grant, D. The impact of consumer green behavior on green loyalty among retail formats: A Romanian case study. Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2018, 26, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bäunker, L. Circular Consumption in the Linear Economy: Only a Drop in the Ocean? 2020. Available online: https://www.circle-economy.com/blogs/circular-consumption-in-the-linear-economy-only-a-drop-in-the-ocean/ (accessed on 27 March 2023).
  45. Mandarić, D.; Hunjet, A.; Vuković, D. The impact of fashion brand sustainability on consumer purchasing decisions. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2022, 15, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Islam, M.T.; Huda, N.; Sahajwalla, V.; Baumber, A.; Shumon, R.; Zaman, A.; Ali, F. A global review of consumer behavior towards e-waste and implications for the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 316, 128297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dalhammar, C.; Hartman, C.; Larsson, J.; Jarelin, J.; Milios, L.; Mont, O. Moving away from the throwaway society. Five policy instruments for extending the life of consumer durables. In Mistra Sustainable Consumption; Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2022; Volume 1, p. 12E. [Google Scholar]
  48. Al-Kumaim, N.H.; Shabbir, M.S.; Alfarisi, S.; Hassan, S.H.; Alhazmi, A.K.; Hishan, S.S.; Al-Shami, S.; Gazem, N.A.; Mohammed, F.; Abu Al-Rejal, H.M. Fostering a clean and sustainable environment through green product purchasing behavior: Insights from Malaysian consumers’ perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Adhitiya, L.; Astuti, R.D. The effect of consumer value on attitude toward green product and green consumer behavior in organic food. IPTEK J. Proc. Ser. 2019, 5, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mohanty, P.K.; Patro, A.; Harindranath, R.M.; Kumar, N.S.; Panda, D.K.; Dubey, R. Perceived government initiatives: Scale development, validation and impact on consumers’ pro-environmental behavior. Energy Policy 2021, 158, 112534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. White, K.; Habib, R.; Hardisty, D.J. How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. J. Mark. 2019, 83, 22–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chen, L.; Wu, Q.; Jiang, L. Impact of environmental concern on ecological purchasing behavior: The moderating effect of prosociality. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rossi, C.; Rivetti, F. Young consumers’ purchase behavior of sustainably labelled food products. What is the role of scepticism? Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 105, 104772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shamsi, M.A.; Chaudhary, A.; Anwar, I.; Dasgupta, R.; Sharma, S. Nexus between environmental consciousness and consumers’ purchase intention toward circular textile products in India: A Moderated-Mediation Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mustafa, S.; Hao, T.; Jamil, K.; Qiao, Y.; Nawaz, M. Role of eco-friendly products in the revival of developing countries’ economies and achieving a sustainable green economy. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 955245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pierre Fabre Group. Understand the Environmental and Social Impacts of Products. 2023. Available online: https://www.pierre-fabre.com/en/our-commitments/tthe-green-impact-index/environmental-and-social-impact-of-products/ (accessed on 28 January 2023).
  57. Atahau, A.D.; Huruta, A.D.; Lee, C.W. Rural microfinance sustainability: Does local wisdom driven-governance work? J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 267, 122153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mayers, C.K.M.; France, S.J.P.; Cowell, S.J. Extended producer responsibility for waste electronics. J. Ind. Ecol. 2008, 9, 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bovea, M.; Ibáñez-Forés, V.; Pérez-Belis, V.; Juan, P. A survey on consumers’ attitude towards storing and end of life strategies of small information and communication technology devices in Spain. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 589–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Târțiu, V.; Ștefănescu, M.; Petrache, E.; Gurău, C. Tranziția către o economie circulară. De la managementul deșeurilor la o Economie Verde, în România (Studiu). Studii de strategie și politici SPOS 2019. Institutul European din România. Available online: http://ier.gov.ro/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Final_Studiul-3_Spos-2018_Economie-circular%c4%83-1.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  61. Zhong, H.; Zhou, S.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, H.; Nie, J.; Simayi, P. An empirical study on the types of consumers and their preferences for E-waste recycling with a points system. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2022, 7, 100087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bezzina, F.H.; Dimech, S. Investigating the determinants of recycling behavior in Malta. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2011, 22, 463–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chen, W.; Li, J. Who are the low-carbon activists? Analysis of the influence mechanism and group characteristics of low-carbon behavior in Tianjin, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 683, 729–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Marinescu, C.; Ciocoiu, C.N.; Cicea, C. Drivers of eco-innovation within waste electrical and electronic equipment field. Theor. Empir. Res. Urban Manag. 2015, 10, 5–18. [Google Scholar]
  65. Brown, T.A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  66. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In Methodology for Business and Management. Modern Methods for Business Research; Marcoulides, G.A., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  67. Li, C.-H. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav. Res. 2016, 48, 936–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Dash, G.; Paul, J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Tech. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 173, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D. Structural equation modeling in practice: A Review of recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Technometrics 2004, 47, 522. [Google Scholar]
  71. Danish, M.; Ali, S.; Ahmad, M.A.; Zahid, H. The influencing factors on choice behavior regarding green electronic products: Based on the green perceived value model. Economies 2019, 7, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  73. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Danks, N.P.; Ray, S. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  74. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed, a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Diamantopoulos, A.; Siguaw, J.A. Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. Br. J. Manag. 2006, 17, 263–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Hair, J.F. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In Handbook of Market Research; Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Vomberg, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 01262 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual model: Generating sustainable purchase and consumption of EEP through economic measures.
Figure 1. Conceptual model: Generating sustainable purchase and consumption of EEP through economic measures.
Sustainability 16 01262 g001
Sustainability 16 01262 g002
Figure 2. The structural model.
Figure 2. The structural model.
Sustainability 16 01262 g002
Table 1. Proposed constructs and items.
Table 1. Proposed constructs and items.
ConstructItemMeasurementLoadingα/CR/AVE
Product features (PF)
[45,46,55]		PF1Quality0.8640.880/0.886/
0.798
PF2Guarantees0.898
PF3Duration of use0.916
Preference for long-lasting products (PLLP)
[39,40,41]		I am interested in buying EEP for which…0.898/0.927/
0.823
PLLP1…I can buy spare parts0.944
PLLP2…I have solutions to repair0.961
PLLP3…I can improve its functionality0.809
External factors (EF)
[32,33,36,60]		The factors that influence the intention to recycle EEP are: …0.873/0.889/
0.763
EF1…legislation0.918
EF2…public policies0.930
EF3…NGOs involved in recycling EEP0.763
Recovering and recycling intentions (RRI)
[12,61]		When I stop using EEP, I…0.900/0.918/
0.818
RRI1…am trying to find recovery and recycling solutions0.844
RRI2…am trying to find collection centers0.930
RRI3…dispose them at collection centers0.935
Preference for ecological products (PEP)
[48,50]		I buy EEP that…0.881/0.903/
0.787
PEP1…have eco-labels0.926
PEP2…have ecological packaging0.935
PEP3…participate in take-back initiatives0.793
Green behavior intentions (GBI)
[39,40,41]		My intention is to…0.899/0.916/
0.815
GBI1…diminish pollution with EEP waste0.936
GBI2…help in reducing the carbon footprint0.932
GBI3…carefully read the EEP sales contracts to collect the necessary information0.838
Note: α–Cronbach Alpha > 0.7; AVE—Average Variance Extracted > 0.5 and CR—Composite Reliability > 0.7 [65,66].
Table 2. Discriminant validity analysis.
Table 2. Discriminant validity analysis.
ConstructPFPLLPEFRRIPEPGBI
PF0.893
PLLP0.5870.907
EF0.3960.4310.873
RRI0.3770.3880.4990.904
PEP0.4900.4830.5080.7000.887
GBI0.5210.5250.4500.6420.7680.903
Note: Values on the diagonal are the indicators extracted from square root of the average variance (see Table 1). GBI: Green behavior intentions; EF: External factors; PLLP: Preference for long-lasting products; PEP: Preference for ecological products; PF: Product features; RRI: Recovering and recycling intentions.
Table 3. Hypotheses validity analysis for direct effect.
Table 3. Hypotheses validity analysis for direct effect.
EffectsPath CoefficientStandard DeviationZ Valuep-ValueHypotheses
EF→PLLP0.1640.0533.1880.001 ***H1—confirmed
GBI→PLLP0.2460.0584.2640.000 ***H2—confirmed
PF→PLLP0.3930.0538.1270.000 ***H3—confirmed
EF→PEP0.1070.0372.9140.004 ***H4—confirmed
GBI→PEP0.480.04311.0010.000 ***H5—confirmed
PF→PEP0.0820.0432.0510.040 **H6—confirmed
RRI→PEP0.3080.0496.8510.000 ***H7—confirmed
EF→RRI0.2630.0376.470.000 ***H8—confirmed
GBI→RRI0.5240.03712.8040.000 ***H9—confirmed
EF→GBI0.450.04210.9360.000 ***H10—confirmed
EF→PF0.3960.0497.6330.000 ***H11—confirmed
Note: ** p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001. GBI: Green behavior intentions; EF: External factors; PLLP: Preference for long-lasting products; PEP: Preference for ecological products; PF: Product features; RRI: Recovering and recycling intentions.
Table 4. Hypothesis validity analysis for the mediate or indirect effect.
Table 4. Hypothesis validity analysis for the mediate or indirect effect.
PathInteractionsCoefficientStandard DeviationZ Valuep-ValueHypotheses
EF-PF-PLLPH11 × H30.1560.0315.2000.000 ***H12—confirmed
EF-GBI-PLLPH10 × H20.1110.0284.0900.000 ***H13—confirmed
EF-GBI-PEPH10 × H50.2160.0287.9080.000 ***H14—confirmed
EF-PF-PEPH11 × H60.0320.0171.9700.049 **H15—confirmed
EF-RRI-PEPH8 × H70.0810.0184.4760.000 ***H16—confirmed
EF-GBI-RRIH10 × H90.2360.0278.0500.000 ***H17—confirmed
EF-GBI-RRI-PEPH10 × H9 × H70.0730.0135.4810.000 ***H18—confirmed
Note: ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001. GBI: Green behavior intention; EF: External factors; PLLP: Preference for long-lasting products; PEP: Preference for ecological products; PF: Product features; RRI: Recovering and recycling intentions.
Table 5. The total effect taking into account the direct impact and one path for the indirect effect.
Table 5. The total effect taking into account the direct impact and one path for the indirect effect.
PathInteractionsCoefficientStandard DeviationZ Valuep-Value
Total_EF-PF-PLLPH1 + H11 × H30.3200.0506.5850.000
Total_EF-GBI-PLLPH1 + H10 × H20.2750.0505.6630.000
Total_EF-GBI-PEPH4 + H10 × H50.3220.0437.6340.000
Total_EF-PF-PEPH4 + H11 × H60.1390.0373.8170.000
Total_EF-RRI-PEPH4 + H8 × H70.1880.0355.4360.000
Total_EF-GBI-RRI-PEPH4 + H10 × H9 × H70.1790.0355.1930.000
Table 6. The total effect taking into consideration the direct impact and all the analyzed paths for the indirect effect.
Table 6. The total effect taking into consideration the direct impact and all the analyzed paths for the indirect effect.
PathInteractionsCoefficientStandard DeviationZ Valuep-Value
Grand_total EF-PEPH8 × H7 + H10 × H9 × H7 + H4 +
H10 × H5 + H11 × H6		0.5080.03614.1810.000
Grand_total EF-PLLPH10 × H2 + H1 + H11 × H30.4310.04210.5130.000
Grand_total EF-GBI-RRIH8 + H10 × H90.4990.03712.4440.000
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

Vaduva, F.; Csorba, L.M.; Dabija, D.-C.; Lăzăroiu, G. The Impact of Public Policies and Civil Society on the Sustainable Behavior of Romanian Consumers of Electrical and Electronic Products. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031262

AMA Style

Vaduva F, Csorba LM, Dabija D-C, Lăzăroiu G. The Impact of Public Policies and Civil Society on the Sustainable Behavior of Romanian Consumers of Electrical and Electronic Products. Sustainability. 2024; 16(3):1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031262

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vaduva, Florin, Luiela Magdalena Csorba, Dan-Cristian Dabija, and George Lăzăroiu. 2024. "The Impact of Public Policies and Civil Society on the Sustainable Behavior of Romanian Consumers of Electrical and Electronic Products" Sustainability 16, no. 3: 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031262

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