A Circular Consumption Behavior Model for Addressing and Reducing Product Demand and Disposal

Abstract

Research has often overlooked examination of circular consumption practices from the consumer’s perspective by primarily focusing on specific consumption activities, hindering researchers from obtaining comprehensive insights into consumers’ upstream and downstream roles. Addressing this gap would highlight their role as simultaneous product users and resource suppliers. The framework draws from the concepts of the circular economy, attitude–behavior–context theory, and practice theory to develop a model that explores circular consumption behavior based on 8R-strategies for addressing and reducing product demand and disposal. These strategies comprise refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, repurpose, and recycle. The proposed model was empirically tested using partial least squares structural equation modeling with data collected from 528 consumers. The results show that the antecedents positively impacted circular consumption behavior, with environmental concern and consumer social responsibility acting as partial mediators. Habits moderated the relationship between these variables, though they showed insignificant moderation between circular economy knowledge and circular consumption behavior. The findings underscore the importance of consumers’ role as both product users and resource suppliers in circular consumption practices.

1. Introduction

Consumers are key participants with the potential to foster a circular transition even on an individual basis [1,2,3]. This transitional shift is referred to as circular consumption behavior, which adheres to circular economy principles and is based on consumers’ decisions and activities [4,5,6]. Accordingly, through their consumption behavior, consumers address their needs through product acquisition, usage, and post-use activities. These activities must be circularly integrated to achieve substantial benefits. Most importantly, the consumption of electronic products (e-products) requires circular transformation, as consumers are the starting point of electronic waste (e-waste) and can determine its destination [7,8].

Consumers have dual functional roles concerning product consumption, involving acquisition from circular sources and ensuring proper disposal at their end of life (EoL) [9]. Both polar phases reflect upstream and downstream activities, making circular consumption an intricate phenomenon with increasing importance and a growing research area [6,10,11,12]. Recently, Jourdain and Lamah [12] elaborated on such a perspective in terms of addressing and reducing product demand and disposal, examining a quintessential scenario with circularly integrated activities. The extant literature draws attention to the hierarchical R-strategies used to extend products’ lifespan and materials’ circulation based on knowledge-based and attitudinal aspects [13,14,15,16]. Thus, the connection of upstream and downstream activities will yield a circular transition based on the intersection of product consumption phases.

Consumer behavior research has progressed significantly, yet limited attention is paid to consumer-centric aspects of the circular economy [17,18]. Despite being at the center of the circular economy framework, consumers’ decision making and consumption behavior is largely overlooked [3,17]. Furthermore, their engagement across the full consumption cycle is still not addressed, especially considering the menace of e-waste [19]. Specific R-imperatives have been adopted, with higher circular strategies having been addressed least, making consumers’ adoption of them a relatively new and underexamined area of research [5,9]. Developing awareness from such a perspective is the first step [20,21], as this perception leads to positive attitudinal factors and subsequently transforms consumption behavior by encouraging the adoption of R-strategies [22,23]. However, the literature highlights that inadequate circular economy knowledge impedes this transition due to a lack of awareness and disposal practices [24,25], especially limited knowledge and comprehension of circular economy processes regarding e-waste management [1,26]. Such inhibitory factors yield a lax attitude followed by deviant behavior including extravagant purchasing and consumption [27], revealing the role of circular economy knowledge and attitudinal factors as foundational antecedents for circular consumption behavior.

Additionally, the attitude–behavior link manifests variation over the consumption phases. The literature documents a gap where individuals fail to consistently translate their attitudes into targeted behavior despite having a predisposition towards environmental protection [10,28]. This pattern of behavior may arise due to a lack of specific knowledge, established habits [10], and/or concern about environmental issues [29]. However, a combination of social and contextual factors and established habits plays a key role in its transformation [2,10,30]. These habits are incrementally developed, exhibiting a propensity to change behavior [31]. Routine practices or habits are essential elements, especially due to their connection with the attitude–behavior link. The emphasis should not only be on the attitude–behavior link but also on how practices are formed [5], which is often overlooked in shaping a routinized behavior [31]. Consumers engaging in a particular circular behavior typically demonstrate other behavioral characteristics [4]. To conclude, it is pivotal to explore consumer’s consumption behavior in relation to their knowledge level, attitudes, concern for the environment, social responsibility, and habits, as these factors can provide important insights.

This transformation is driven by a transitional process that moves from knowledge to attitude and, subsequently, to circular behavior. Consumer engagement is pivotal to successful circular economy processes and is contingent upon awareness and motivation for active participation in circular practices [17]. A critical and emerging challenge is consumers’ reluctance toward circular consumption, which warrants further investigation [21]. To address this, we explore consumption behavior [17,32], particularly with respect to e-waste management [7,8,19]. This paper’s novel contribution is the theoretical integration of circular economy knowledge, attitude–behavior–context theory, and practice theory. This study posits three research questions. (1) What is the influence of circular economy knowledge on contextual factor, attitude and circular consumption behavior? (2) What is the direct and mediating impact of contextual factor and attitude? (3) What is the moderating influence of habit? Accordingly, the research objective is to explore circular consumption behavior by examining consumers’ upstream and downstream circular activities, based on 8R-strategies, such as refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, repurpose, and recycle.

This study makes several contributions by focusing on two categories of e-products: laptops and mobile phones. First, it provides a broader conceptualization of circular consumption behavior that encompasses consumers’ upstream and downstream activities and the underlying 8R-strategies. This conceptualization integrates four phases, based on the conjunction of these strategies that both foster and slow down product demand and disposal [12]. Second, this research views the consumption process as more than a single act; it is a comprehensive set of choices and decisions, from purchasing an e-product to its usage and proper disposal [10]. Consequently, a consumer is seen as both a purchaser and a resource supplier. Third, this study specifically focuses on consumers’ consumption practices, an aspect that few studies have explored [3]. Fourth, the role of consumers in the circular supply chain remains unclear, as extant studies have often focused on specific R-strategies [5,9]. Finally, this research investigates the moderating impact of habit on the relationship between activating variables and circular consumption behavior, with a specific focus on its influence on the attitude–behavior link.

The rest of the article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical framework, conceptualization of circular consumption behavior, and the research model. Following that, Section 3 outlines the research hypotheses. The research method is detailed in Section 4. Subsequently, the analysis and findings are provided in Section 5. The discussion is presented in Section 6, which also includes the theoretical and practical implications, limitations and future directions. Finally, the paper is concluded in Section 7.

2. Theoretical Framework and Research Model

2.1. Theoretical Framework

This study integrates the concepts of circular economy knowledge, attitude–behavior–context theory and practice theory to offer a more thorough understanding of circular consumption behavior.

Appropriate knowledge is assumed to drive consumer consumption behavior [3,22]. This study adopts circular economy knowledge as the primary antecedent, which represents both environmental and behavioral knowledge, based on the framework by [33]. Schahn and Holzer [33] terms environmental knowledge as abstract knowledge for action, which represents a general awareness of environmental issues, in this case e-waste. Behavioral knowledge, however, represents concrete knowledge for action, which includes essential knowledge like the application of R-strategies.

Guagnano et al. [34] proposed the attitude–behavior–context theory. Prior research presumed a direct impact of attitudes on behavior [35]. Further exploration indicated its complexity, revealing that the link is contingent on contextual factors [34]. This is a leading theory for studying consumption behavior [30], emphasizing how attitude and contextual factors motivate individuals toward specific actions [36]. Although attitude is a predisposition toward actual behavior, it sometimes indicates a weaker link and does not translate into actual behavior without the influence of contextual elements [30]. This weak link stems from the convoluted nature of the attitude–behavior relationship, specifically its dependence on individual or contextual-level enablers [37]. Based on previous studies, this paper uses consumer social responsibility as an attitude-based construct towards behavior [38,39,40,41]. Additionally, environmental concern serves as a proxy for contextual factors impacting attitude and behavior [23,30,32,42,43], while circular consumption behavior is the dependent variable.

Practice theory is a motivating and pertinent framework for exploring circular consumption practices [5]. Reckwitz [44] (p. 249) defines it as “a routinized type of behavior”. This theory is highly appropriate for exploring formative practices, such as daily routines, habits, perceptions, and values among individual consumers [45]. For instance, individual consumers may implement and enhance practices to adopt circular R-strategies, which are not limited to specific moments [5]. These activities constitute repeated and discernible patterns of interdependent components [45]. As indicated by Warde [46], consumers are propelled by practices that steer behavior. Therefore, it is acknowledged as a valuable tool to explore consumption [46,47]. In the context of practice theory, this study employs habit as a moderating variable.

2.2. Conceptualization of Circular Consumption Behavior

Circular consumption behavior can be segmented into two distinct categories: downstream and upstream activities [12]. The downstream phase incorporates the EoL activities of an e-product [12]. For instance, donation, selling, and proper disposal are facilitated through circular R-strategies, such as reuse/resell, repurpose, or recycling. Such means minimizes e-waste generation, dispersion and landfills by closing the loops of e-products and their components. In this way, consumers can act as resource providers at the end of a supply chain. On the other hand, upstream activities encompass e-product acquisition [12]. This includes purchasing decisions like opting for second-hand or refurbished e-products, eco-designed e-products, and refusing to purchase non-circular e-products. For this, consumers employ R-strategies, such as refuse, reduce, reuse, repair or refurbish.

This behavior is composed of four phases, which are based on the interplay of fostering and slowing down product demand and disposal [12]. Product demand has two aspects: fostering demand and slowing down demand, while disposal comprises slowing down disposal and fostering disposal.

2.2.1. Fostering Demand

The term fostering refers to the act of encouraging and supporting an idea. In this context, an individual consumer supports circular consumption by stimulating interest in the circular attributes of e-products at the point of purchase, thereby fostering demand for them [48]. This process signifies the acquisition of e-products through the adoption of refuse and rethink strategies, which involves considering circular attributes such as eco-labels, recycled contents, sustainable information, and certifications [6,32,49,50,51].

2.2.2. Slowing Down Demand

Slowing down reflects the idea of reducing consumption levels or slackening the need for new e-products [12]. Consumers often behave in an insatiable manner, particularly with respect to new models or brands, which results in e-waste. To counter this, consumers can reduce new purchases, refuse extra items, choose refurbished options, or even opt for second-hand e-products [50,52,53,54,55,56]. Furthermore, product durability is a second key aspect to consider [55]. Finally, the idea of sufficiency [56] is achieved through prevention, which involves key R-strategies such as refusing or reducing [54,57].

2.2.3. Slowing Down Disposal

Disposal refers to the act of getting rid of something that is no longer required, such as e-waste. Informal disposal results in dispersion and accumulation in landfills, which runs counter to the very principles of the circular economy [7]. Because the circular economy advocates for the perpetual circulation of materials, the notion of slowing down is more appropriate. Hence, slowing down disposal proposes an e-product’s life extension as a primary alternative.

Product longevity is an effective environmental strategy [18,58], as it slows down consumption cycles [59]. This longevity is influenced by reuse, repair, and refurbishment [16,21,55,60]. However, consumers’ active participation and the e-product’s usage phase are key to its longevity [5,52]. Repair is a value-retaining activity that is accessible to consumers [18] and is more beneficial than the recycling process [54,57]. Furthermore, proper care and maintenance are crucial [60,61], as they can significantly increase an e-product’s lifespan and thereby curtail the frequency of replacement [62]. A prevalent practice is hibernation [12], stockpiling [63], and hoarding as household storage [64]. Collectively, these are known as “hibernating stocks” where e-products are not used, broken or stored without proper disposal. Such items fail to recover in the circular supply chains upon their EoL because consumers are not prolonging their lifespan through donation, selling, or utilization; instead, they are often simply stored [12]. However, awareness and circular behavior can overcome these barriers, especially in the case of e-waste [63].

2.2.4. Fostering Disposal

Fostering refers to developing or supporting an idea. Thus, this notion pertains to the efficient management of e-waste [7,8]. The first factor is the throwaway habit, a common practice among consumers to discard their e-waste [64]. The second beneficial perspective is the increasingly recognized role of consumers as suppliers of products and materials [12], because e-waste can be converted or used as inputs for new products. This process starts with the participation of end consumers [7,8]. The involvement and role of consumers can evaluate this provision [5]. Such involvement in a series of circular activities helps unlock and recover product values [14,54,57]. Finally, fostering disposal contributes to circular value chains and protects the environment. Consumers participate by recycling, disposing of, or using a return policy to close the full consumption cycle [4,12,17,48,65].

2.3. Research Model

Figure 1 illustrates the proposed research model. The activators are based on the discussion in Section 2.1. The model posits that circular economy knowledge is the main antecedent, with environmental concern and consumer social responsibility having direct and mediating effects. Habit acts as a moderator. As discussed in Section 2.2, circular consumption behavior is explored using the 8R-strategies (refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, repurpose, and recycle), summarized in

Table A1. Description of consumer-based 8R-strategies.

8R-Strategies	Description
Refuse	Declining or rejecting a product [103].
	To use or buy less [54,104].
	Refusing unnecessary acquisition [16,72,105].
Rethink	Looking out for an alternative [106] by favoring a circular one.
	Reconsidering consumption habits and making conscious choices [107].
Reduce	Less usage, consumption or buying [54,104,108].
	Reusing e-products, or resisting purchases [109].
	Purchasing refurbished or used e-products [9,50].
Reuse/resell	Acquiring an e-product for the same purpose, or without repair, or with refurbishment [2,54,58].
	Reusing a stored device [5].
	Consuming without purchasing a new one [9].
	Product care to keep using it for a longer time (e.g., reuse) [110].
	Exploring new ways for product use instead of its disposal [107].
Repair	Maintenance and repair to remove defects [57].
	Upkeep or preventing malfunctioning [77].
	Predictive or preventive [111] or prescriptive maintenance [112].
	E-product life extension for prolong usage [58,62,77,113].
	Use by first owner, and reuse by subsequent user [113].
Refurbish	Improving an e-product functionality [77].
	Restore or upgrade an e-product [57,112].
	Little manufacturing [54].
	Resell after restoration [99].
	Extending lifetime [110].
Repurpose	Incorporating the reuse, refurbishment, and recycling aspects of R-strategies [114].
	Using functional or discarded components for another purpose [115].
	Smartphones as parking meters [116]; reusing memory (RAM), LCD screen, batteries, or hard drives [114].
Recycle	Lower R-strategy in the hierarchy [57].
	Proper disposal, products return at specific collection points [12].

in Appendix A. The dependent construct, based on twelve items coded with CCB, is represented in Figure 1 and detailed in

Table A3. Measurement items of circular consumption behavior (CCB).

8R-Strategies	Statement	Study (Adapted)
Reduce and refurbish	CCB1: I would consider buying a refurbished [laptop/mobile phone] aiming to reduce e-waste.	[73]
Refuse and reduce	CCB2: I aim to reduce unnecessary purchases of [laptop/mobile phone] and related items.	[32,73]
Rethink	CCB3: I gather and understand information about whether a [laptop/mobile phone] is Eco-friendly before purchasing it (e.g., Eco-labels, certifications, recyclability, recycled contents).	[73]
Reuse/resell	CCB4: I take product durability into account, as reusing/reselling a durable [laptop/mobile phone] is an option when I no longer need it.	[122]
Repair	CCB5: I am not embarrassed to have my [laptop/mobile phone] repaired instead of buying a new one.	[32,73,110]
Reduce and reuse	CCB6: I charge my [laptop/mobile phone] regularly with particular attention to the charge.	[123]
Reuse/resell	CCB7: I attempt to prolong the [laptop/mobile phone] life through proper use, maintenance, and updates.	[110,124]
Reuse/resell (avoid hibernation)	CCB8: It is better to give a used [laptop/mobile phone] to someone in need rather than storing it in the house.	[17,32]
Refurbish	CCB9: Upgrading/refurbishing [laptop/mobile phone] transforms its performance and functionality and extends its lifespan.	[17]
Recycling	CCB10: I plan to promote the recycling of e-waste and related items to my friends, family, and peers.	[21,100]
Recycling and repurpose (return policy)	CCB11: I can manage time to dispose of or return [laptop/mobile phone] at its end-of-life at a specific collection point.	[21,100]
Repurpose (disposal)	CCB12: I avoid throwing away [laptop/mobile phone] and related items (like a hard drive, USB, battery, charger, or screen) that can be sold, reused, or donated.	[124]

in Appendix A.

Furthermore, research explores distinct patterns of consumption by examining particular facets, as presented in

Table 1. Studies that have worked on circular consumption behavior.

Circular Practices	References
Purchase intention	[66,67,68]
Recycling intention	[69]
Purchase, reduce, reuse	[23]
Green purchase behavior	[20]
Ethical purchase behavior	[70]
Circular purchase behavior	[24]
Circular economy adoption	[22]
Behavioral intention to repair	[71]
Intention to buy circular goods	[72]
Circular consumption behavior (recycle, reduce, reuse)	[21]
Circular consumption (purchasing intentions and usage)	[32,73]
Pro-environmental consumer behavior (purchase, recycling)	[51]
Pro-environmental behavior (avoid purchase, reduce, reuse, recycling)	[29]
Circular consumption choices (minimal take, reduce, reuse, repair, recycle)	[2]

. These patterns highlight a specific orientation in the extant research studies. However, a holistic and comprehensive approach to exploring circular consumption behavior in both upstream and downstream activities is lacking in the literature.

3. Research Hypotheses

In this section, we discuss the proposed hypotheses related to circular economy knowledge, environmental concern, consumer social responsibility, and habit.

3.1. Circular Economy Knowledge

Circular economy knowledge fosters circular transformation in consumers by enhancing pro-environmental tendencies, attitudinal factors, and environmental concern [1,23,32]. This is because these variables exhibit strong interconnection, with the potential to impact individual consumer behavior [1,3]. According to Bamberg [74], these variables strengthen each other, especially when an individual is seeking knowledge about environmental issues. Conversely, a lower level of knowledge substantially impedes meaningful actions [1,27]. A consumer is unlikely to manifest environmental concern and circular behavior if they lack a fundamental comprehension of underlying problems or prospective solutions [1,75].

Growing consumer concern for the environment represents a significant development [24]. Kaiser et al. [76] have stated that environmental values and knowledge influence a consumer’s perception, shaping their level of environmental concern and attitude toward the expected outcomes. Furthermore, consumers tend to act in a socially responsible manner [41] when they demonstrate an enhanced understanding of such knowledge [39]. This leads them to show responsibility during the purchase, usage, and disposal of e-products through various means, including education [1], eco-labeling [32,49], packaging information [6,9], careful handling [50], repairing [71], refurbishment [77], sharing [53], recycling [21], and disposal [12]. This concern is contingent on a consumer’s perception of environmental problems [23]. Several studies have supported this relationship, such as [20,23,29,51,68,71,78].

Therefore, this study proposes that an enhanced level of circular economy knowledge is hypothesized to augment an individual consumer’s environmental concern, social responsibility, and circular consumption behavior. Based on this, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1.

Enhanced circular economy knowledge leads to increased levels of environmental concern.

Hypothesis 2.

Enhanced circular economy knowledge leads to increased levels of consumer social responsibility.

Hypothesis 3.

Enhanced circular economy knowledge leads to increased circular consumption behavior.

3.2. Environmental Concern

Environmental concern is a vital factor in fostering circular consumption behavior [32]. It is an individual’s perception of the negative impact on the environment caused by overusing products and resources [23]. This concern is acknowledged as an influential predictor of circular consumption intentions [43], as individual consumers who express higher concern are more likely to engage in such behavior [32]. Milfont and Duckitt [79] presented this concern as a unidimensional construct along a continuum from low to high. However, the outcomes have been inconsistent across behavioral studies [80]. For example, the study of Fraccascia et al. [42] showed no effect of environmental concern on purchase intention. As such, the relationship between environmental concern and behavior is considered complex and not always straightforward [81].

Theoretically, environmental concern positively influences a consumer’s attitude toward circular behavior [43]. This relationship is empirically supported by studies on a variety of consumption behaviors and intentions. For instance, environmental concern positively influences sustainable consumption behavior [23], sustainable consumption intentions [43], and circular consumption choices [2]. Additionally, it has been shown to impact environmental attitude and eco-label buying behavior [78], attitude and purchase intention [81], attitude and consumption behavior [67]. These findings extend to more specific actions, such as paying more for circular products [80], attitude and circular purchasing behavior [24]. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 4.

Environmental concern has a positive relationship with circular consumption behavior.

Hypothesis 5.

Environmental concern has a positive relationship with consumer social responsibility.

Hypothesis 6.

Environmental concern positively mediates the relationship between circular economy knowledge and circular consumption behavior.

Hypothesis 7.

Environmental concern positively mediates the relationship between circular economy knowledge and consumer social responsibility.

3.3. Consumer Social Responsibility

The principle of consumer social responsibility has received limited attention [38,40]. The main reason is consumers’ sovereignty and autonomy in choosing their preferences [82]. According to Vitell [83], it is linked to ethics, while Peattie [84] suggests a connection between green, fair, and ethical consumption. Roberts [85] termed it a consumer’s attitude towards purchasing, using, and properly disposing of a product to have the least detrimental effect on the ecological system. It is grounded in moral and personal beliefs associated with making conscious consumption choices [86]. It implies individual consumer preferences and desires that consider environmental and social factors. These notions suggest that individual consumers manifest circular activities by exercising purchasing, usage and proper disposal [39,41]. This lowers harmful effects and maximizes beneficial impacts on society [66], thus implying a crucial responsibility of end consumers [38].

A consumer’s consumption patterns not only impact society but also influence others within it. Therefore, consumers must not only purchase e-products but also prolong their life span and facilitate recirculation through reuse, reselling, and repurposing, followed by proper post-use disposal. This participation is essential, as the circular supply chain remains incomplete without their involvement [1,5]. Munerah et al. [66] advocate for proactive responsibility. Although many consumers do not align their actions with their claims, this constitutes a recognized attitude–behavior gap [40]. Furthermore, these notions are empirically supported by several researchers [38,41]. Numerous studies have used consumer social responsibility as a vital attitudinal construct [38,39,41,83,87]. Specifically, Borah et al. [39] found a mediating relationship between consumer environmental knowledge and green purchasing behavior. In addition, Ahmad and Zhang [38] observed a positive effect of consumers’ social responsibility on purchasing intention. Considering this, we propose that:

Hypothesis 8.

Consumer social responsibility has a positive relation with circular consumption behavior.

Hypothesis 9.

Consumer social responsibility positively mediates the relationship between circular economy knowledge and circular consumption behavior.

Hypothesis 10.

Consumer social responsibility positively mediates the relationship between environmental concern and circular consumption behavior.

Hypothesis 11.

Consumer social responsibility positively mediates the relationship between circular economy knowledge, environmental concern, and circular consumption behavior.

3.4. Moderating Role of Habit

An individual’s everyday life is composed of routine practices performed in their daily contexts [13]. Consumer behavior research has strongly emphasized routinized consumption under the circular economy principles [5]. Lopes et al. [2] proposed that pro-environmental habits and circular practices can have a positive impact when adopted by consumers. Every habitual choice, such as purchasing an e-product, prolonging its lifespan, and ensuring its proper disposal, can positively impact the environment since it promotes circular consumption behavior [32]. Such habits are termed daily routines and behaviors that mitigate detrimental environmental impacts by promoting circularity [2].

An individual can plan and adjust daily routines, such as turning off unnecessary lights and recycling e-products, and these daily practices have a positive impact on the ecological system [50]. However, as they are a fundamental part of daily life, routine practices can be a powerful barrier to circular behavioral change [2]. Therefore, a key behavioral element is altering habits in a stable context to develop constructive routines [32]. Through a repetitive process, habits incrementally strengthen the connection between specific environmental contexts and corresponding behavioral responses, which makes the relationship between antecedents and circular consumption behavior more efficient and stable. Considering such theoretical aspects, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 12.

Habit positively moderates the relationship between environmental concern and circular consumption behavior.

Hypothesis 13.

Habit positively moderates the relationship between consumer social responsibility and circular consumption behavior.

Hypothesis 14.

Habit positively moderates the relationship between circular economy knowledge and circular consumption behavior.

4. Research Methods

4.1. Instrument Development

The research instrument was composed of two sections and was accompanied by a cover letter and a consent form. The cover letter provided a brief overview and explained the study’s purpose. The consent form informed the participants of three aspects: first, that survey participation was entirely voluntary and anonymous; second, that no personal information would be published or shared; and third, that the research output would be inferential and descriptive only. The socio-demographic attributes of the respondents were collected in the first section.

Subsequently, the questionnaire items for all constructs were organized into five subsections: circular economy knowledge (5 items), environmental concern (5 items), consumer social responsibility (5 items), habit (4 items), and circular consumption behavior (12 items). The construct items were adapted/adopted for the study context. To facilitate prompt analysis, we developed closed-ended questions and adopted a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The construct items are presented in a tabular format in

Table A2. Measurement items.

Variable	Statement	Study
Circular economy knowledge (CEK)	CEK1: I understand the environmental phrases and symbols on product packages.	Adapted: [39,117,118]
	CEK2: I am familiar with the environmental laws and regulations in Pakistan.
	CEK3: I am very knowledgeable in knowing what to do to protect the environment.
	CEK4: I can explain what is meant by R-strategies.
	CEK5: Circular economy is a primary way to conserve natural resources.
Environmental concern (EC)	EC1: I am concerned about the condition of the environment.	Adopted: [42]
	EC2: I would give up some economic goods for a cleaner environment.
	EC3: The condition of the natural environment is getting worse every year.
	EC4: I am concerned about the nature resource shortage in the future.
	EC5: We all need to change our behavior to protect the natural environment.
Consumer social responsibility (CnSR)	CnSR1: I believe that I have a responsibility to improve the environmental situation.	Adopted: [38,39]
	CnSR2: I believe that individuals should act responsibly when they enjoy benefits from nature.
	CnSR3: I believe if customer deliver their responsibility to environment, firms will act responsibly.
	CnSR4: Environmental protection starts with me.
	CnSR5: I should be answerable for defending our environment.
Habit (HAB)	HAB1: Circular consumption practices have become a habit for me.	Adapted: [119,120,121]
	HAB2: Circular consumption practices have become a common behavior to me.
	HAB3: I must participate in circular consumption practices as a habit.
	HAB4: I have been doing it for a long time.

and Table A3 in Appendix A.

4.2. Sample and Procedure

A pre-test was conducted to improve the overall quality of the instruments. Five doctoral researchers were approached for their feedback on the layout, clarity and formatting of the questionnaire items. Furthermore, a pilot study was performed to assess the reliability of construct items [88]. Cronbach’s alpha is a widely used and accepted measure for this purpose [89]. Hair et al. [88] have recommended a range of 0.70–0.90. Thus, 50 questionnaire items were distributed among random participants. Subsequently, the final version was used to collect data.

The sample for this study was collected online and disseminated through common electronic platforms, including emails and messaging apps, as these are quick and accessible means for data collection [21,32,72,75,90]. The data was collected from February to April 2025 using a cross-sectional data collection method. The targeted sample was consumers over 18 years old from Pakistan. Non-probability convenience sampling technique was adopted [42]. This technique was adopted as it facilitates efficient data gathering, enhances the quality, and provides greater oversight over the sample selection [21,91]. This approach provides meaningful insights [92]. Furthermore, a large sample helps to mitigate any sampling biases [42], and a large sample size has the potential to achieve a desired sample size from a relevant population [88,93]. We anticipated a higher response since consumers are using e-products in their daily lives. Thus, we collected a sample of 528 respondents. The dataset contained no missing values since all questions were compulsory. The socio-demographic profile of the respondents is presented in

Table 2. Description of respondents.

Variables	Labels	Counts	In Percentage
Gender	Male	307	58.1
	Female	221	41.9
Age (in years)	18–24	48	9.1
	25–34	207	39.2
	35–44	176	33.3
	45–54	84	15.9
	55–60	13	2.5
Education	Bachelors	247	46.8
	Masters	251	47.5
	PhD	30	5.7
Occupational status	Student	133	25.2
	Employed	321	60.8
	Self-employed	62	11.7
	Unemployed	12	2.3
Monthly income	No income	77	14.6
	Below PKR 50,000	23	4.4
	PKR 50,000–100,000	33	6.3
	PKR 100,001–150,000	140	26.5
	PKR 150,001–200,000	132	25.0
	PKR 200,001–250,000	76	14.4
	Above PKR 250,000	47	8.9

PKR = Pakistani rupees.

.

5. Analysis and Findings

The data was analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). We utilized SmartPLS 4 software [94] to validate our model in accordance with the guidelines of [88,89]. First, we assessed the measurement model, and then the structural model.

5.1. Measurement Model

The measurement model was assessed using several criteria. First, the recommended factor loading value is 0.70 or above. Second, for internal consistency, recommended values for Cronbach’s alpha ($\alpha >0.70$) and composite reliability (CR $>0.70$) are required. Third, for validity, convergent validity (average variance extracted; AVE $>0.50$) and discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion [95] and heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT)) must be established.

As listed in

Table 3. Reliability and validity.

Variables	Items	Item Loading	CA	CR	AVE	VIF
Circular economy knowledge	CEK1	0.845	0.884	0.915	0.683	1.627
	CEK2	0.819
	CEK3	0.811
	CEK4	0.812
	CEK5	0.844
Environmental concern	EC1	0.808	0.846	0.890	0.619	1.540
	EC2	0.778
	EC3	0.773
	EC4	0.770
	EC5	0.802
Consumer social responsibility	CnSR1	0.842	0.881	0.913	0.678	1.710
	CnSR2	0.815
	CnSR3	0.811
	CnSR4	0.820
	CnSR5	0.829
Habit	HAB1	0.815	0.834	0.881	0.651	1.013
	HAB2	0.718
	HAB3	0.894
	HAB4	0.789
Circular consumption behavior	CCB1	0.834	0.960	0.965	0.697	-
	CCB2	0.841
	CCB3	0.850
	CCB4	0.845
	CCB5	0.842
	CCB6	0.833
	CCB7	0.840
	CCB8	0.832
	CCB9	0.831
	CCB10	0.829
	CCB11	0.827
	CCB12	0.812

CA = Cronbach alpha, CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted, VIF = variance inflation factor.

, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were above 0.70, while average variance extracted was above 0.50. Discriminant validity was established through two key criteria. First, the Fornell–Larcker criterion was met, as the square root of the average variance extracted was higher than the corresponding values in the correlation matrix. Second, the heterotrait–monotrait values also remained below the threshold value of 0.90. The results are presented in

Table 4. Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion).

	CCB	CEK	CnSR	EC	HAB
CCB	0.835
CEK	0.545	0.826
CnSR	0.604	0.571	0.823
EC	0.504	0.503	0.537	0.787
HAB	−0.035	−0.010	−0.046	−0.022	0.807

CEK = circular economy knowledge, EC = environmental concern, CnSR = consumer social responsibility, HAB = habit, CCB = circular consumption behavior.

and

Table 5. Heterotrait–monotrait ratio.

	CCB	CEK	CnSR	EC	HAB
CCB
CEK	0.591
CnSR	0.656	0.646
EC	0.558	0.581	0.621
HAB	0.044	0.045	0.061	0.052

CEK = circular economy knowledge, EC = environmental concern, CnSR = consumer social responsibility, HAB = habit, CCB = circular consumption behavior.

, respectively.

5.2. Structural Model

The structural model was assessed in three steps. First, the explanatory power was assessed using $R^2$ values. Second, we determined path significance for the path coefficients ($\beta$) and their statistical significance through $\mathit{t}$-values and $\mathit{p}$-values via a bootstrapping technique. According to Hair et al. [88], this method allows for the substantiation of proposed hypotheses with empirical data. Third, the significance of hypothesized relationships was reported.

The $R^2$ values for environmental concern, consumer social responsibility, and circular consumption behavior were 0.253, 0.409, and 0.590, respectively, as shown in Figure 2. The proposed model demonstrates that the predictor variables account for 25.3% of the variance in environmental concern and 40.9% of the variance in consumer social responsibility. Moreover, the overall model explains 59% of the variance in circular consumption behavior.

Table 6. Hypothesis results (bootstrapping with 5000 subsamples).

	Path Coefficient	SD	T	P	Result
Direct effect:
H1: CEK → EC	0.503	0.032	15.535	0.000	Supported
H2: CEK → CnSR	0.403	0.037	10.839	0.000	Supported
H3: CEK → CCB	0.284	0.038	7.539	0.000	Supported
H4: EC → CCB	0.147	0.038	3.904	0.000	Supported
H5: EC → CnSR	0.334	0.038	8.691	0.000	Supported
H8: CnSR → CCB	0.360	0.039	9.290	0.000	Supported
Mediating effect:
H6: CEK → EC → CCB	0.074	0.020	3.718	0.000	Supported
H7: CEK → EC → CnSR	0.168	0.022	7.610	0.000	Supported
H9: CEK → CnSR → CCB	0.145	0.020	7.319	0.000	Supported
H10: EC → CnSR → CCB	0.120	0.020	5.942	0.000	Supported
H11: CEK → EC → CnSR → CCB	0.060	0.011	5.593	0.000	Supported
Moderating effect:
H12: EC × HAB → CCB	0.117	0.056	2.075	0.019	Supported
H13: CnSR × HAB → CCB	0.299	0.075	3.991	0.000	Supported
H14: CEK × HAB → CCB	0.037	0.041	0.902	0.184	Not supported

CEK = circular economy knowledge, EC = environmental concern, CnSR = consumer social responsibility, HAB = habit, CCB = circular consumption behavior; H = hypothesis; SD = standard deviation, T = T-values, P = significance.

presents the results for the proposed hypotheses, including $\beta$-values, $\mathit{t}$-values, and $\mathit{p}$-values. The results show that thirteen of the hypotheses (hypotheses 1–13) are statistically supported, while Hypothesis 14 is not.

All proposed mediating hypotheses demonstrated partial mediation effects. Circular economy knowledge ($\beta$ = 0.403) and environmental concern ($\beta$ = 0.334) significantly predict consumer social responsibility ($R^2$ = 0.409). Subsequently, these factors explain circular consumption behavior ($R^2$ = 0.590) with a ($\beta$ = 0.360). Finally, circular economy knowledge with a ($\beta$ = 0.284) and environmental concern with a ($\beta$ = 0.147) explain circular consumption behavior. The serial mediation path exemplifies the case of complementary partial mediation, as both the direct and indirect effects are statistically significant and aligned in the same direction. For Hypothesis 11, this study established that circular economy knowledge has an indirect effect of ($\beta$ = 0.060) on circular consumption behavior via environmental concern and consumer social responsibility.

Among the three proposed moderating effects of habit, the results reveal that habit strengthens the positive relationship between environmental concern and circular consumption behavior as well as consumer social responsibility and circular consumption behavior. Hypothesis 14 was found to be insignificant in the relationship between circular economy knowledge and circular consumption behavior.

6. Discussion and Implications

Consumers play an important role in driving circular consumption [3,13]. This is a cyclic approach that starts with an e-product purchase decision, functional consumption, and proper disposal at its EoL [4,32]. We explored circular consumption behavior by connecting downstream and upstream activities, based on four circular activities: fostering demand, slowing down demand, slowing down disposal, and fostering disposal in terms of 8R-strategies, as detailed in Section 2.2. This study conceptualizes a circular supply chain where individuals can simultaneously act as consumers and resource providers.

Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 empirically confirm the theoretical role of circular economy knowledge as a driving factor in circular consumption behavior [3,84]. This finding is further supported by several research studies [23,39,51,96]. Our results also validate the linear directional pervasive model, which describes the learning behavioral transformational phases from knowledge to attitude and, subsequently, to behavior [97]. Because the results are positive and significant, they align with [98], who argue that a certain level of knowledge shapes positive attitudes, leading to behavioral transformation. Furthermore, when consumers gain circular economy knowledge, they exhibit more concern, show greater social responsibility, and engage in circular consumption behavior. This process begins with acquiring an e-product, using it, and ensuring its proper disposal, thereby replacing traditional consumption practices. These changes include purchasing refurbished smartphones [99], remanufactured smartphones [90], opting for eco-labeled products [32,49,50], and focusing on product longevity [50]. Other behaviors include avoiding hibernation [12,63], proper maintenance [55,61], disposal [12,50], engaging in return policy [12], and recycling [21,100].

Hypotheses 4 and 5 are based on attitude–behavior–context theory [34], with the assumption that contextual factors are imperative for influencing individuals’ attitudes and behavior [30,37]. Hypothesis 4 indicates that environmental concern directly and positively impacts circular consumption behavior. This validates the importance of environmental concern in promoting circular practices [23,30,32]. Extant literature also reports similar results [23,24,32,73]. Finally, as hypothesized in Hypothesis 5, consumer social responsibility directly influences circular consumption behavior. This is because consumers feel the social and environmental impact of their actions. This notion is consistent with the perception that consumers with responsible attitudes tend to exhibit the same behavior [41]. This development is guiding consumers toward a shared social and ethical responsibility [40], making them mindful of their purchasing and consumption choices.

On the contrary, some studies have acknowledged a weak link where knowledge has no direct impact on behavior [29,101]. This has led to the counterargument that knowledge does not always directly elicit consumer behavior but may be indirectly influenced by a mediator. Furthermore, attitude–behavior–context theory also predicts direct and mediating relationships. The theory suggests that contextual factors directly impact consumption behavior and indirectly influence it through their interaction with attitudes [30]. However, the results from Ertz et al. [30] showed an insignificant direct path of contextual factors on behavior. To explore this in more detail, we analyze the proposed mediating hypotheses based on our framework. This study proposed two mediation relationships (Hypotheses 6 and 7) where environmental concern acts as a mediator between all antecedents and circular consumption behavior. Our study, however, reported partial mediation, where environmental concern positively mediates two distinct relationships. These results are in line with other studies that have identified the mediating impact of environmental concern on factors such as circular and sustainable consumption behavior [23,67,73,78].

Moreover, Hypotheses 9 and 10 partially mediate the relationship between all antecedents and the dependent variable through consumer social responsibility. These results corroborate findings from past research [23,30,39,78]. Hypothesis 11 proposed a serial mediating path, confirming previous results that found mediation by attitudinal factors [23,78]. This study characterizes social responsibility in terms of an “effective responsibility”, where consumers enhance the environmental situation through responsible actions while enjoying the benefits of nature. This positive change is driven by social responsibility and behavioral transformation [41].

The results demonstrate the strong impact of circular economy knowledge on all criterion variables. Furthermore, the mediating role of environmental concern and consumer social responsibility is also significant. This signifies the functional role of these key factors, indicating that greater knowledge leads to increased awareness, concern and responsibility in consumption patterns. Our findings suggest that consumers have a strong connection and social responsibility in relation to the circular ecosystem. Furthermore, such a connection fosters greater awareness, leading individuals to prefer eco-friendly e-products over traditional ones to prolong their life span and ensure proper disposal at their EoL.

Finally, based on Hypotheses 12 and 13, habit positively moderates the relationship of both environmental concern and consumer social responsibility with circular consumption behavior. Additionally, an insignificant relationship was observed between circular economy knowledge and circular consumption behavior, as per Hypothesis 14. Consumers who are concerned about the environment and behave responsibly tend to engage in circular consumption practices. This relationship strengthens when individuals are acting on a routine basis [32]. This is based on the notion that adopting one practice can lead to the adoption of another. For instance, reusing can lead to repairing [5]. Furthermore, habits and routines can influence daily behavior or lead to long-term transformation. From a broader perspective, habits and routines align behavioral transition with attitudes, which, to some extent, reinforce this relationship [2]. Therefore, it can be inferred that when the attitude–behavior link is routinely strengthened, behavioral responses related to circular consumption practices are automatically activated.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

This research study makes several theoretical contributions to the conceptualization of circular consumption behavior. To our knowledge, most extant studies have only focused on a limited scope of consumers’ participation and role based on specific R-strategies, e.g., [6,21,67,71]. In contrast, this study adopts a circular consumption behavior model based on 8R-strategies to develop a full consumption cycle by examining consumer participation in four circular activities: (1) fostering demand, (2) slowing down demand, (3) slowing down disposal, and (4) fostering disposal.

Furthermore, this research integrates downstream and upstream activities by focusing on purchasing, usage, and disposal. Through this integrated model, a consumer acts as both an e-product user and a resource provider of EoL products and components. This study, therefore, offers a new perspective on the literature by conceptualizing consumers in this dual role.

Third, extant studies show that a key barrier to successful circular economy implementation is the lack of adequate circular economy knowledge [1,3,27]. Therefore, circular economy knowledge is a pertinent and appropriate driver. Merely abstract knowledge is insufficient; instead, its practical utilization is what leads to better evaluations and practices.

Finally, we explored circular consumption behavior as a dependent variable encompassing the 8R-strategies of refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse/resell, repair, refurbish, repurpose, and recycle. In doing so, our research provides significant theoretical advancements to the conceptualization of circular consumption. Our findings suggest that consumers exhibit circular behavior when provided with proper circular economy knowledge. This knowledge augments their ability to develop environmental concern and social responsibility. This behavioral transformation facilitates and confirms the attitude–behavior–context theory, indicating that contextual factors and attitudes induce behavior. The study also discusses the attitude–behavior link by employing a moderating factor, namely habit, which was found to strengthen this relationship.

6.2. Practical Contributions

For consumers to engage in circular consumption behavior, they must first be aware of its applications. The literature suggests that consumer reluctance toward circular consumption behavior is a novel challenge [102], especially in developing countries, where circular consumption practices are still in their nascent stages [21]. Consumers can be influenced by addressing their issues with perception and awareness. Thus, it is essential to disseminate circular economy knowledge as a foundational tool. A noncoercive approach appears more beneficial because consumers value their self-determination and the freedom to make circular choices. Therefore, a simple-to-integrate model can facilitate their engagement.

There is a strong link between consumer awareness, behavioral transition and participation in circular practices, which suggests that circular economy policies should be widely disseminated to enhance consumers’ awareness and perception. One effective approach is the promotion and dissemination of eco-friendly and pro-environmental information about e-products. This is based on the dual notion of consumers first understanding what a circular e-product is, and then developing the capabilities and intentions of how to perform the necessary circular skills. Companies can engage consumers by first identifying and then addressing barriers. This can be achieved through promotional campaigns, “do-it-yourself” skills workshops, and offering refurbished e-products at reasonable prices under warranties. This process can also be influenced by the availability and variety of e-product offerings.

As discussed in Section 2.2, consumers can play a crucial role in the downstream perspective. However, their participation is more effective when supported by reverse logistics, recycling systems, and return policies that include incentives. Such facilities can significantly enhance consumer convenience and encourage social responsibility and circular consumption behavior. Specifically, the availability of return policies and convenient collection facilities promotes consumer participation in post-use e-waste management.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

A key limitation of this study is the use of the cross-sectional data collection method. Future research should, therefore, adopt a longitudinal approach to obtain more compelling empirical evidence. Additionally, while this study used a convenience-based sampling method, future research could adopt a probabilistic or purposive sampling technique. Furthermore, focusing on specific age groups, such as 18–24 years and 55 and above, could yield new insights, as these groups represent only a small portion of our sample, as presented in Table 2.

Another avenue for the future is to consider a broader range for the dependent variable, as circular consumption behavior in our model accounted for an $R^2$-value of 0.590. Furthermore, a formative model could be conceptualized to uniquely contribute to the behavioral model. This study has specifically focused on circular consumption behavior from the e-product perspective. Future research could apply a similar consumption model to other sectors like food and clothing sectors, as both are major sources of waste through overconsumption. Finally, while this study employed habit as a moderator, future research could, based on attitude–behavior–context theory, explore habit as a predictor or mediator.

7. Conclusions

Despite its importance, consumer participation in driving the circular economy and circular consumption practices has received limited attention. A comprehensive behavioral model is often overlooked when considering consumers’ upstream and downstream circular activities. This study addresses this critical gap by developing a novel framework by drawing on the concepts of circular economy knowledge, attitude–behavior–context theory and practice theory.

Compared to extant studies that have mostly focused on specific patterns, this study advances the current literature by incorporating the multidimensional nature of circular consumption behavior. The model incorporates an 8R-strategies framework that encompasses the entire e-product life cycle, purchase and usage to post-use at its EoL. This framework enables consumers to participate in circular consumption by fostering demand, slowing down demand, slowing down disposal and fostering disposal. Our aim was to propose a novel model through this nuanced approach, recognizing the dual function of consumers as both purchasers and resource suppliers. Ultimately, the findings underscore the importance of consumers’ role in both upstream and downstream circular consumption, providing a robust behavior model. This study offers valuable insights for academics, businesses and policymakers seeking to promote circular consumption practices.