Next Article in Journal
Turning the Tide: Ecosystem-Based Management Reforms and Fish Stock Recovery in Abu Dhabi Waters, United Arab Emirates
Previous Article in Journal
Study on Stress Testing and the Evaluation of Flood Resilience in Mountain Communities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 16
10.3390/su17167466
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

How Awareness of Organic JAS and RSPO Labels Influences Japanese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay More for Organic Cosmetics

by
Sherry Adelia Natsir
1,*,
Aiko Takai
2,*,
Eunji Seo
1,
Gang-Hoon Seo
3 and
Jaewook Kim
1
1
Graduate School of Humanities and Social Studies, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima 730-0053, Japan
2
Professional Graduate School of Global and Community Management, University of Fukui, Fukui 910-8507, Japan
3
The Faculty of Commercial Sciences, Hiroshima Shudo University, Hiroshima 731-3195, Japan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(16), 7466; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167466
Submission received: 17 June 2025 / Revised: 12 August 2025 / Accepted: 15 August 2025 / Published: 18 August 2025
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study examines how Japanese consumers’ awareness of multiple eco-labels, specifically Organic JAS and RSPO, affects their willingness to pay more for eco-labeled cosmetic products. Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Signaling Theory, this study models the interaction between awareness of these two eco-labels and their influence on organic cosmetic buying intentions. Using statistical analysis of survey data from 505 Japanese consumers, the findings reveal that heightened awareness of the Organic JAS label significantly increases the willingness to pay more for eco-labeled cosmetics. However, when awareness of the RSPO label is also present, the positive effect of Organic JAS awareness diminishes, indicating that multiple eco-label signals may interfere with each other. These results underscore the complexity of consumer perceptions regarding eco-labels and suggest that the effectiveness of eco-labels as green marketing tools depends not only on raising awareness but also on understanding how different labels interact to influence consumers’ willingness to pay in the Japanese cosmetics market.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the environmental attributes of beauty products have attracted increasing attention from both consumers and industry stakeholders [1]. As a result, green marketing tools, such as eco-labels, are increasingly being used to communicate the environmental performance of products [2,3]. For over two decades, eco-labels have played a significant role in informing consumers about environmentally friendly products and influencing their purchasing decisions [4]. However, the proliferation of diverse certification schemes introduces new challenges. Some eco-labels are perceived as unreliable or even greenwashing because of misleading or false information, leading to confusion among both consumers and companies [5]. Moreover, it is common for multiple certification marks to be displayed simultaneously on sustainable products [6], further complicating consumer decision making. Previous literature, such as Henninger, Taufique et al., Thøgersen, and Singh et al. [7,8,9,10], emphasizes that general awareness is insufficient for eco-label adoption—what matters is specific awareness, including the ability to understand and interpret the meaning and benefits communicated by each label.
Cosmetics, which come in direct contact with the body, are particularly sensitive to psychological factors related to both their functional and environmental impacts [11]. These factors significantly shape consumer purchasing behavior [12]. A review identified many biodiversity-related certification schemes, several of which are relevant to cosmetic ingredients [13], underscoring eco-labeling as a significant marker of sustainability and biodiversity efforts in the cosmetics industry, particularly in Japan. Within the Japanese cosmetics industry, two prominent eco-labels are the Organic Japanese Agricultural Standards (JAS) label, certified by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF), and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) label, managed by an international non-profit organization. The Organic JAS label certifies agricultural products produced through organic methods, whereas the RSPO label ensures that palm oil used in products is legal, economically viable, environmentally friendly, and socially beneficial [14]. This illustrates that every certification scheme choice embodies unique characteristics, influencing how consumers perceive the eco-labels.
Overall, there is an increase in label types in sustainable cosmetics products. However, research streams have focused on the importance of psychological factors and environmental cues in green cosmetic purchasing (e.g., [11,12,15,16]) with less discussion on how the perception of multiple eco-labels affects cosmetics consumers’ willingness to pay more (WTPM). This study offers a novel perspective by investigating not just general consumer awareness but also the depth and specificity of awareness in response to two distinct labeling formats with differing behavioral implications. While previous studies have primarily focused on general awareness or recognition of consumer awareness in broad terms [16,17,18], they often overlooked how different labels may activate varying levels of understanding and trust in their behavioral intention. Together with the rising trend of multi-labels in Japan, where multiple eco-labels are often used simultaneously, and some labels are even associated with social controversy, previous studies have typically treated these labels in a simplified, collective manner, which is also a limitation. The novelty of this paper lies in its direct examination of both a highly trusted label and a more controversial one, thereby providing a more nuanced analysis that better reflects the actual situation through a new dimension of awareness. Therefore, this study focuses on two widely used eco-labels in the Japanese organic cosmetics sector, Organic JAS and RSPO labels, capturing multiple dimensions of sustainable labeling, to provide new insights into how specific eco-label awareness influences consumer behavior. Specifically, this study addressed the following questions:
  • How does awareness of the Organic JAS label influence Japanese consumers’ WTPM for organic cosmetics?
  • How does awareness of the RSPO label moderate this relationship? Does it strengthen or weaken the effect of Organic JAS awareness on WTPM?
To answer these questions, this study applies the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Signaling Theory to expand the conceptualization of awareness, which influences willingness to pay more. By integrating these theoretical perspectives and focusing on a relatively under-researched market segment, this study aims to deepen the understanding of sustainable consumer behavior in the context of organic cosmetics and to provide practical implications for marketers and policymakers.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis

2.1. Consumer’s Green Buying Behaviors on Cosmetics

Previous research has explored the factors influencing green buying behaviors, particularly in the context of personal care products, such as cosmetics. One major perspective emphasizes psychological factors in the decision-making process. For example, Yeon and Chung [11] found that appearance consciousness significantly affects consumers’ attitudes toward organic personal care products.
Extending this line of inquiry, Ngo-Thi-Ngoc et al. [12] investigated the influence of environmental concerns, trust, and perceived knowledge on purchase intentions for vegan cosmetics in emerging markets. Their findings indicate that personal and ethical norms are essential for shaping consumers’ green purchasing decisions. Similarly, Dlamini and Mahowa [19] reported that perceived price and attitude positively affect South African consumers’ intention to purchase green cosmetics. These findings collectively highlight the impact of demographic differences on variations in green purchasing behavior.
The second important research stream examines the effectiveness of green elements as product strategies. Lin et al. [1], for example, tested the impact of green elements such as natural ingredients and sustainable packaging on consumer attitudes in the British green cosmetics market. The results showed that consumers generally held neutral attitudes toward green cosmetics. This is because of insufficient consumer knowledge about green claims and the overwhelming complexity of these elements, which can hinder positive attitude formation. Consequently, consumers often rely on non-green factors such as price as the basis for their purchasing attitudes.
Furthermore, research focuses on the impact of sustainable certification on green cosmetics. Qiu and Chen [20] reported that sustainable certification enhances brand equity and purchase intention in the Taiwanese green cosmetics market, as certification lends credibility to green claims, fosters consumer trust, and reinforces positive brand perceptions. Similarly, Bozza et al. [5], in a comparative study of European certification types within the cosmetics industry, demonstrated that certification significantly affects consumers’ trust and purchasing decisions, as sustainable labels serve as justifications for product authenticity and environmental responsibility.
However, the increasing proliferation of diverse and unstandardized certifications has raised concerns about greenwashing, whereby consumers may be misled by inconsistent regulations [5]. Cervellon et al. [21] also noted that, while labels on green cosmetics positively influence consumer opinions among French women, the variety of labels and unclear standards often lead to confusion regarding the true meaning of green claims. Despite these challenges, the use of green elements, such as certification, continues to attract significant attention as predictors of consumers’ green buying behaviors in the cosmetics market.

2.2. Eco-Label Effects on Green Products

2.2.1. Consumer Awareness

Environmental awareness refers to an individual’s overall attitude toward the environment and the degree of concern they hold about environmental issues. It has been shown to significantly influence eco-friendly behaviors, such as recycling and green purchasing [22,23,24,25]. Prior research indicates that environmental awareness significantly contributes to consumers’ ability to recognize and interpret eco-labels [7,17]. This highlights that environmental awareness is a critical determinant of eco-friendly consumption. Contrarily, Magnusson et al. [26] argue that the correlation between environmental concern and the actual purchase of eco-labeled products is weak. Nevertheless, while the link between environmental concern and actual behaviors is likely to vary, this does not suggest a lack of consumer interest in eco-labeled products. Instead, it points to the importance of exploring how different eco-labels impact green consumers.
This study places particular emphasis on eco-label awareness as a specific form that plays a critical role in influencing green purchasing behavior, although the ways it is defined and measured still vary across discussions. Early studies, such as those by Thøgersen [7], explored the term of “paying attention to eco-labels”. According to Thøgersen [7], “paying attention to eco-labels”—which can be considered a behavioral manifestation of eco-label awareness—refers to the extent to which consumers notice, recognize, and consider eco-labels during purchase decisions, influenced by their environmental motivation and perceived usefulness of the label. Vázquez et al. [27], in their study, stated that label awareness is conceptualized as the recognition of a specific sustainability certification at the point of purchase. Extending the recent studies, eco-label awareness is defined as the condition when consumers notice, recognize, and understand eco-labels on products [10,16,28].
Furthermore, Grunert et al. [18] stated that consumers’ understanding of sustainable labels depends first on their awareness of those labels and is further influenced by how clearly and intuitively the labels communicate their meaning. Extending this line, Taufique et al. [29] developed a comprehensive construct to understand consumer perception of eco-labels, in which consumer awareness—along with variables such as eco-label knowledge, trust, and personal relevance—serves as a foundational component of the overall evaluative process. They defined consumer awareness as the extent to which consumers acknowledge the presence of eco-labels. However, in recent studies, authors argued that the construct of eco-label awareness tends to be understood not merely as the recognition of the label’s existence. Previous literature, such as Henninger, Taufique et al., Thøgersen, and Singh et al. [7,8,9,10], emphasizes that general awareness is insufficient for eco-label adoption—what matters is specific awareness, including the ability to understand and interpret the meaning and benefits communicated by each label. This shift suggests that awareness is a dynamic construct that goes beyond mere recognition, requiring further development to capture its role in sustainable consumer behavior.

2.2.2. Eco-Labels and Sustainable Behavior

Eco-label is a mark that signifies a product or service has been verified to meet established environmental standards within its category [29]. Until now, eco-labels exist in both mandatory and voluntary forms, with voluntary labels classified by ISO into Type I (third-party certified), Type II (self-declared), and Type III (standardized environmental declarations). Type I labels are the most frequently researched among them [30]. Eco-labels reduce consumers’ information search costs and draw attention to environmentally relevant product details [30,31]. Additionally, consumers learn through this information that products bearing eco-labels are made reflecting environmental impacts, and when they perceive value in this, it influences their willingness to pay [10,32].
Understanding eco-labeling is important, as it has been widely recognized as an important factor in promoting sustainable purchasing behavior [33]. In terms of definition, eco-labeling refers to a voluntary approach used globally to certify and label products or services based on their environmental performance, indicating that they are environmentally superior compared to others in the same category [34]. Eco-labeling serves as an information tool that guides consumers on the environmental state of a product [35].
Numerous studies have examined the effects of eco-labels on consumer decision making regarding green products. One primary research focus is the relationship between eco-labels and consumers’ purchase intentions and behaviors. For example, empirical studies by Siraj et al. [16] and Singh et al. [10], both of which were conducted in China, found that consumers’ awareness of eco-labels and their environmental concerns significantly increases their willingness to pay for eco-labeled food products. These results highlight the importance of transparent and credible sustainability information for influencing consumer decisions, particularly in the Chinese market.
Furthermore, research has shown that sustainable labels can strengthen purchase intentions and lead to a greater willingness to pay a premium for green products [28,32,36]. This is because eco-labels enhance a product’s reputation by reducing negative perceptions and serving as trustworthy signals that help consumers feel confident about their purchase choices. Lee et al. [28] further emphasized that the positive effect of sustainable labels on purchase intention is more pronounced when consumer knowledge is high, whereas lower knowledge may lead to higher intentions for non-sustainable labels, mediated by perceived risk and product efficacy.
Trust is another essential factor for the effectiveness of eco-labels. Taufique et al. [37] demonstrated that, in emerging markets, consumers with positive environmental attitudes and trust in eco-labels are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. Labels that clearly communicate how green products contribute to environmental protection are particularly effective in driving green purchasing. Additionally, consumers pay close attention to the sources and credibility of eco-labels, with the reputation of certification bodies playing a significant role in the decision-making process [2,33,38,39].
The complexity of eco-labels has become an important topic of discussion. Giannoccaro et al. [40] found that some combinations of eco-labels can complement each other, whereas others may create competition depending on the level of market acceptance and consumer familiarity with the labels. Zhu et al. [41] observed that Chinese consumers are willing to pay more for products with double or triple certifications, although the marginal effect decreases with each additional label, indicating varying degrees of synergy between multiple labels. Interestingly, Sonntag et al. [6] found that consumers can manage the complexity of multiple, even conflicting, labels and are not necessarily overwhelmed, suggesting that consumers can evaluate sustainability labels simultaneously. However, these findings have sparked an ongoing debate about the effectiveness of eco-labels in multi-label environments, which remains a novel area of the research. In addition, external factors such as geographic location and cultural background also play a role in shaping the impact of multiple eco-labels and consumers’ willingness to pay. For example, Kyoi et al. [39] highlighted the mediating effect of geographic location in Japan, whereas Moon et al. [42] discussed the influence of historical and cultural contexts in Germany.

2.3. Research Hypotheses

According to TPB [43], behavioral intention is influenced by three key factors: attitude toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (PBC). Attitude refers to a consumer’s evaluation of a product based on perceived value, which may lead to either a positive or negative behavioral response [12]. Subjective norms represent social expectations or pressures from family, peers, or society that either encourage or discourage eco-conscious consumption, such as purchasing eco-labeled products. Perceived behavioral control reflects the degree of ease or difficulty perceived by consumers when performing a specific behavior. As Ajzen [43] explains, this stems from both self-assurance and the availability of favorable conditions necessary for the action.
Although the TPB originally focuses on attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control as the main predictors of behavioral intention, recent studies have shown that TPB is considered flexible and can be adapted to various contexts by incorporating additional constructs as needed. In the discussion of green purchase intention, previous studies have combined additional variables with the original TPB constructs [16,44,45]. Contrastingly, other researchers argue that extended or external variables are sufficient to be used within the development of the theory. Previously, TPB variables have developed into extended models without including the original predictors in the green discussion [10,46].
In markets defined by credence qualities, trust becomes especially vital [38]. Thus, in a sustainable market offer, consumer awareness must be supported by trust in sustainability claims to influence purchasing decisions. Signalling theory [47,48] explains the process by which the party possessing information sends certain signals or takes specific actions to convey its ability or quality to the party lacking that information in situations of information asymmetry. Companies alleviate information asymmetry in the communication process by sending eco-labels as signals that consumers can trust, thereby helping receivers make better decisions. Given that consumers cannot directly assess green product attributes, eco-labels serve as credibility signals that reduce information costs and increase consumer utility [2]. Thus, in markets that lack the ability to directly assess the true quality or environmental attributes of a product, signals such as eco-labels serve as indirect indicators of hidden qualities. However, for a signal to be effective, it must be recognized, understood, and perceived as credible by the receiver. The reliability of such signals significantly shapes consumer trust and purchasing decisions [47].
In this study, based on signalling theory, eco-labels are explained as actions or signals used by companies to inform consumers, who lack certain information in situations of information asymmetry, that the products are made with environmental considerations. Furthermore, drawing on the TPB, it is assumed that consumers’ purchasing behavior is motivated toward green buying intention by forming a positive attitude that recognizes and understands the company’s environmental contribution through the signals conveyed by eco-labels.
The Organic JAS is a certification and labeling system in Japan that legally defines and regulates organic agricultural products, ensuring that only those meeting strict criteria can be marketed as organic [49]. Although the Organic JAS, established in 2008, applies exclusively to agricultural products, it serves as the legal standard for organic certification in Japan. With the popularity, Sakagami et al. [49] demonstrated that consumers place a positive value on vegetables carrying the Organic JAS eco-label, reflecting a willingness to pay more for such products. Similarly, Kim et al. [50] estimated that food items with the Organic JAS label could command a price premium of approximately 10% over their conventional counterparts. Recently, the Japan Organic & Natural Foods Association (JONA) was founded in 2011 to provide certification beyond agriculture and address the gap for processed goods and cosmetics.
Therefore, consumers’ understanding and trust of the Organic JAS label, a leading organic certification in Japan, are thought to generate positive attitudes toward the company’s commitment and intentions regarding environmental contributions, which in turn are expected to manifest as the intended behavior of a higher willingness to pay. Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. 
The level of awareness about the Organic JAS label positively influences consumers’ willingness to pay more for green cosmetics.
Consumer knowledge can be derived from various sources and dimensions, such as product features, specific evaluation of characteristics, and consumer experience [51]. However, knowledge of this alone is insufficient. For an eco-label to successfully encourage specified pro-environmental attributes, consumers must have confidence in the information they provide [7,52]. According to Atkinson and Rosenthal [2], confidence and trust in eco-labels stem from the acceptance of both the source and content of these eco-labels. Eco-labeling can lead to both positive and negative outcomes. One negative outcome is consumer confusion, which may arise when individuals are exposed to multiple labels [53]. The presence of numerous eco-labels from different certifying bodies can make it difficult for consumers to assess environmental quality, potentially leading them away from their original pro-environmental intentions [54]. This confusion occurs because the cognitive overload from processing multiple labels makes it more difficult to analyze and trust the information provided by each label [6]. Consequently, the proliferation of eco-labels can decrease consumers’ intention to use eco-labeled products [35,52].
The RSPO label is an international certification that emphasizes environmental and social responsibility, aiming to promote the use of sustainable palm oil [14]. As such, the RSPO label is generally perceived as a positive environmental mark, signalling a commitment to sustainability and ethical sourcing. However, persistent greenwashing controversies have surrounded the RSPO. Despite its goal of promoting sustainable palm oil, the RSPO label may be perceived negatively or fail to influence consumer behavior due to low public awareness and recognition [14,55]. Reports of continued deforestation by certified companies and insufficient monitoring and enforcement have been widely publicized, including in Japan. These issues have led to scepticism about the true environmental and social impact of RSPO certification. As a result, Japanese consumers may simultaneously hold both trust and doubt toward the RSPO label—recognizing its intended positive role, yet remaining wary of its credibility due to ongoing criticisms and negative media coverage. This ambivalence regarding the RSPO label can influence consumer attitudes toward other certifications, such as the Organic JAS label, especially when both labels are present on cosmetic products. In such cases, the trust or scepticism associated with the RSPO label may spill over to affect the perceived reliability of the Organic JAS label and, consequently, consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for certified organic cosmetics. Based on this reasoning, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2. 
The level of awareness about the RSPO label moderates the positive effect of awareness about the Organic JAS label on consumers’ intention to pay more for organic cosmetics.
In other words, higher awareness of the RSPO label may either strengthen or weaken the influence of Organic JAS label awareness on willingness to pay, depending on whether consumers perceive RSPO as a credible signal of sustainability or as a source of doubt due to greenwashing concerns. This hypothesis reflects the complex interplay between multiple eco-labels and the nuanced attitudes of Japanese consumers in the sustainable cosmetics market.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data Collection and Sample

This study employed Macromill’s “Questant” online survey platform to collect data between 10 August and 15 August 2023. Questionnaires were randomly distributed via email to members of “Eco Beaute” on the EcoVia Intel cosmetic information site as well as to official followers of the site. Survey invitations were randomly distributed via email to panel members to ensure randomness in respondent selection. Additionally, the online survey platform automatically selected a random sample from the registered user pool, rather than sending questionnaires to every available address [56]. The primary objective was to obtain insights and data regarding eco-certification in the context of sustainable cosmetics. To enhance the response rate, a cover letter detailing the study aims and the content of the questionnaire was provided to all participants.
The sample comprised Japanese citizens. Out of all the distributed questionnaires, 600 valid responses were initially collected, resulting in a response rate of 16.5%. To minimize potential bias, incomplete questionnaires were excluded from the first screening. In the subsequent round, 533 responses were retained, and after the final review, 505 fully completed questionnaires were included in the analysis. The descriptive statistics of the respondents are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Measurement Model

3.2.1. Dependent and Independent Variables

Data were collected using a structured questionnaire, with items adapted from the established literature and modified where necessary. All variables were measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Awareness of the Organic JAS label was measured using items based on Watkins and Aitken [57] assessing respondents’ knowledge of the label, perceived health benefits, and perceived environmental benefits. Similar items were used to evaluate the awareness of the RSPO label. Willingness to pay more was measured using items adapted and modified from Singh et al. [10].

3.2.2. Control Variables

Two control variables were included in the analysis: gender and age. Gender and Age were coded as dummy variables. The inclusion of these control variables aimed to account for possible confounding effects on the relationship between awareness of the Organic JAS and RSPO labels and willingness to pay more for cosmetic products. Consumer behavior in green cosmetics may exhibit a non-linear pattern across age groups, which was considered in the analysis. Interaction effects between gender and key predictors were also examined, given evidence of gender differences in label processing in previous studies [33,58].

4. Analysis and Results

4.1. Measurement Model Results

To assess the potential for standard method bias, we conducted a single-factor test, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. [59]. The analysis identified three factors with eigenvalues greater than one, collectively accounting for 70.74% of the total variance. The first factor explained 42.31% of the variance, indicating that common method bias is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the study’s results.
The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed for all variables. Descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables are presented in Table 2.
CFA was conducted using IBM SPSS Amos 29 Graphics and yielded acceptable model fit (χ2 = 81.018, df = 17, GFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.53, RMSEA = 0.08, χ2/df = 4.7). The RMSEA value of 0.08 indicates an acceptable level of model fit, aligning with the recommended cut-off criteria (RMSEA < 0.08 or 0.05) proposed by Schumacker and Lomax [60]. Thus, given these considerations, the model is deemed to demonstrate an acceptable level of fit for exploratory purposes.
Reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha indicated that all the constructs exhibited adequate internal consistency. Although the Cronbach’s alpha for the Organic JAS label awareness construct was below 0.7, values between 0.6 and 0.7 are considered acceptable, and values above 0.8 indicate very good reliability [61]. Thus, the measurement scales employed in this study were considered reliable. Despite certain limitations in the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments, these tools were employed in this study because they were adapted from well-established scales in previous research and demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency and convergent validity according to widely recognized thresholds in the literature.
Convergent validity was evaluated using composite reliability (CR), factor loadings, and average variance extracted (AVE). All CR values almost exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.7 [62], and all factor loadings were above 0.4 [63]. Although some AVE values were below 0.5, values above 0.4 are considered acceptable when CR exceeds 0.6, as this still indicates sufficient convergent validity [64]. Furthermore, discriminant validity was assessed according to the Fornell–Larcker criterion. The constructs of Organic JAS label awareness and RSPO label awareness were specifically assessed. The square root of AVE for the Organic JAS label (0.670) and RSPO label (0.751) was higher than the correlation between them (0.420), indicating adequate discriminant validity between these two constructs. Table 3 summarizes the reliability and validity measures for each construct.

4.2. Results

Hierarchical moderated regression analysis was employed to examine the relationships between the independent and dependent variables, as shown in Table 4. All predictor variables were mean centered prior to the creation of the interaction term to ensure proper interpretation of the moderation effects [65]. This procedure allows the main effects to be interpreted at the mean value of the other variable, thereby enhancing the clarity and validity of the results.
In Model 1, the regression analysis revealed that awareness of the Organic JAS label significantly and positively predicted willingness to pay more (β = 0.52, p < 0.001), supporting the first hypothesis. In Model 2, one additional predictor, RSPO label awareness, was entered, while all control variables from Model 1 were retained. Organic JAS label awareness still showed a positive and significant effect on the outcome variable (β = 0.43, p < 0.001). Lastly, Model 3 tested the moderating effect of RSPO label awareness on the relationship between Organic JAS label awareness and willingness to pay more. The interaction term (Organic JAS label awareness × RSPO label awareness) was negative and significant (β = −0.10, p < 0.01), supporting the second hypothesis regarding moderation.
The explanatory power of the models was assessed using the R2 values. Model 1 explained 28% of the variance in willingness to pay more, while Model 2 explained 37%, and Model 3 explained 38% with the inclusion of the moderator resulting in a 1% increase in the explained variance (ΔR2 = 0.01). Although the moderation effect was found to be statistically significant, the effect size (f2 = 0.018) did not reach the threshold for a small effect, indicating that its practical significance is limited. Therefore, while the hypothesis is supported statistically, caution is warranted in interpreting its real-world impact.
The simple slope analysis presented in Figure 1 demonstrates that RSPO label awareness moderates the relationship between the awareness of the Organic JAS label and the intention to pay a premium. While both low (−1 SD) and high (+1 SD) levels of RSPO label awareness exhibit a positive association, the nearly parallel slopes indicate that the moderating effect is primarily additive, rather than interactive.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Contributions

The findings indicate that consumers’ understanding and trust of the Organic JAS label, a leading organic certification in Japan, generate positive attitudes toward the company’s commitment and intentions regarding environmental contributions. Consequently, this relationship is expected to be reflected in the intended behavioral manifestation of a greater willingness to pay. This outcome aligns with prior research, reinforcing the critical role of eco-labels in shaping consumer purchase intentions for products with green certification [10,20,28], including the willingness to pay a premium [28,32,36].
However, the moderation analysis shows that when consumers are highly aware of the RSPO label, they tend to recognize both its positive aspects—such as its aim to promote sustainable palm oil—and the ongoing social controversies surrounding its credibility and effectiveness. This implies that the effect of dual awareness fosters scepticism about the use of the sustainable label itself. As a result, consumers may become cautious or even distrustful of products bearing the sustainable mark, which can consequently reduce the positive influence of other credible eco-labels, such as the Organic JAS label, when both appear on the same product.
Based on these findings, this study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, the study contributes theoretically by developing a more nuanced interpretation of awareness grounded in prior research. While previous studies have primarily focused on general awareness or recognition of consumer awareness in broad terms [16,17,18], this study extended a more comprehensive approach with process-based perspectives. This study found a specificity of awareness in response to two distinct labeling formats with differing behavioral implications.
Second, another emerging discussion is the complexity of eco-labels in the current markets. Previous studies have examined the complementary effect of multiple labels [40], the marginal effect of multiple labels [41], and label trade-offs [6]. This study extends the literature by highlighting the nuanced attitudes of Japanese cosmetic consumers with exposure to multiple eco-labels. Trusted eco-labels positively impact attitudes towards purchase intention. When multiple labels appear on cosmetic products, negative associations with one label may negatively affect the perceived reliability of the other label. By contrasting the effects of different labels, this research underscores that the effects of label acceptance are not uniform and represent a novel contribution.
Third, this research makes a significant contribution to the existing body of literature by addressing a comprehensive approach to understanding how awareness can lead to a greater intention to pay more, as evident in the previous research [28,32,36]. Positive attitudes toward eco-labels are shaped by positive attitudes from signals received by consumers as a cue of a company’s environmental contribution, leading to buying intention as consumers respond effectively to cues they perceive as trustworthy, aligned with their values, supporting previous evidence in attitude–behavior gap discussion using TPB [10] and signal trust [2,38,66]. By presenting an underlying mechanism of extended awareness, the study also provides an opportunity for academic researchers to further test and validate the process.

5.2. Practical Contributions

The findings from our research offer significant implications for marketing strategies within the green cosmetics industry. First, this study enhances the understanding of how eco-label awareness increases consumers’ WTPM, which is important for managers. This finding highlights the role of eco-labels as an effective tool for sustainable marketing. Therefore, managers should consider obtaining eco-labels for their green products, especially those in the personal care category, like cosmetics. By evaluating the effectiveness of these certifications, strategies can be created to boost their visibility, credibility, and overall impact. As a result, managers can choose the most suitable labels for their products.
Second, this study provides a systematic framework for managers who aim to apply eco-labeling through multiple certifications. Multiple sustainability labels can overlap the signals and may lead to confusion, thereby diluting the effectiveness of each label. Over time, this confusion can foster scepticism toward green consumer behavior. Increased scepticism is likely to lead to doubts or reduced purchase intention. Therefore, managers should be more cautious when using labels that are perceived as socially controversial to avoid weakening consumer trust and reducing the effectiveness of eco-labeling on cosmetic products.
Third, the results of this study demonstrate the need for the industry to collectively enhance the reliability of eco-label usage. In order to improve the overall social trust in eco-labels, efforts from not only official certification bodies but also from companies are required. For example, there is an ongoing activity by the KAO Corporation, Tokyo, Japan to support smallholder palm oil farmers in adopting sustainable practices and improving their livelihoods. Specifically, KAO’s SMILE program assists thousands of independent smallholders in Indonesia by providing training and resources to increase productivity and achieve RSPO certification, thereby promoting a sustainable and traceable palm oil supply chain [67].

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study had several limitations. First, this study’s reliance on self-reported WTPM represents a limitation since it only assessed consumers’ intentions rather than their actual purchasing behavior. Future studies should consider experimental designs that measure actual purchasing behavior or actual WTPM and should also compare the effects of the mere presence of eco-labels with the effects of label awareness strength through an experiental design study. Secondly, due to the overall low awareness of certification marks among general consumers, the survey was conducted specifically targeting those with at least some interest in these marks, with a focus on Japanese consumers. Consequently, there are constraints and limiting generalizability to the applicability of our results, and future research is encouraged to conduct cross-cultural comparisons of eco-label awareness. Third, due to the lack of demographic information on non-respondents, we were unable to conduct a formal non-response bias analysis. This limitation should be considered when interpreting the generalizability of the findings. Future studies are encouraged to collect auxiliary data or utilize alternative sampling frames to enable more robust assessments of non-response bias. Lastly, the limitation lies in the interaction effect, which demonstrated only moderate explanatory power and limited practical relevance. Future studies could address this by exploring the use of other indicators that offer greater explanatory power and practical relevance, such as label design and label trust in consumer decision making.

6. Conclusions

This study aimed to examine the factors influencing Japanese consumers’ willingness to pay more for eco-labeled cosmetic products in a market where awareness of such labels remains limited and complicated by multiple certifications and overlapping claims. The results demonstrate that awareness of the Organic JAS label significantly increases consumers’ willingness to pay more, while awareness of the less trusted RSPO label reduces the positive effect of the Organic JAS label on purchase intentions. These findings contribute to the sustainable consumption literature by highlighting how the practical use of multiple eco-labels interacts with varying levels of consumer acceptance in the Japanese cosmetic industry. For practitioners, the results emphasize the importance of adopting multiple eco-labeling strategies and carefully optimizing their visibility to fully realize their potential to encourage environmentally conscious purchasing decisions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.A.N. and E.S.; methodology, S.A.N. and E.S.; software, S.A.N.; formal analysis, S.A.N.; investigation, A.T.; resources, J.K. and G.-H.S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.N.; writing—review and editing, S.A.N., E.S., and A.T.; supervision, J.K. and G.-H.S.; project administration, E.S.; funding acquisition, E.S., J.K., and A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 23K01647, JP25K05427 and JP25K05376.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because it does not involve animals or issues related to medical treatment or human health.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

We cannot provide data to protect privacy.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript/study, the authors used Miyuki Nagai’s resource for data collection. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lin, Y.; Yang, S.; Hanifah, H.; Iqbal, Q. An Exploratory Study of Consumer Attitudes toward Green Cosmetics in the UK Market. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Atkinson, L.; Rosenthal, S. Signaling the Green Sell: The Influence of Eco-Label Source, Argument Specificity, and Product Involvement on Consumer Trust. J. Advert. 2014, 43, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Perret, J.K.; Gómez Velázquez, A.; Mehn, A. Green Cosmetics—The Effects of Package Design on Consumers’ Willingness-to-Pay and Sustainability Perceptions. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shen, J. Understanding the Determinants of Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Eco-Labeled Products: An Empirical Analysis of the China Environmental Label. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2012, 5, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bozza, A.; Campi, C.; Garelli, S.; Ugazio, E.; Battaglia, L. Current Regulatory and Market Frameworks in Green Cosmetics: The Role of Certification. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2022, 30, 100851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sonntag, W.I.; Lemken, D.; Spiller, A.; Schulze, M. Welcome to the (Label) Jungle? Analyzing How Consumers Deal with Intra-Sustainability Label Trade-Offs on Food. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 104, 104746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Thøgersen, J. Psychological Determinants of Paying Attention to Eco-Labels in Purchase Decisions: Model Development and Multinational Validation. J. Consum. Policy 2000, 23, 285–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Henninger, C. Traceability the New Eco-Label in the Slow-Fashion Industry?—Consumer Perceptions and Micro-Organisations Responses. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6011–6032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Taufique, K.M.R.; Polonsky, M.J.; Vocino, A.; Siwar, C. Measuring Consumer Understanding and Perception of Eco-labelling: Item Selection and Scale Validation. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 298–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Singh, P.; Sahadev, S.; Wei, X.; Henninger, C.E. Modelling the Antecedents of Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Eco-labelled Food Products. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2023, 47, 1256–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yeon Kim, H.; Chung, J. Consumer Purchase Intention for Organic Personal Care Products. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ngo-Thi-Ngoc, H.; Nguyen-Viet, B.; Hong-Thach, H. Purchase Intention for Vegan Cosmetics: Applying an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model. Sage Open 2024, 14, 21582440241240548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Takai, A.; Nagai, M. Relationship between Certification and Biodiversity Related to Sustainable Cosmetics. In Memoirs of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences; University of Fukui: Fukui, Japan, 2023; Volume 7, pp. 113–132. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wassmann, B.; Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C. Palm Oil Roundtable Sustain. Palm Oil (RSPO) Label: Are Swiss Consum. Aware. Concerned? Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 103, 104686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Amberg, N.; Fogarassy, C. Green Consumer Behavior in the Cosmetics Market. Resources 2019, 8, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Siraj, A.; Taneja, S.; Zhu, Y.; Jiang, H.; Luthra, S.; Kumar, A. Hey, Did You See That Label? It’s Sustainable!: Understanding the Role of Sustainable Labelling in Shaping Sustainable Purchase Behaviour for Sustainable Development. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2022, 31, 2820–2838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. D’Souza, C.; Taghian, M.; Lamb, P.; Peretiatko, R. Green Decisions: Demographics and Consumer Understanding of Environmental Labels. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Grunert, K.G.; Hieke, S.; Wills, J. Sustainability Labels on Food Products: Consumer Motivation, Understanding and Use. Food Policy 2014, 44, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dlamini, S.; Mahowa, V. Investigating Factors That Influence the Purchase Behaviour of Green Cosmetic Products. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2024, 13, 100190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Qiu, G.; Chen, K. A Study on Green Cosmetic Brand Equity and Purchase Intentions. Am. J. Dermatol. Res. Rev. 2020, 3, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cervellon, M.-C.; Rinaldi, M.-J.; Wernerfelt, A.-S. How Green Is Green? Consumers’ Understanding of Green Cosmetics and Their Certifications. In Proceedings of the International Marketing Trends Conference, Paris, France, 20–22 January 2011; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  22. Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Rahman Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behaviour and Future Research Directions. Int. Strateg. Manag. Rev. 2015, 3, 128–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kallgren, C.A.; Wood, W. Access to Attitude-Relevant Information in Memory as a Determinant of Attitude-Behavior Consistency. J. Exp. Social. Psychol. 1986, 22, 328–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Simmons, D.; Widmar, R. Motivations and Barriers to Recycling: Toward a Strategy for Public Education. J. Environ. Educ. 1990, 22, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Song, Y.; Qin, Z.; Yuan, Q. The Impact of Eco-Label on the Young Chinese Generation: The Mediation Role of Environmental Awareness and Product Attributes in Green Purchase. Sustainability 2019, 11, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Magnusson, M.K.; Arvola, A.; Koivisto Hursti, U.; Åberg, L.; Sjödén, P. Attitudes towards Organic Foods among Swedish Consumers. Br. Food J. 2001, 103, 209–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vázquez, J.-L.; Lanero, A.; García, J.A.; Moraño, X. Segmentation of Consumers Based on Awareness, Attitudes and Use of Sustainability Labels in the Purchase of Commonly Used Products. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 38, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lee, E.J.; Bae, J.; Kim, K.H. The Effect of Environmental Cues on the Purchase Intention of Sustainable Products. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 120, 425–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Taufique, K.; Siwar, C.; Talib, B.; Sarah, F.; Chamhuri, N. Synthesis of Constructs for Modeling Consumers’ Understanding and Perception of Eco-Labels. Sustainability 2014, 6, 2176–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rex, E.; Baumann, H. Beyond Ecolabels: What Green Marketing Can Learn from Conventional Marketing. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 567–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Teisl, F.M.; Roe, B.; Hicks, R.L. Can Eco-Labels Tune a Market? Evidence from Dolphin-Safe Labeling. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2002, 43, 339–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Aprile, M.C.; Caputo, V.; Nayga, R.M., Jr. Consumers’ Valuation of Food Quality Labels: The Case of the European Geographic Indication and Organic Farming Labels. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Darnall, N.; Ji, H.; Vázquez-Brust, D.A. Third-Party Certification, Sponsorship, and Consumers’ Ecolabel Use. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 953–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. What Is Ecolabelling? Available online: https://globalecolabelling.net/about/what-is-ecolabelling/ (accessed on 26 July 2025).
  35. Horne, R.E. Limits to Labels: The Role of Eco-labels in the Assessment of Product Sustainability and Routes to Sustainable Consumption. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2009, 33, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, Z.; Mao, Y.; Gale, F. Chinese Consumer Demand for Food Safety Attributes in Milk Products. Food Policy 2008, 33, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Taufique, K.M.R.; Vocino, A.; Polonsky, M.J. The Influence of Eco-Label Knowledge and Trust on pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in an Emerging Market. J. Strateg. Mark. 2017, 25, 511–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gorton, M.; Tocco, B.; Yeh, C.-H.; Hartmann, M. What Determines Consumers’ Use of Eco-Labels? Taking a Close Look at Label Trust. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 189, 107173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kyoi, S.; Fujino, M.; Kuriyama, K. Investigating Spatially Autocorrelated Consumer Preference for Multiple Ecolabels: Evidence from a Choice Experiment. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2022, 7, 100083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Giannoccaro, G.; Carlucci, D.; Sardaro, R.; Roselli, L.; De Gennaro, B.C. Assessing Consumer Preferences for Organic vs Eco-Labelled Olive Oils. Org. Agr. 2019, 9, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhu, Z.; Zhang, T.; Hu, W. The Accumulation and Substitution Effects of Multi-Nation Certified Organic and Protected Eco-Origin Food Labels in China. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 203, 107625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Moon, S.-J.; Costello, J.P.; Koo, D.-M. The Impact of Consumer Confusion from Eco-Labels on Negative WOM, Distrust, and Dissatisfaction. Int. J. Advert. 2017, 36, 246–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Human. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dangelico, R.M.; Nonino, F.; Pompei, A. Which Are the Determinants of Green Purchase Behaviour? A Study of Italian Consumers. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2021, 30, 2600–2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Patel, J.D.; Trivedi, R.H.; Yagnik, A. Self-Identity and Internal Environmental Locus of Control: Comparing Their Influences on Green Purchase Intentions in High-Context versus Low-Context Cultures. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 102003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tian, Y.; Yoo, J.H.; Zhou, H. To Read or Not to Read: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Food Label Use. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2022, 46, 984–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Connelly, B.L.; Certo, S.T.; Ireland, R.D.; Reutzel, C.R. Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 39–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Spence, M. Job Market Signaling. Q. J. Econ. 1973, 87, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sakagami, M.; Sato, M.; Ueta, K. Measuring Consumer Preferences Regarding Organic Labelling and the JAS Label in Particular. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 2006, 49, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kim, R.; Suwunnamek, O.; Toyoda, T. Consumer Attitude towards Organic Labeling Schemes in Japan. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2008, 20, 55–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Crilly, N.; Moultrie, J.; Clarkson, P.J. Seeing Things: Consumer Response to the Visual Domain in Product Design. Des. Stud. 2004, 25, 547–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Grunert, K.G. Sustainability in the Food Sector: A Consumer Behaviour Perspective. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2011, 2, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ben Youssef, A.; Abderrazak, C. Multiplicity of Eco-Labels, Competition, and the Environment. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ. 2009, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Brécard, D. Consumer Confusion over the Profusion of Eco-Labels: Lessons from a Double Differentiation Model. Resour. Energy Econ. 2014, 37, 64–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ostfeld, R.; Howarth, D.; Reiner, D.; Krasny, P. Peeling Back the Label—Exploring Sustainable Palm Oil Ecolabelling and Consumption in the United Kingdom. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 014001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Malhotra, N.K.; Dash, S.P. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 7th (Global Edition) ed.; Pearson: Harlow, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-292-26591-9. [Google Scholar]
  57. Watkins, L.; Aitken, R. The Role of Young Consumers in Moving to a Sustainable Consumption Future. In Transitioning to Responsible Consumption and Production; MDPI: Basel, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-3-03897-873-2. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kabaja, B.; Wojnarowska, M.; Cesarani, M.C.; Varese, E. Recognizability of Ecolabels on E-Commerce Websites: The Case for Younger Consumers in Poland. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Schumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ursachi, G.; Horodnic, I.A.; Zait, A. How Reliable Are Measurement Scales? External Factors with Indirect Influence on Reliability Estimators. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 20, 679–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-13-813263-7. [Google Scholar]
  63. Stevens, J.P.; Stevens, J.P. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 4th ed.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001; ISBN 978-1-4106-0449-1. [Google Scholar]
  64. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1991; ISBN 978-0-8039-3287-6. [Google Scholar]
  66. Schena, R.; Morrone, D.; Russo, A. The Competition between Private Label and National Brand through the Signal of Euro-Leaf. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 6169–6181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kao Releases Kao Sustainability Report 2025. Available online: https://www.kao.com/global/en/newsroom/news/release/2025/20250613-002/ (accessed on 11 August 2025).
Sustainability 17 07466 g001
Figure 1. Simple slope analysis.
Figure 1. Simple slope analysis.
Sustainability 17 07466 g001
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of respondents.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of respondents.
Gender (N: 505)Frequency Rate (%)AgeFrequency Rate (%)
Man5.35Aged 20–29 (or: In their 20s)24%
Woman94.65Aged 30–39 (or: In their 30s)55%
Aged 40 and above
(or: 40 + years)		21%
Total (N = 505)100% 100%
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
NMeanSD1234567
Independent Variables
Organic JAS label awareness5057.442.221
RSPO label awareness5059.502.400.280 **1
Dependent Variables
Intention to pay more for the product with Organic JAS label5057.791.950.527 **0.433 **1
Control Variables
Gender5050.950.225−0.0430.025−0.088 **1
Age group 20s5050.240.4250.031−0.007−0.029−0.0341
Age group 30s5050.550.498−0.0360.035−0.0030.069−0.617 **1
Age group 40s5050.210.4050.023−0.0200.048−0.053−0.283 **−0.566 **1
Note: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), ** p < 0.01.
Table 3. Measurement model: reliability and validity.
Table 3. Measurement model: reliability and validity.
Constructs and ItemsFactor LoadingCRαAVE
Organic JAS label awareness 0.6990.6180.442
Knowledge about the mark0.508
Perceived health benefits0.745
Perceived environmental benefits0.717
RSPO label awareness 0.7990.7180.580
Knowledge about the mark0.531
Perceived health benefits0.880
Perceived environmental benefits0.827
Intention to pay more for the product with Organic JAS label 0.8630.8590.679
Price justification0.868
Purchase intention despite the price0.849
Perceived price justification0.750
Table 4. Hierarchical regression model outcomes.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression model outcomes.
Model 1Model 2Model 3
Predictorsβββ
Control: Gender(−)0.064(−)0.074(−)0.074
Control: Age Group 20s0.1720.0660.014
Control: Age Group 30s0.2520.1170.056
Control: Age Group 40s0.2240.1260.078
Control: Gender × Organic JAS Label Awareness(−)0.007(−)0.010(−)0.006
Organic JAS Label Awareness0.523 ***0.436 ***0.439 ***
RSPO Label Awareness 0.312 ***0.290 ***
Moderation:
Organic JAS label Awareness × RSPO Label Awareness		 (−)0.103 **
R20.2870.3750.386
ΔR2 0.890.010
F33.34 ***42.68 ***38.90 **
Note: Dependent variables: willingness to pay more for products with the Organic JAS label., ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001., Standardized regression coefficients (β) are reported.
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

Natsir, S.A.; Takai, A.; Seo, E.; Seo, G.-H.; Kim, J. How Awareness of Organic JAS and RSPO Labels Influences Japanese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay More for Organic Cosmetics. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7466. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167466

AMA Style

Natsir SA, Takai A, Seo E, Seo G-H, Kim J. How Awareness of Organic JAS and RSPO Labels Influences Japanese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay More for Organic Cosmetics. Sustainability. 2025; 17(16):7466. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167466

Chicago/Turabian Style

Natsir, Sherry Adelia, Aiko Takai, Eunji Seo, Gang-Hoon Seo, and Jaewook Kim. 2025. "How Awareness of Organic JAS and RSPO Labels Influences Japanese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay More for Organic Cosmetics" Sustainability 17, no. 16: 7466. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167466

APA Style

Natsir, S. A., Takai, A., Seo, E., Seo, G.-H., & Kim, J. (2025). How Awareness of Organic JAS and RSPO Labels Influences Japanese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay More for Organic Cosmetics. Sustainability, 17(16), 7466. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167466

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