Tài liệu Factors influencing consumers green purchase decision in vietnam

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY DO MINH HANH FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMERS’ GREEN PURCHASE DECISION MASTER’S THESIS i VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY DO MINH HANH FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMERS’ GREEN PURCHASE DECISION MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION CODE: 8340101.01 RESEARCH SUPERVISORS: Assoc. Prof. PHAM THI LIEN Prof. MOTONARI TANABU Hanoi, 2020 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First of all, I would like to send my sincere thankfulness to everyone in MBA program of VJU for creating a chance for me to be a student of VJU and supporting us during this 2-year experience. To Assoc. Prof. Liên and Prof. Tanabu, I sincerely thank you for approving my thesis proposal, your patience and advices during my thesis process. Cô Hạnh, thank you so much for your supporting and encouragements in the last 2 years, since I started my extra classes at the beginning of my VJU journey. To Hino sensei and Hương-san, thank you for always being at the office, and for supporting us. Secondly, I am so grateful for all of my friends at VJU, MBA fellows, MAS pals, MCCD pals, Nano pals, VJU officers and MIE pals, have being by my side and support me during these school years. So glad to have friends like you. And, in this journey, I have received supports from YNU IPO staffs also, Sakakibara-san, Mizuno-san, and Maeda-san, Matsui sensei, Morita sensei, Kodo sensei, Heller sensei, Guo sensei and other Professors and generous friends from YNU. Yours sincerely, Do Minh Hanh. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 1.1. Research background ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Research objectives ........................................................................................................ 4 1.3. Research scope................................................................................................................ 4 1.4. Research structure ........................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 6 2.1. Green Purchase Inconsistency and related definitions ................................................... 6 2.1.1. Green product ............................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2. Green purchase ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1.3. Green purchase decision ............................................................................................... 9 2.1.4. Green purchase Inconsistency .................................................................................... 11 2.2. Theories examined ........................................................................................................ 14 2.2.1. Streams of research .................................................................................................... 14 2.2.2. Frameworks examined on buyer purchase decision process ...................................... 15 2.2.3. Social dilemma and Self-control theories in Green purchase .................................... 20 2.3. Factors influencing on Green Purchase Decision - Hypothesis development .............. 24 2.3.1. Reference Group’s Influence...................................................................................... 24 2.3.2. Expectation to Other’s Cooperation ........................................................................... 26 2.3.3. In-group identity ......................................................................................................... 27 2.3.4. Value – Altruism and Egotism ................................................................................... 28 2.3.5. Hedonic motive - Novelty Seeking ............................................................................ 30 2.3.6. Environmental Knowledge ......................................................................................... 32 2.3.7. Perceived Behavior Control ....................................................................................... 32 2.3.8. Perceived Product Efficiency ..................................................................................... 33 2.4. Research conceptual model .......................................................................................... 36 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 37 3.1. Research Approach and Research Design .................................................................... 37 3.2. Constructs Operationalization ...................................................................................... 39 3.3. Questionnaire and Pilot Testing.................................................................................... 43 3.4. Data collection .............................................................................................................. 44 3.4.1. Secondary data ........................................................................................................... 44 3.4.2. Primary data ............................................................................................................... 44 3.5. Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 45 iv 3.5.1. Cronbach’s Alpha measurement ................................................................................ 46 3.5.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) ........................................................................... 46 3.5.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)......................................................................... 48 3.5.4. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) ........................................................................ 49 CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 50 4.1. Descriptive Analysis ..................................................................................................... 50 4.2. Measurement Model Test ............................................................................................. 53 4.2.1. Cronbach’s Alpha measurement ................................................................................ 53 4.2.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) ........................................................................... 57 4.2.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)......................................................................... 59 4.3. Structural Model Test ................................................................................................... 65 4.3.1. Natural Product........................................................................................................... 67 4.3.2. Reused Product ........................................................................................................... 69 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 72 5.1. Discussion on Findings ................................................................................................. 72 5.2. Implication .................................................................................................................... 76 5.3. Limitations and future research direction ..................................................................... 77 5.4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 78 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 80 APPENDIX 1. Literature Review of Empirical Researches on Green purchase Inconsistency ....................................................................................................................... 85 APPENDIX 2. Online Survey ............................................................................................. 89 v LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Factors on Green Purchase ....................................................................... 18 Table 2.2. Research streams on Green Purchase and foundation researches ................... 20 Table 2.3. Factors on Green Purchase Decision and related theories ............................... 24 Table 2.4. List of Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 35 Table 3.1. Measurement of Social Factors ....................................................................... 39 Table 3.2. Measurement of Individual Factors ................................................................. 40 Table 3.3. Measurement of Situational Factors ................................................................ 41 Table 3.4. Measurement of Green Purchase Decision ...................................................... 42 Table 3.5. Statistical Analysis Procedure ......................................................................... 46 Table 3.6. Requirement for EFA result............................................................................. 47 Table 3.7. Model Fit Requirement .................................................................................... 48 Table 3.8. Reliability of construction, Convergent validity and Discriminant validity.... 49 Table 4.1. Respondents’ demographic information .......................................................... 50 Table 4.2. Cronbach’s Alpha result 1 ............................................................................... 53 Table 4.3. Factor Analysis for PBC variable .................................................................... 54 Table 4.4. Excluded and changed items ........................................................................... 55 Table 4.5. Cronbach’s Alpha result 2 ............................................................................... 56 Table 4.6. EFA result 1 ..................................................................................................... 57 Table 4.7. Rotated component – EFA result 1 .................................................................. 58 Table 4.8. Rotated component – EFA result 2 .................................................................. 60 Table 4.9. Model Fit result................................................................................................ 62 Table 4.10. Reliability, Convergent validity and Discriminant validity ........................... 63 Table 4.11. Latent variables and Observed variables ....................................................... 64 Table 4.12. Model fit value of conceptual framework ..................................................... 65 Table 4.13. Natural product: Interaction between latent variables ................................... 67 Table 4.14. Hypotheses test for Natural product .............................................................. 68 Table 4.15. Reused product: Interaction between latent variables ................................... 69 Table 4.16. Hypotheses test for Reused Product. ............................................................. 70 Table 4.17. Differences of hypotheses testing between 2 sorts of green product. ............ 71 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Buyer Decision Process ....................................................................... 10 Figure 2.2. Factors on Purchase behavior for Green personal care products ........ 19 Figure 2.3. Conceptual Model ................................................................................ 36 Figure 3.1. Research Procedure ............................................................................. 38 Figure 4.1. Frequency of Green Purchase .............................................................. 51 Figure 4.2. Monthly Expense for Green Purchase ................................................. 52 Figure 4.3. Place to buy Green Product ................................................................. 52 Figure 4.4. Hypotheses Structural Equation Modeling .......................................... 66 vii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Research background Environmental issues are one of the biggest challenges in the 21th century (Edgar G.Hertwich, 2010). The emission to the air, land and water is not only caused by natural system processes anymore. Nowadays, human activities emit and alter the natural system more quickly than nature can adapt, recycle and purify (Nicolaisen et al., 1991). Thus, the Earth’s ecology system has been changed significantly: extreme weathers occur; natural resources are depleted and degraded; living creatures suffers unhealthy altered habitat, biodiversity loss occurs, human being’s health problems increases. This is not affect living standard of the present creatures but also of the future generation. It is conceivable that human activities have been creating such adverse effects on environment tragically. Population, How we consume and How we produce things are 3 elements of human’s impact on the planet (George Monbiot, 2013). Humankind has induced environment degradation via excessive and polluted producing and consuming process, the increase of population requires higher resource consumption as well. Fossil fuel use (for transportation, production of manufacturing goods, etc.) and food consumption (agriculture and fishery) are said to have made significantly negative impacts on the Earth system’s balance. In most countries, household consumption takes account up to 60% or more of final consumption’s effects on ecosystem. Food and housing have most influence on greenhouse gas emission, in emerging countries (Edgar G.Hertwich, 2010). In additions, humankind activities’ impacts tend to increase in the future as usual scenario, especially regards in economic activities (Edgar G.Hertwich, 2010). In particularly, the higher economic, income and population growth, the higher level of CO2 emission. Besides, according to the United Nation, with the current trend, global population would be 9.6 billion in 2050. To sustain resource demand of current lifestyle for that significant number of population, 3 planets like the Earth 1 are in needed (United Nation website). If patterns of production and consumption are not changed, creatures will face more extreme effects (UNEP, George Monbiot). Since negative impacts on environment of excessive producing and consuming have increased tremendously, sustainable development has been emerged. Sustainable development supports development which reduces adverse influence on the ecology and society (Joshi & Rahman, 2015). Sustainable production and consumption are two components of sustainable development. Firstly, sustainable production encourages on environmental sustainability practices at all processes of goods and services creation. Secondly, sustainable consumption indicates consideration of consumers on their buying, using and disposing products and services, how these things impact on environment. Sustainable development has become global level, both in developed countries and developing economies. There has been an increase in the number and scope of environmental regulations by many governments. Approximately 100 countries are actively implementing policies and indicators to promote sustainable consumption and production (Groening et al., 2018). Green brands is indicated to grow rapidly at global level (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017). European Commission reported that green product’s global market size is around $6 trillion, grow rate is around 13% annually (Goh & Balaji, 2016). Green products have developed in a wide range of industries: food, construction, energy, automobiles, hospitality, tourism, home appliance, etc. In Vietnam, sustainable development is concerned in recent years. To promote sustainable production and consumption, Vietnam government has introduced several regulations, takes part in international program and commitment, and is supported by international organizations. In terms of business sectors, not only big companies (Unilever, Metro, Big C, etc.) join in this segment, there are enterprises start to provide green products such as Aneco, producer of bio compostable kitchen appliances (Thuy Ho Thanh, 2018). Even small business like café, restaurants, retail stores, their awareness for providing environmental friendly products and services has increased. They supply cane container, biodegradable or paper bag for food and beverage products, bamboo and rice straw for drinks, reducing price for customers 2 who bring their own jars to buy products. The variety of green products has been broaden, besides traditional green products like energy saving electronic appliances, companies provide a wide range of organic foods and beverage, natural component cosmetic, home appliance, green construction, ecotourism, etc. Vietnamese consumers also show their interest in green products and services. As Nielsen Vietnam reported, Vietnamese consumers are concerned on “green”, “clean” issues and willing to pay higher for brands which commits on environmental friendly products and services (Thuy Ho Thanh, 2018). However, other polls show contrast results with the above positive patterns, both in the context of Vietnam and global (Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Goh & Balaji, 2016; Shao & Ünal, 2019; Joshi & Rahman, 2015; Gleim et al., 2013). Actually, green products accounts for a small part of global demand, about 1-3% of the total market, green product sales seem to be trending downward (Goh & Balaji, 2016). Regarding to consumer, there is group of consumer does not trust in green claims of the products to be accurate (Goh & Balaji, 2016). There is another group who even shows their concern for environment or preference attitude for green product, but does not willing to obtain or pay a premium price for sustainable product (Gupta & Ogden, 2009), even there is the growing popularity of green products on retail shelves (Gleim et al., 2013). This result is similar with what written in Jing Shao’s study (Shao & Ünal, 2019): Almost 50% of respondents showed preference when being asked about buying hybrid cars, less than 12% of the respondents are predicted to purchase one due to current trade-offs. Hence, the positive tendency of consumers’ attitude would not predict accurately for their purchase on green product. These phenomena show that it is challenge for marketer in green products field, there are barriers for consumers to acquire environmental friendly products. Besides, it is essential to have perspective on the demand side. Firstly, as Groening said: “The need to understand green purchasing behavior is especially timely due to environmental, scientific, and communication advances, such as the internet, and social media, and increases in consumer awareness of and concern with environmental issues including population growth and global warming” (Groening 3 et al., 2018). Secondly, it is advantage for business to capture benefits from green orientation (Gleim et al., 2013). Hence, to have an insight of green purchase decision is necessary when the pattern of producing and consuming should be changed toward sustainable development goal for the current as the future generation. 1.2. Research objectives Derived from the context described above, this present research aims to contribute prior studies on identifying factors for purchase decision on green products of consumers. In particularly, the present study examines proposed framework from previous theoretical studies to understand determinants on consumers’ green purchase based on two theories - social dilemma theory and self-control theory. These determinants are categorized into three groups including individual, situation and social factors. - Individual factors are: value (altruism and egoistic), hedonic motivation (novelty seeking), and knowledge. - Situation factors are: perceived behavior control and perceived product efficiency. - Social factors are: reference group’s influence (informative, utilitarian and value expressive influences), in-group identity and expectation to others’ cooperation. This research aim to find answer for research question which is: - What factors influence on consumers’ green purchase decision? - To what extend these factors impact on consumers’ green purchase decision? 1.3. Research scope 1.3.1. Content scope: Factors influencing on consumers’ green purchase decision. 1.3.2. Place scope: Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. 4 In Vietnam, due to the fast speed of emerging economy, high rate of urbanization, social changes which led to numerous issues related to environment. Thus, many cities in Vietnam are polluted with atmosphere indication and waste problem are urgent recently with the fast pace of living lifestyle. Besides, citizens, especially in fast-growing cities like Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City, is considered to concern for green products and services, and also would have chances to approach this product segment. Thus, investigation of green purchase decision, especially in a fast developing cities as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh city, might give an insight of how consumers decision on green products are influenced. 1.3.3. Time scope: October 2019 to May 2020. 1.4. Research structure This research content has 5 chapters: - The first chapter introduces research background which is circumstance as motivation for this research to be conducted. - The second chapter is on literature review. This chapter presents related definitions, gives overview of previous studies on consumers’ green purchase, literature gap, which are foundation for developing hypotheses. - The third chapter is on research methodology, design and procedure, pilot test, survey adjustment, variables measurement, data collection and analysis method. - The fourth chapter is data analysis. - The fifth chapter is discussion on findings, limitations of this research, recommendation for future studies and implications if there is any. 5 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Green Purchase Inconsistency and related definitions 2.1.1. Green product In Yatish et al.’s study (Joshi & Rahman, 2015), first of all, as function of a product, green product satisfies consumers’ needs, then, does not damage the environment. This product is better for environment and has low impact on environment. It is made from environment-friendly material. It is recyclable and less packaged. For examples, green products are: organic, natural products, energy saving electric appliances, etc. Based on characteristic of producing and material, Gleim defines that: “A green product is one that is produced with concern for the physical environment: air, water and land. This definition incorporates all facets of green as a marketing strategy, not just a select set of subcomponents (e.g., recycling, organic purchasing, and energy consumption)” (Gleim et al., 2013). According to Liobikiene and Bernatoniene (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017), green products have negative influence on the ecology and human health less than conventional counterparts. They point out these terms “green product”, “sustainable product”, “environmental friendly product” are similar and interchangeable. Expressing on design to reduce impacts on nature, Liobikiene says that green products are designed to reduce required natural resources usage and minimize negative impacts on environment during these products’ life-cycle. The author clarifies the main requirements for this product type that the component (or material) should be non-toxic, no chemical and environment friendly package (Liobikiene et al., 2016). A simplified, widely accepted definition is introduced by Liang: “Green products are typically durable, non-toxic, made of recycled materials, or minimally packaged” (Liang et al., 2019). This author clearly explains that green and non-green products both use energy and resources, make by-product, as well as emission before and during consumers’ consumption and ultimately disposal. Thus, green is “relative” 6 concept, depending on different point of views of consumer and contextual conditions. He gives an example that: some people may consider energy saving labeled appliances as green products, but others, with higher strict criteria to evaluate, still believe those products as polluting. 2.1.2. Green purchase In academic literature, “green purchasing”, “ green acquisition” and “adoption of green product” are used to indicate environmental purchase behavior (Joshi & Rahman, 2015). There are three streams when initial studies define green purchase. They are ground on: 1) Sustainable development, 2) Ethical dimension and 3) Pro-environmental behavior. These streams to explain green purchase are also related to several terms such as “green consumption”, and “green consumer”, which are also discussed in the following part. Firstly, green purchase is explained based on sustainable development. Sustainable development includes two parts: green production and green consumption. As goods and services consumption is growing, green consumption concerns for environmental impact of consumption behavior. It does not aim on reducing consuming but on decreasing its negative impacts on environment, not worsening the quality of environment (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017; Liobikiene et al., 2016). In Moisander’s paper, green consumption occurs when consumers take into account on environmental influence of their buying, using, and disposing of goods or using green services. Thus, following this perspective, Moisander defines green purchase as a step of green consumption (Joshi & Rahman, 2015). In addition, not only concern for environmental impact, Liobikiene adds one detail which is to lessen impact on damaging human health (Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017). Secondly, green purchase is defined in context of pro-environmental behaviors. Since the 1960s, when environmental movement happened (Choi & Johnson, 2019; Liobikienė & Bernatonienė, 2017), green consumption is perceived as proenvironmental behavior. Not only to minimize harm to the environment as much as 7 possible, pro- environmental behavior also achieve to benefit the environment. According to Liang et al., pro-environmental behavior has two components: pollution avoidance and green purchasing. As a passive behavior, pollution avoidance stays away from polluting products (recycle, reuse, reduce), and changes current consumption practice on traditional polluting goods. Green purchasing is active behavior which seeks to obtain green products, takes green benefit into consumption decision process (Liang et al., 2019). Following this stream, Dooyoung Choi illustrates green purchase as pro-environmental behavior which “occurs when consumers acquire products that do not pollute or deplete natural resources and that can be recycled or conserved” (Choi & Johnson, 2019). The third stream of green purchase explanation includes ethical dimension. Hsui defined green purchase as a voluntary behavior for environment friendliness of manufacturing. In comparison with purchasing traditional products, Yatish describes green purchase as it is planned and is a responsible purchasing for products which would not damage environment adversely (Joshi & Rahman, 2015). Meanwhile, Gleim compares green consumers versus non-green consumer when explain on green purchase. A green consumer is person who takes into account his/her responsibility to society by minimizing the potential negative impact on ecology when he/she decides on purchasing green product. Thus, non-green consumer is demonstrated as person does not concern for helping the environment when green products alternatives are available (Gleim et al., 2013). According to Yatish, green purchase behavior is “a complex form of ethical decision-making behavior and is considered a type of socially responsible behavior. As a socially responsible consumer, the green consumer “takes into account the public consequences of his or her private consumption and attempts to use his or her purchasing power to bring about social change”” (Joshi & Rahman, 2015). 8 In summary, in this research: Green product is product concerns for physical environment, does not deplete natural resources, harm environment and living creatures, is made of recycled, nontoxic materials or less packaged (Liang et al., 2019). Green consumer is individual acquiring green products. Non-green consumer is person who chooses to use conventional polluting products while green product alternatives are available (Gleim et al., 2013). Green consumption is a pro-environment behavior, a part of sustainable development. Green consumption is to not reduce consumption while not exploit the environment, but even seek for the sake of environment. Green consumption definition is explained in contexts with green production and pollution avoidance. Green purchase is one step in green consumption. A person who takes green purchase behavior, he or she concerns for their adverse influences of behavior on ecology and human health, and achieve to minimize them. This is planned, ethical behavior and has social responsibility. 2.1.3. Green purchase decision To the stage when consumer eventually pays for a product, that person often makes a process of actions. This process is called purchase behavior process or the buyer decision process (Kotler, Amstrong, 2011). This process incorporates several steps: need occurs, forming attitude and evaluation, emotion, transforming intention to choose a product to buy, pay for it, then post-purchase (satisfy or not, buy it again or not, etc.). However, in more routine buying, some steps are skipped or reversed. For example, a regular product for daily life, such as milk or eggs, consumers often go straight to the place which has familiar brands and buy necessary things without too much involvement, skipping information search and evaluation. Thus, regarding of goods without high level of consumers’ involvement, some stages could be skipped. 9 All phrases of consumer’s buying process are illustrated in the buyer decision process of Kotler and Amstrong. This purchase behavior incorporates five stages: Recognize Need Search for Information Evaluate alternatives Decide to Purchase Post-purchase behavior Figure 2.1. Buyer Decision Process (Kotler & Amstrong, 2011). There are several definitions related to purchasing process: Attitude refers to preferred or not preferred evaluation for a behavior of a person. Usually, in consumer attitude area, a person often behaves consistently with their attitude (Yadav & Pathak, 2016). Purchase Intention is willingness to acquire of consumers. Motives are captured by intention, then impact on purchase behavior of consumers (Joshi & Rahman, 2015). Purchase decision is consumer’s choice of which brand to buy (Kotler, Amstrong, 2011). In this research context, purchase decision is consumers’ choice to acquire green product, in comparison to conventional product. According to purchase decision making process, attitude might occur from recognizing need, searching for information or evaluating alternatives; intention forms in the stage of purchase decision; purchase decision - “the actual purchase decision” is at the end of stage 4, after intention is implemented successfully, intention transformed from a plan into action. There are cases that intention would not transform into action successfully. The gap between intention and actual purchase happens when the intention is influenced by: 1) Attitude of others (social norm) who is important to the consumer on the product which he/she pretends to buy; 2) Unexpected situational factors disrupt the intention implementation. 10 In prior studies on attitude-behavior inconsistency and intention-behavior inconsistency, attitude and intention are used under the terms of “express demand for green product”, “motivation-green purchase behavior link”, “willingness to pay more”. Purchase decision is used with terms such as “actually purchase”, “sustainable consumption”, “actual purchase behavior” (Choi & Johnson, 2019; Joshi & Rahman, 2015; Yadav, 2016). Thus, it could be said that the green purchase inconsistency happens when consumer shows their willingness to purchase green product but they do not actually buy it. The disconnection between what they think and their actual behavior could happen from the moment attitude is formed to when purchase decision is made, or when intention - actual purchase relationship is disrupted. Thus, in this research: Green purchase decision is actual purchase for choice of green product. Willingness to purchase includes attitude and intention stages, before the consumer actually buys green product. Green purchase inconsistency is the gap between willingness to acquire and acquire decision for green product. 2.1.4. Green purchase Inconsistency There is a variety of reasons of green purchase inconsistency. As described above, green products purchasing is behavior considering consumer’s private needs and environmental, social benefits. Because they require tradeoff between self- interest versus group (social) benefits, or short versus long term benefits. Thus, this behavior includes ethical and risk involvement more than traditional ones. And also because many of green products are innovative and higher cost due to materials, certification, hence, these products have higher risk compared to traditional alternatives and consumers are required to adopt new behavior in order to consume. Groening has pointed out four deep rooted characteristics that might prevent green purchasing, even in terms of consumers 11 with positive attitude toward environment: “1) Prioritization of self-interest, 2) Motivation by relative status (vs. absolute status), 3) Unconscious social imitation, 4) Focus on the short-term vs. long-term, and 5) Low regard for distal or intangible issues” (Groening et al., 2018). Those are features which differentiate purchasing green product from non-green product. Important ethical, environmental and social practices are emerged when consumers decide between green products and traditional alternatives. First of all, based on explanation on personal value orientation of consumer: In behavior process, people have tendency to avoid personal cost when consider to pursue individual or group (social). In the case of green purchase, collective goal is to heal the environmental issues (Choi & Johnson, 2019). Hence, in purchasing process, to evaluate costs and benefits, consumers would consider various factors at the same time more than price only, it is also time, efforts, convenience, availability, etc. A desirable behavior is embraced, when the perceived ratio of benefits to costs of green products is greater than that of their counterparts (Gleim et al., 2013; Joshi & Rahman, 2015; Lu & Miller, 2019; Liobikiene et al., 2016). With altruism consumers, they put more priority on social benefits. Thus they “practice voluntary self-restraint and adopt greener practices, such as green consumption, to contribute to the society” (Liang et al., 2019) even they see that they need to put efforts in purchasing process. Whereas, with egoistic consumers, they might leave their making green call aside after evaluating and realize that personal cost is high if following green purchasing. They choose to embrace personal benefits. Thus, there is a disconnect between the stated green beliefs and observed green behavior in consumers (Davari & Strutton, 2014). Besides, not only individual and inter-individual priority is considered, but also intra-individual priority is evaluated which incorporates short and long term benefits (Davari & Strutton, 2014). Sometimes, primarily position of preferable product is based on their ability to bring direct, immediate benefits in consumers’ point of view. Therefore, such sort of green products which are organic food and beverage, natural cosmetic, which impact directly on consumers’ health have higher 12 rate of consumption than other green products need longer using term, such as electric appliances. Meanwhile, green products are positioned based on their longterm values deliver ability that embraces environmental benefits and future generation welfares. Secondly, green purchase inconsistence happens due to the lack of knowledge or information (Lu & Miller, 2019; Liobikiene et al., 2016): Due to not understanding green products, be given incorrect, inadequate information, consumers gain distorted insight of green purchasing. This would lead to the difference between expectations and perceptions of the product. This reason is one main barrier in green purchasing (Shao & Ünal, 2019). Distorted and inadequate information might come from consumer’s information searching phrase or from corporations – the producers. Many consumers are reluctant in information searching (Gleim et al., 2013), as in changing daily routine with unperceived risks. Thus, they would not know there is greener alternatives for traditional ones, how to approach them, how effectiveness of their performance for environmental and their own benefits are. For instance, many consumers see higher prices of energy saving compact light in comparison to traditional light bulb, then, they choose cheaper ones if they do not see the saving energy and saving cost of compact light in long term using. Further, to earn profits based on consumers’ willingness for environmental benefits and improve reputation, some corporations implement green washing which gives false, misleading information on green product or overestimate its efficiency and effectiveness (Groening et al., 2018; Goh & Balaji, 2016). Thirdly, social pressure and image influence on green purchasing inconsistency (Liobikiene et al., 2016; Gleim et al., 2013): Prior studies proved that consumers’ decision making process is impacted strongly by attitudes and behavior of important people to that individual. In case there is a weak encouragement or corporate from influence group, such as not concern with environment, consumer would decrease their pro-environmental behavior, have 13