Green consumption behavior (GCB) is desirable for a better world. The trend of GCB is expected to rise in the coming years. As such, it is imperative to understand the enablers of GCB. A significant majority of the investigated drivers of GCB are consumer-level factors. Studies focusing on the consumer-level showed that factors such as values, intentions, and personal norms could influence GCB. However, it is argued that compared to values or intentions, self-determined motivation can better predict GCB. The effect of self-determined motivation types (i.e., autonomous and controlled motivation) on GCB remains unclear due to prevailing gaps and contradictory findings. Furthermore, it is posited that people exhibit more self-determined behavior if they have strong self-awareness. Higher self-awareness can be achieved through mindfulness; therefore, differences in mindfulness level could affect the motivation-behavior relationship.

최근 중국 정부는 중국의 환경오염 문제가 심각해짐에 따라 생태문명 건설이라는 새로운 국정운영 목표를 제시 하였다. 중국의 환경과 관련된 이러한 거시적 변화는 중국 소비자들의 친환경 소비에 대한 관심에도 영향을 미치고 있다. 이에 본 연구는 중국의 친환경 소비시장이 새로운 전환점을 맞이하고 있다고 판단하고, 중국 소비자의 친환경 소비행동을 설명할 수 있는 새로운 변인을 찾고자 다양한 분야의 문헌연구를 수행하였다. 그 결과 사회적 공감이라는 새로운 변인이 중국 소비자의 환경관심 및 친환경제품 구매의도에 주요한 영향을 미칠 것으로 예측하고 연구 가설을 설정하였다. 가설검증을 위해 중국의 북경, 상해, 청도에 거주하는 327명의 중국소비자들로부터 실증분석 자료를 수집하였고, 다중회귀분석법으로 분석하였다. 분석 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 중국 소비자의 사회적 공감은 환경관심과 친환경제품 구매의도에 모두 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 사회적 공감의 세 하위요인인 정서적 반응, 인지적 공감, 거시적 관점수용 중 인지적 공감과 거시적 관점수용만 환경관심에 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로, 사회적 공감의 세 하위요인인 정서적 반응, 인지적 공감, 거시적 관점수용은 모두 친환경제품 구매의도에 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구의 실증분석 결과는 중국소비자의 친환경 소비행동 연구 분야에서 사회적 공감이라는 새로운 변인의 설명력을 확인하였다는 점에서 관련 연구의 학문적 확장에 기여할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. 또한 중국의 친환경 소비시장이 거시적․미시적 변화에 직면하고 있다는 점에서 사회적 공감이라는 새로운 변인의 확인은 중국 진출 국내기업들에게 친환경 마케팅 전략 수립의 실무적 시사점을 제공할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

Consumer ethics (CE) is defined by Muncy and Vitell (1992) as the moral standards to guide consumers’ behaviors in obtaining and disposing of goods and services. Regarding ethical issues, consumers have concerns on human, animal or environmental welfare (Gregory-Smith, Smith, & Winklhofer, 2013). As Liu, Yang, and Zeng (2015) describe, unethical consumer behavior (UCB) may cause underlying damage to society, reflecting the dysfunctional, dark or sinister side of consumer behavior. In consumer ethics literature, early studies focus on discussing the dark side of consumer behavior or unethical consumer behavior (UCB), such as returning goods you damaged, taping a movie off the television, shoplifting, etc. (Vitell & Muncy, 2003), counterfeit consumption (Tang, Tian, & Zaichkowsky, 2014; Wilcox, Kim, & Sen, 2009). In last few decades, more attention has been given to the study of the bright side, for instance, green purchase (e.g., Lee, 2008 & 2009; Chan, 2008); sustainable consumption (Lee, 2014), or fair trade (Chatzidakis, Kastanakis, & Stathopoulou, 2016). Within the studies on the bright side of consumer ethics, some of them investigate consumers’ attitude towards green purchase and its relationship with green purchase intention and behavior (e.g., Chai & Chen, 2009; Chen & Chai, 2010; Cherian & Jacob, 2012; Han, Hsu, & Lee, 2009; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). Among these studies, the semantic-differential scale of attitudes towards green purchase (AGP) developed by Taylor and Todd (1995) is more commonly adopted (e.g., Chai & Chen, 2009; Chan, 2001, Chen & Chai, 2010; Mostafa, 2006 & 2007). This AGP scale contains three items, namely i) I dislike/like the idea of purchasing green products, ii) Purchasing green products is a bad/good idea, and iii) I have a/an unfavourable/favourable attitude towards purchasing a green version of a product. Some other studies on the bright side of consumer ethics investigate consumers’ intention to purchase different green products, such as organic skin/hair care product (Kim & Chung, 2011), organic food (Paul & Rana, 2012), the relationship between environmental concern and green products purchase (Kangun, Carlson, & Grove, 1991), ecologically packaged products purchase (Schwepker & Cornwell, 1991) or organic vegetables (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). There are several green purchase intention (GPI) scales asking if respondents will buy product of green version, less polluting for ecology or environmental concern (Chan 2001; Chen & Chang, 2012; Taylor & Todd, 1995). Vitell and Muncy (2005) develop a consumer ethics scale with four categories of (un)ethical consumer behaviors, they are i) ethical consumer behaviors (i.e., recycling and doing good), ii) unethical consumer behaviors (i.e., actively benefiting from illegal activities [e.g., returning damaged goods when the damage was your own fault]; passively benefiting at the expense of others [e.g., lying about a child’s age to get a lower price], iii) questionable but generally legal practices [e.g., using a coupon for merchandise you did not buy], and iv) no harm/no foul activities [e.g., returning merchandise after buying it and not liking it]. In this scale, the ‘recycling’ and ‘doing good’ categories are similar to the Taylor and Todd’s (1995) AGP scale. It is quite surprising that there seems no research putting them together in studying green purchase intention. This conceptual paper attempts to fill this research gap. Conspicuous consumption, another type of consumption, also reveals some aspects of consumer ethics. It has been clearly defined that conspicuous consumption involves extravagant consumption (Veblen, 1899/1915), purchase of luxury goods (e.g., O’Cass & Frost, 2002; Shukla, 2008) or scarce products (Gierl & Huettl, 2010) to display wealth or to demonstrate personal taste (e.g., Blumer, 1969; Bourdieu, 1979/1984; Trigg, 2001). Extant literature illustrates that some terms are associated with conspicuous consumption behavior, such as ‘materialism’ (e.g., Podoshen, Li, & Zhang, 2011), ‘unnecessary expenses’ (e.g., Veblen (1899/1915), ‘conspicuous waste’ and ‘overconsumption’ (e.g., Carr, Gotlieb, Lee, and Shah, 2012; Chaudhuri, Mazumdar, & Ghoshal, 2011), ‘luxury consumption’ (Kwek & Lee, 2013), and ‘conspicuous taste’ (Bourdieu, 1979/1984). A relatively more complete scale of conspicuous consumption orientation developed by Chaudhuri et al. (2011) contains 12 items, which explicitly covers all items related to wealth, status and taste. With a closer look on the definition and the terms to describe conspicuous consumption, it is not hard to find out explicit remarks or implicit comments that various kinds of conspicuous consumption can be unethical, creating negative impacts in economical, socio-culturally and environmental contexts. First, conspicuous consumption can be a waste of economic resources. For instance, in conspicuous consumption feasting in Chinese communities, ordering more foods than enough would create wastes. Besides, conspicuous consumption is associated with impulse/impulsive buying (Zhang & Shrum, 2009). In modern economies with higher materialism, conspicuous consumption is highly related to expenditures of visible goods like high fashion clothing (O’Cass, 2001), jewelry, cars (Bloch, 1981; Charles, Hurst, & Roussanov, 2009), housing or mobile phones (Spero & Stone, 2004). Impulsive conspicuous consumption of new fashion in every season is another type of consumption creating more wastes. Second, conspicuous consumption can be harming to environment. For example, to demonstrate wealth or status, some people eat endangered species or killing wild animals, e.g., shark fin (Eriksson & Clarke, 2015), monkey or turtle. conspicuous consumption of clothing, ornaments or decorative items made of endangered species (e.g., ivory from elephant, skin from fox are also harming the nature. Given the ethical feature of conspicuous consumption is obvious, it is surprising that ethical issues of conspicuous consumption have yet been discussed prominently. Moreover, seldom of the studies in conspicuous consumption or CE discuss the bright side of conspicuous consumption. In fact, some types of consumption can be ethical and conspicuous. For instance, Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van den Bergh (2010), when they study conspicuous conservation, they prove that status competition can help promote pro-environmental behavior. Alike, Sexton and Sexton (2014) reveal the green buying of energy saving vehicles. There are in fact more examples of ethical and conspicuous consumption, like consumption of eco-friendly clothing, accessories or dining, etc. In this regard, if there are more conspicuous and green consumptions, e.g., eco-friendly vehicles, decoration material, clothing or cuisines, conspicuous consumption can facilitate the development of a greener and harmonious societies on the contrary. Nowadays, amid the proliferation of environmental protection ideology, more consumers are willing to have green purchase. If the purchases are also ‘socially visible’, we may call them as ‘conspicuous green purchase’. Following this logic, if consumers have a higher tendency in consumer ethics and conspicuous consumption, they may have a higher green purchase intention (GPI). This proposition may be particularly valid for branded fashion, visible consumer electronics, or vehicles. In conspicuous GPI, consumers can show off their wealth, fashion taste and conservation virtue through displaying green products or green purchase publicly. Recently, a sustainable consumption report published by the Consumer Council in Hong Kong (Consumer Council, 2016) reveals that Hong Kong people has a high level of awareness and purchase intention of sustainable products, but they have a low level in action taking. In this regard, perhaps, the conspicuousness in the consumption of green products can be an additional motivation to enhance consumers' purchase intention. Surprisingly, there seems no research to explore to find out the mediating effect of conspicuous consumption on the relationship between AGP and GPI. This conceptual paper tries to fill this research gap. To sum, this conceptual paper aims to explore the relationship between these four constructs, attitudes towards green purchase (AGP), consumer ethics (CE), conspicuous consumption (CC) and conspicuous green purchase intention (CGPI). More specifically, this paper tries to examine the mediating effects of CE or CC on the relationship between AGP and CGPI. Considering the discussion above, the following propositions are generated. P1: A person with positive AGP tends to have a higher CGPI than a person with negative AGP. P2: A person with a higher CE orientation (recycling and doing good) and positive AGP tends to have a higher CGPI than a person with a lower CE orientation. P3: A person with a higher CC orientation and positive AGP tends to have a higher CGPI than a person with a lower CE orientation. This conceptual paper has both theoretical and practical implications. It helps integrate four constructs, namely attitudes towards green purchase, consumer ethics, conspicuous consumption and green purchase intention in one study, building better theories in these areas. This paper also helps marketers of green products to pay more attention to the market segment that consumers are both ethical and conspicuous consumption oriented, hence conveying more appropriate promotion messages and selecting right channels of distribution. Finally, more green purchase would help us to make better societies with higher moral standard in consumption.

The market for environmentally friendly or ‘green’ products has increased substantially over the last ten years (Willer and Kilcher, 2010). Both brand manufacturers and retailers are increasingly, and successfully, incorporating environmental and social issues in their brands (Aouina Mejri and Bhatli, 2014; Chkanikova and Lehner, in press; Gleim et al., 2013). Given the increasing importance of ‘green’ branding, the current study examines the role of key drivers (i.e., brand equity, store image and product familiarity) in the consumption of green brands. Moreover, since previous studies found that positive evaluations of a specific brand led to more positive buying behavior for the green product concept in general (Bartels and Hoogendam, 2011), in the current study we also assess the impact of these key drivers on green consumption in general. Finally, by explicitly distinguishing between store brands and national brands, we try to determine whether these relationships differ between these two types of brands in a green context. To test these effects, we used a panel study among consumers in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and the U.S.. For each country, we used one national brand and one or two store brands. Respondents randomly received one of these brands to evaluate. This process resulted in 404 respondents for store brands and 302 respondents for national brands. Results show that store image and brand equity have a direct effect on the consumption of green store brands and green national brands. In addition, we found that for both store and national brands, the relationship between brand equity and green brand consumption is partially mediated by the perceived image of the store where that brand is sold. Furthermore, for national brands, a positive store image also leads to an increase in green consumption behavior in general, which is not the case for store brands. Finally, for national brands, there is a clear relationship between product familiarity and brand consumption, whereas this is not the case for store brands.