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.

Introduction Consumer ethical behaviors regarding social impact, environmental concern, and ethical practices for the buyer/seller dyad has become a vital issue. A large number of consumers have the willingness to be activists to address potentially threatening environmental problems with foresight (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). Consumers with environment awareness have begun to consider the environmental claims of products, such as environmental protection certification (do Paço & Reis, 2012) and production process with environmental protection regulations (Yoon & Kim, 2016). All such information effectively spreads the environmental protection knowledge to help consumers identify the environmental features of the product (Leonidou, Leonidou, Palihawadana, & Hultman, 2011), and then to conduct consumption behaviors with ethical/moral concerns. However, the related research to examine the relationships between consumer ethical behaviors and their attitudes toward environmental information disclosure in advertising in Asian countries is few. This study’s main purpose is thus to understand how environmental information disclosure in advertising influences consumers’ attitudes toward the brand and their ethical behaviors. Literature Review Mitchell, Balabanis, Schlegelmich, and CornWell (2009) argues that all direct or indirect consumer actions that could make businesses or other stakeholders to lose money or reputation are viewed as consumer unethical behaviors. Consumers’ (un)ethical behaviors would be influenced by their moral principles and standards as they obtain, use, and dispose of goods and services (Muncy & Vitell, 1992). First, according to the equity theory, brand equity will increase the relationship intention between sellers and buyers. Those consumers with a high perception about product value or brand equity would tend to build a positive relationship with sellers, and thus their ethical behaviors would be influenced (Chang & Lu, 2017). Consumers’ ethical consumption depends on the equity of the profitability of the seller and this study proposes that brand equity has significant positive effects on consumer ethical behavior (H1). Second, environmental advertising claims refer to the classification of environmental claims in advertising with various environmental protection information about products (do Paço & Reis, 2012). Chan, Leung, and Wong (2006) state the two types of environmental advertising claims. Substantial environmental claims focus on the substantial benefits of products for the environment and the positive impacts of enterprises on the environment in order to substantially maintain or enhance consumers’ understanding of products with environmental awareness (Chan, 2000). Associated environmental claims feature advertising that do not have a direct connection with the products or production of enterprises; instead, they reveal an enterprises’ concern about environmental protection topics through environmental protection activities or topics regarding the conservation of the ecosystem, in order to indirectly trigger the consumers’ positive image and reactions to the enterprises or brands (Chan, 2000). Different environmental advertising claims would have different extents of impact on consumers’ attitude towards advertising and the product (Chan et al., 2006). Chan (2000) states that substantial environmental claims are more persuasive than associated claims, as the advertising of the former could directly publicize the specific environmentally-friendly measures in products or production process. The hypotheses are thus submitted: environmental advertising claims have significant positive effects on brand equity (H2.) and the impact power of substantial environmental claims on brand equity is stronger than those of associated environmental claims (H3). Third, eco-labels provide the information of products toward the environment influence during their life cycles (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014; Chekima, Wafa, Igau, Chekima, & Sondoh, 2016) and the claims regarding the eco-features, production, and constituents of the products (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). Maniatis (2016) argues that eco-labels could clearly reveal the economic and ecological benefits of products and help consumers make purchase decisions. Specific claims, such as marks, pictures, or signs, could clearly convey information about the products, which make it easy for consumers to understand. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is submitted: environmental advertising with eco-labels has a significant positive effect on brand equity (H4). Method This study used the 2x2 factor experiment to create four situations through two types of environmental advertising claims (substantial and associated environmental advertising claims) and two types of eco-labels (available/unavailable). The manipulation checks with regards to the constructs of environmental advertising claims and eco-label were shown to be successful through a pilot test. On the other hand, this study selected 14-items of Muncy and Vitell’s (1992) scale to measure consumer ethical behaviors. The measuring items of brand equity were taken by Yoo and Donth’s (2001) three-dimensional scale, containing brand awareness/associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty. Moreover, 294 valid questionnaires were retained in the formal survey via electronic questionnaire survey. Females accounted for 50.7%. Those aged less than 25 occupied a larger proportion (50%), followed by those aged from 26 to 35 (21.8%). The samples with a college education or above accounted for 92.5%. Additionally, the component reliability, convergent and discriminant validity were also confirmed (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981) due to the results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by Lisrel 8.7. Results and Conclusion Based on the ANOVA results, first, environmental advertising claims had significant effects on awareness/association, perceived value, and loyalty. The effects of substantial orientation on brand equity were significantly stronger than that of associated orientation claims. H2 and H3 were fully supported. That is to say, substantial environmental advertising claims could reveal enterprise efforts to protect the environment and inform consumers that the substantial benefits for the ecosystem are embodied in their products. If enterprises want to disclose information about their social responsibility or to convey the contribution of their products toward environmental protection, direct environmental advertising claims related to product features and production processes should be considered. Second, eco-labels significantly affected on awareness/association, perceived value, and loyalty; hence, H4 were supported. Eco-labels verified by a third-party public notary office could enhance brand equity. As eco-label information regarding environmental protection enterprises and products want to convey, consumers can comprehend and evaluate such environmental advertising through the mark of eco-labels in triggering their positive attitude and value toward the brand. Third, this study also found that the interactive effect of environmental advertising claims and eco-label on the awareness/association dimension of brand equity was significant. Consumers are more likely to receive information from the environmental advertising with a substantial claim and eco-label than other sets, and then their perceptions toward that brand awareness and brand association could be improved. Forth, each dimension of awareness/association, perceived value, and brand loyalty had a significant positive effect on consumer’s ethical behaviors by using structural equation modeling (SEM) via Lisrel 8.7; H1 therefore were supported. That is, consumers’ perceived enterprise efforts related to protecting the environment would improve consumers’ ethical behaviors. If advertising could fully and effectively convey the environmental protection information embodied in products, consumers would know that the products are beneficial for society and ecosystems, and thus they would enact ethical activities in the marketplace. Finally, future studies can use random sampling to improve the sample representative. Product type can also be included into the research model in future studies to consider the different product features how to influence the effects of environmental advertising claims and eco-labels on the consumers’ attitudes and behavior decision.

Introduction Consumer ethical behaviors regarding social impact, environmental concern, and ethical practices for the buyer/seller dyad has become a vital issue. A large number of consumers have the willingness to be activists to address potentially threatening environmental problems with foresight (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). Consumers with environment awareness have begun to consider the environmental claims of products, such as environmental protection certification (do Paço & Reis, 2012) and production process with environmental protection regulations (Yoon & Kim, 2016). All such information effectively spreads the environmental protection knowledge to help consumers identify the environmental features of the product (Leonidou, Leonidou, Palihawadana, & Hultman, 2011), and then to conduct consumption behaviors with ethical/moral concerns. However, the related research to examine the relationships between consumer ethical behaviors and their attitudes toward environmental information disclosure in advertising in Asian countries is few. This study’s main purpose is thus to understand how environmental information disclosure in advertising influences consumers’ attitudes toward the brand and their ethical behaviors. Literature Review Mitchell, Balabanis, Schlegelmich, and CornWell (2009) argues that all direct or indirect consumer actions that could make businesses or other stakeholders to lose money or reputation are viewed as consumer unethical behaviors. Consumers’ (un)ethical behaviors would be influenced by their moral principles and standards as they obtain, use, and dispose of goods and services (Muncy & Vitell, 1992). First, according to the equity theory, brand equity will increase the relationship intention between sellers and buyers. Those consumers with a high perception about product value or brand equity would tend to build a positive relationship with sellers, and thus their ethical behaviors would be influenced (Chang & Lu, 2017). Consumers’ ethical consumption depends on the equity of the profitability of the seller and this study proposes that brand equity has significant positive effects on consumer ethical behavior (H1). Second, environmental advertising claims refer to the classification of environmental claims in advertising with various environmental protection information about products (do Paço & Reis, 2012). Chan, Leung, and Wong (2006) state the two types of environmental advertising claims. Substantial environmental claims focus on the substantial benefits of products for the environment and the positive impacts of enterprises on the environment in order to substantially maintain or enhance consumers’ understanding of products with environmental awareness (Chan, 2000). Associated environmental claims feature advertising that do not have a direct connection with the products or production of enterprises; instead, they reveal an enterprises’ concern about environmental protection topics through environmental protection activities or topics regarding the conservation of the ecosystem, in order to indirectly trigger the consumers’ positive image and reactions to the enterprises or brands (Chan, 2000). Different environmental advertising claims would have different extents of impact on consumers’ attitude towards advertising and the product (Chan et al., 2006). Chan (2000) states that substantial environmental claims are more persuasive than associated claims, as the advertising of the former could directly publicize the specific environmentally-friendly measures in products or production process. The hypotheses are thus submitted: environmental advertising claims have significant positive effects on brand equity (H2.) and the impact power of substantial environmental claims on brand equity is stronger than those of associated environmental claims (H3). Third, eco-labels provide the information of products toward the environment influence during their life cycles (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014; Chekima, Wafa, Igau, Chekima, & Sondoh, 2016) and the claims regarding the eco-features, production, and constituents of the products (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). Maniatis (2016) argues that eco-labels could clearly reveal the economic and ecological benefits of products and help consumers make purchase decisions. Specific claims, such as marks, pictures, or signs, could clearly convey information about the products, which make it easy for consumers to understand. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is submitted: environmental advertising with eco-labels has a significant positive effect on brand equity (H4). Method This study used the 2x2 factor experiment to create four situations through two types of environmental advertising claims (substantial and associated environmental advertising claims) and two types of eco-labels (available/unavailable). The manipulation checks with regards to the constructs of environmental advertising claims and eco-label were shown to be successful through a pilot test. On the other hand, this study selected 14-items of Muncy and Vitell’s (1992) scale to measure consumer ethical behaviors. The measuring items of brand equity were taken by Yoo and Donth’s (2001) three-dimensional scale, containing brand awareness/associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty. Moreover, 294 valid questionnaires were retained in the formal survey via electronic questionnaire survey. Females accounted for 50.7%. Those aged less than 25 occupied a larger proportion (50%), followed by those aged from 26 to 35 (21.8%). The samples with a college education or above accounted for 92.5%. Additionally, the component reliability, convergent and discriminant validity were also confirmed (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981) due to the results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by Lisrel 8.7. Results and Conclusion Based on the ANOVA results, first, environmental advertising claims had significant effects on awareness/association, perceived value, and loyalty. The effects of substantial orientation on brand equity were significantly stronger than that of associated orientation claims. H2 and H3 were fully supported. That is to say, substantial environmental advertising claims could reveal enterprise efforts to protect the environment and inform consumers that the substantial benefits for the ecosystem are embodied in their products. If enterprises want to disclose information about their social responsibility or to convey the contribution of their products toward environmental protection, direct environmental advertising claims related to product features and production processes should be considered. Second, eco-labels significantly affected on awareness/association, perceived value, and loyalty; hence, H4 were supported. Eco-labels verified by a third-party public notary office could enhance brand equity. As eco-label information regarding environmental protection enterprises and products want to convey, consumers can comprehend and evaluate such environmental advertising through the mark of eco-labels in triggering their positive attitude and value toward the brand. Third, this study also found that the interactive effect of environmental advertising claims and eco-label on the awareness/association dimension of brand equity was significant. Consumers are more likely to receive information from the environmental advertising with a substantial claim and eco-label than other sets, and then their perceptions toward that brand awareness and brand association could be improved. Forth, each dimension of awareness/association, perceived value, and brand loyalty had a significant positive effect on consumer’s ethical behaviors by using structural equation modeling (SEM) via Lisrel 8.7; H1 therefore were supported. That is, consumers’ perceived enterprise efforts related to protecting the environment would improve consumers’ ethical behaviors. If advertising could fully and effectively convey the environmental protection information embodied in products, consumers would know that the products are beneficial for society and ecosystems, and thus they would enact ethical activities in the marketplace. Finally, future studies can use random sampling to improve the sample representative. Product type can also be included into the research model in future studies to consider the different product features how to influence the effects of environmental advertising claims and eco-labels on the consumers’ attitudes and behavior decision.