Drivers of Sustainable Purchasing: A Study of Consumer Decision Making in the Climate-Conscious Era
Dr Nandini Jagannarayan
Assistant Professor,
Hindi Vidya Prachar Samiti’s
Ramniranjan Jhunjhunwala College of Arts,
Science and Commerce (Empowered Autonomous),
Ghatkopar (w), Mumbai-86
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5909-0274
Dr. R. Anbuselvi
Assistant Professor,
PG & Research Department of Economics,
Holy Cross College (Autonomous),
Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu
Dr R Uma
Assistant Professor,
Economics, Nirmala College for
Women (Autonomous) Coimbatore
Dr. Srinivasa Rao Dasaraju
Associate Professor,
Finance and Accounting,
IBS, ICFAI (Under IFHE, Hyderabad),
Telangana, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3651-6303
Dr. Md. Mazharunnisa
Associate Professor,
KL Business School,
Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation,
Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3046-9294
Abstract
Growing concerns about climate change and environmental degradation have significantly reshaped consumer markets, prompting individuals to increasingly consider the environmental and social impacts of their purchasing decisions. Sustainable purchasing has thus emerged as a critical dimension of consumer decision making, influenced by a complex interplay of awareness, values, and external market drivers. Understanding these drivers is essential for advancing responsible consumption in the climate-conscious era.
Therefore, this study was intended to identify the drivers of sustainable purchasing by studying the consumer decision making in the climate conscious era. The study was conducted in the five major cities of Rajasthan i.e. Jaipur, Jodhpur, Ajmer, Kota and Udaipur. By using purposive and convenience sampling method 579 buyers of sustainable products were included in sample. The data was analysed by using mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, one sample –t-test and ANOVA test. It was found that customers were significantly environment conscious. They use to make sustainable purchase and numerous psychological drivers and marketing factors affect their purchase decision. Few problems like time and convenience, high prices and low availability of eco-friendly products hinder the sustainable purchasing.
Key Words: Sustainable purchasing, Eco-friendly products, Consumer Decision Making
Introduction:
The accelerating impacts of climate change, resource depletion, and environmental degradation have heightened global concern about the sustainability of prevailing consumption patterns. Consumers today are increasingly exposed to information about carbon footprints, ethical sourcing, and environmental consequences of products, leading to a gradual shift from purely price- and quality-driven decisions toward more responsible purchasing behavior. This transition reflects a broader societal movement toward sustainability, where individual consumption choices are seen as an important means of addressing environmental challenges.
Sustainable purchasing refers to consumer decisions that account for environmental protection, social responsibility, and long-term economic viability alongside personal utility. Such decisions are shaped by multiple factors, including environmental awareness, personal values, perceived consumer effectiveness, and trust in green claims made by firms. In addition, external influences such as government regulations, eco-labels, social norms, and media communication play a significant role in guiding consumers toward or away from sustainable alternatives.
Despite growing awareness, a persistent gap remains between positive attitudes toward sustainability and actual purchasing behavior. Many consumers express concern for the environment yet face constraints related to price sensitivity, limited availability of sustainable products, and skepticism about greenwashing. This attitude–behavior gap highlights the complexity of consumer decision making in the climate-conscious era and underscores the need to examine not only motivations but also barriers to sustainable purchasing.
Understanding the key drivers of sustainable purchasing is therefore crucial for policymakers, marketers, and organizations seeking to promote responsible consumption. By examining how cognitive, emotional, and contextual factors interact to influence consumer choices, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of consumer decision making and offers insights for designing effective strategies that encourage sustainable purchasing behavior in an increasingly climate-aware marketplace.
Review of Literature:
Enamala et al. (2025) examine consumer behavior toward sustainable consumption in the context of climate change, focusing on factors that influence eco-friendly purchasing decisions. The study highlights the role of environmental awareness, perceived consumer effectiveness, ethical responsibility, and social influence in shaping green purchase intentions. The authors argue that climate change concerns significantly moderate consumer attitudes, making sustainability not only a moral consideration but also a practical decision criterion. The study contributes to the literature by integrating psychological and socio-environmental factors, emphasizing the growing shift from conventional consumption patterns toward environmentally responsible buying behavior.
Haryaman and Amrita (2025) investigate the role of green marketing in shaping consumer decision-making processes. Their study demonstrates that green marketing strategies—such as eco-labeling, green advertising, and sustainability claims—positively influence consumer awareness, trust, and purchase intention. However, the authors also note the risk of greenwashing, which can negatively affect consumer credibility and decision-making. The study underscores that effective green marketing must be transparent and value-driven to successfully translate environmental concern into actual purchase behavior, thereby strengthening the link between sustainability communication and consumer choices.
Chen (2024) adopts a hybrid analytical approach to identify and prioritize factors influencing consumer decision-making in the purchase of sustainable products. By combining quantitative decision-making tools, the study finds that product quality, price sensitivity, environmental impact, and brand reputation are among the most influential determinants. The results reveal that while consumers express strong pro-environmental attitudes, practical considerations such as affordability and perceived value continue to play a decisive role. This study contributes methodological rigor to sustainability research and provides actionable insights for firms seeking to balance sustainability attributes with market competitiveness.
Popa, Barbu, and Ionascu (2024) explore sustainability as a key determinant in consumer purchasing decisions. Their findings suggest that sustainability considerations—such as environmental protection, ethical production, and social responsibility—are increasingly integrated into consumer evaluation processes. However, the study also highlights a gap between positive attitudes toward sustainability and actual buying behavior, influenced by factors such as income level and information availability. The authors conclude that sustainability acts as a complementary rather than a dominant factor, reinforcing the need for supportive institutional and marketing frameworks to encourage sustainable consumption.
Ramtiyal et al. (2024) analyze the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on sustainable consumer purchase behavior. The study demonstrates that CSR initiatives significantly enhance consumer trust, brand loyalty, and perceived corporate credibility, which in turn positively influence sustainable purchasing decisions. The authors emphasize that consumers are more likely to support firms that demonstrate genuine commitment to social and environmental causes rather than symbolic actions. This research strengthens the empirical link between CSR practices and sustainable consumption, highlighting CSR as a strategic tool for influencing long-term consumer behavior.
Testa et al. (2024) present a systematic literature review examining the critical determinants influencing consumers’ decision-making processes when purchasing green cosmetics. The study identifies key factors such as environmental concern, ingredient transparency, ethical sourcing, eco-certifications, and brand trust as central to green cosmetic purchases. The review also highlights the importance of perceived product safety and personal health benefits alongside environmental motivations. By synthesizing existing empirical findings, the authors reveal persistent barriers such as price sensitivity and skepticism toward green claims, offering a comprehensive framework that explains consumer behavior in the niche but rapidly growing green cosmetics market.
Baláková et al. (2024) analyze changes in consumer purchasing behavior toward sustainability in everyday products. The study finds a gradual shift in consumer preferences toward environmentally friendly and socially responsible products, driven by increased awareness, education, and societal pressure. However, the authors note that habitual purchasing patterns, limited availability, and higher prices continue to restrict fully sustainable consumption. The research emphasizes that sustainability-oriented behavior varies across demographic groups and product categories, suggesting that long-term behavioral change requires consistent policy support, corporate responsibility, and consumer education.
Wijaya et al. (2023) examine motivational factors influencing purchase decision-making for MOSSDOOM products on the Shopee e-commerce platform. The study highlights the role of intrinsic motivation, perceived product value, online reviews, promotional strategies, and platform usability in shaping consumer purchase decisions. While not exclusively focused on sustainability, the findings provide valuable insights into digital purchase behavior, particularly how online trust and convenience enhance decision-making. The study contributes to understanding how e-commerce environments can be optimized to influence consumer motivation and purchasing outcomes.
Yurdakul, Sağbaş, and Erdoğan (2023) propose a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model to support sustainable supplier selection in procurement processes. The study integrates economic, environmental, and social criteria to evaluate supplier sustainability performance while aligning with organizational purchasing needs. The results demonstrate that sustainability-based procurement decisions can be systematically optimized using quantitative decision-making tools. This research contributes to sustainable supply chain literature by offering a practical framework for organizations seeking to incorporate sustainability into strategic purchasing decisions.
Mandarić, Hunjet, and Vuković (2022) investigate the impact of fashion brand sustainability on consumer purchasing decisions. The study reveals that sustainability practices such as ethical labor, eco-friendly materials, and transparent communication positively influence consumer attitudes and purchase intentions. However, the authors observe that sustainability alone is insufficient to drive purchase decisions without competitive pricing and appealing brand aesthetics. The findings highlight the attitude–behavior gap in sustainable fashion consumption and underscore the need for brands to integrate sustainability with value and design to effectively influence consumer choices.
Sundaraja et al. (2021) explore the factors influencing consumer purchase decisions for sustainable palm oil products, addressing the complexity of ethical consumption. The study finds that while consumers express concern for environmental protection and deforestation, their purchasing decisions are constrained by limited knowledge, product availability, price sensitivity, and label confusion. Moral norms and perceived consumer responsibility positively influence purchase intentions, but practical barriers often weaken actual buying behavior. The study highlights the trade-offs consumers face when balancing sustainability with convenience and affordability, reinforcing the persistent attitude–behavior gap in sustainable food consumption.
Medina et al. (2020) investigate how price information is processed during purchase decision-making by prosocial and non-prosocial consumers using neuroscientific methods. The findings reveal significant neural differences in price perception, with prosocial consumers demonstrating greater cognitive engagement when evaluating sustainable products, even at higher prices. This suggests that ethical values influence not only attitudes but also the underlying cognitive processes involved in decision-making. The study contributes novel insights by integrating neuroscience into sustainable consumption research, emphasizing that moral orientation shapes economic evaluation during purchasing decisions.
Zeng and Durif (2019) examine how perceived risks associated with eco-designed packaging influence consumer purchasing decisions. The study identifies functional, financial, and performance risks as major deterrents to adopting eco-friendly packaging, despite positive environmental attitudes. Consumers often associate eco-design with reduced product quality or higher prices, leading to hesitation in purchase decisions. The authors conclude that reducing perceived risk through effective communication and design innovation is essential to enhance consumer acceptance of sustainable packaging solutions.
Kauffmann et al. (2019) focus on the use of sentiment analysis and text data mining to support marketing decision-making by evaluating consumer opinions on product features. The study demonstrates that consumer-generated text data, such as online reviews, can effectively identify sustainability-related preferences and concerns. By leveraging big data analytics, firms can better align product development and marketing strategies with consumer sentiment. The research contributes methodologically by highlighting the growing relevance of digital tools in understanding sustainable consumer behavior.
Hüttel et al. (2018) analyze why consumers make economically sustainable or non-sustainable consumption choices. The study reveals that personal values, moral norms, and self-identity significantly influence sustainable purchasing decisions, while situational constraints such as price and availability often override ethical intentions. The findings underscore the role of internal value conflicts and external barriers in shaping consumer behavior. The authors argue that encouraging sustainable consumption requires addressing both motivational and contextual factors simultaneously.
Eberhart and Naderer (2017) provide quantitative and qualitative insights into sustainable purchasing behavior through a consumer segmentation approach. Their study categorizes consumers based on underlying motives and reliance on heuristic cues, such as eco-labels and brand reputation. The findings suggest that sustainability-oriented consumers are not homogeneous, with different segments responding to different cues and messaging strategies. This research offers valuable implications for targeted marketing strategies aimed at promoting sustainable consumption across diverse consumer groups.
Chen et al. (2016) propose a multi-dimensional metric to facilitate sustainable food choices in campus cafeterias. The study integrates environmental impact, nutritional value, and consumer acceptability into a decision-support tool designed to guide food selection. The results indicate that simplifying complex sustainability information can significantly influence consumer choices in institutional settings. The study contributes to applied sustainability research by demonstrating how structured metrics can bridge the gap between sustainability knowledge and everyday food decisions.
Lang, Armstrong, and Liu (2016) investigate the role of creativity and consumer counter-conformity in sustainable apparel purchasing decisions. The study finds that consumers with a high tendency for creative choice and non-conformist behavior are more inclined to support innovative and sustainable fashion models. Sustainability appeal is stronger when aligned with uniqueness and personal expression rather than purely ethical messaging. This research highlights the importance of symbolic and identity-driven factors in influencing sustainable apparel consumption.
Research gap:
Although prior research has extensively examined sustainable consumption, much of the existing literature addresses these factors in isolation, focusing either on environmental awareness or on specific behavioral outcomes, with limited integration of psychological drivers, marketing influences, and practical constraints within a single analytical framework. Moreover, many studies emphasize attitudes toward sustainability without adequately explaining how climate consciousness translates into actual buying intentions and decisions, particularly in emerging and climate-vulnerable markets. There is also insufficient empirical understanding of how marketing cues such as eco-labels, green advertising, brand credibility, and packaging interact with consumers’ internal motivations and values, while simultaneously being constrained by perceived barriers such as price sensitivity, availability, and skepticism toward green claims. This fragmented approach leaves a critical gap in comprehensively understanding the drivers and deterrents of sustainable purchasing. The present study addresses this gap by jointly examining environmental awareness, psychological drivers, marketing influences, and adoption barriers to provide a holistic explanation of consumer decision making in the climate-conscious era.
Objectives
Hypotheses
Research Methodology
Analysis of Data
Table 1 is showing the demographic profile of respondents.
Table 1: Demographic Profile of Respondents
|
Gender |
N |
Percentage |
|
Male |
329 |
56.82 |
|
Female |
250 |
43.18 |
|
Total |
579 |
100 |
|
Age |
N |
Percentage |
|
Under 20 Years |
82 |
14.16 |
|
21 to 35 Years |
137 |
23.66 |
|
36 to 50 Years |
175 |
30.22 |
|
51 to 65 Years |
111 |
19.17 |
|
66 Years and above |
74 |
12.78 |
|
Total |
579 |
100 |
|
Educational Qualification |
N |
Percentage |
|
Up to Higher Secondary |
94 |
16.23 |
|
Graduate |
187 |
32.30 |
|
Postgraduate |
274 |
47.32 |
|
Other |
24 |
4.15 |
|
Total |
579 |
100 |
|
Occupation |
N |
Percentage |
|
Student |
129 |
22.28 |
|
Job holder |
201 |
34.72 |
|
Business owner |
121 |
20.90 |
|
Homemaker |
54 |
9.33 |
|
Unemployed |
74 |
12.78 |
|
Total |
579 |
100 |
|
Monthly Income |
N |
Percentage |
|
Up to Rs. 20000 |
217 |
37.48 |
|
Rs. 20001 to 40000 |
98 |
16.93 |
|
Rs. 40001 to 60000 |
124 |
21.42 |
|
Rs. 60001 to 80000 |
79 |
13.64 |
|
More than Rs. 80000 |
61 |
10.54 |
|
Total |
579 |
100 |
Respondents were asked that how frequently they purchase sustainable product and as per responses depicted in table 2, it can be seen that more than half of the respondents (53.89%) often purchase sustainable or green products. 20.89% respondents always purchase sustainable products while 18.83% respondents sometimes purchase sustainable products.
Further it was also accessed that since how many years respondents were purchasing the sustainable products. As per results 32.64% respondents were having 6 to 10 years of experience of purchasing sustainable products while 27.12% respondents were purchasing sustainable products from last 1 to 5 years. 22.11% respondents indicated the 11 to 15 years experience of purchasing of sustainable products and 13.64% respondents were purchasing the green products for last more than 15 years.
Table 2: Sustainable Purchasing Information
|
Frequency of Purchasing Sustainable/Green Products |
N |
Percentage |
|
Always |
121 |
20.90 |
|
Often |
312 |
53.89 |
|
Sometimes |
109 |
18.83 |
|
Rarely |
37 |
6.39 |
|
Total |
579 |
100 |
|
Experience of Purchasing Sustainable/Green Products |
N |
Percentage |
|
Up to 1 Year |
26 |
4.49 |
|
1 to 5 Years |
157 |
27.12 |
|
6 to 10 Years |
189 |
32.64 |
|
11 to 15 Years |
128 |
22.11 |
|
More than 15 Years |
79 |
13.64 |
|
Total |
579 |
100 |
To access the customers’ environmental awareness they were asked to indicate their agreement level on few statements and results are depicted in table 3. As per mean scores respondents strongly admitted that they understand the long-term environmental benefits of sustainable consumption (Mean=4.27) and they believe that climate change is already affecting their daily life (Mean=4.12). Respondents feel personally responsible for helping to protect the environment (Mean=3.97), environmental concerns influence their day-to-day choices (Mean=3.87) and they are aware of the major environmental issues caused by climate change (Mean=3.69).
Respondents further indicated that they try to stay informed about eco-friendly lifestyle practices (Mean=3.49), they were aware of the benefits of reducing carbon emissions (Mena=3.48) and they understand how their consumption habits impact the environment (Mean=3.42). According to varying range of coefficient of variations, moderate homogeneity can be concluded in the opinion of respondents.
Table 3: Customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level
|
Customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level |
Mean |
S.D. |
C.V. |
Agreement Level |
|
Environmental concerns influence my day-to-day choices. |
3.87 |
0.89 |
0.23 |
Agree |
|
I am aware of the benefits of reducing carbon emissions. |
3.48 |
0.74 |
0.21 |
Agree |
|
I am aware of the major environmental issues caused by climate change. |
3.69 |
1.08 |
0.29 |
Agree |
|
I believe climate change is already affecting daily life. |
4.12 |
0.96 |
0.23 |
Agree |
|
I feel personally responsible for helping to protect the environment. |
3.97 |
1.12 |
0.28 |
Agree |
|
I try to stay informed about eco-friendly lifestyle practices. |
3.49 |
0.84 |
0.24 |
Agree |
|
I understand how my consumption habits impact the environment. |
3.42 |
1.08 |
0.32 |
Agree |
|
I understand the long-term environmental benefits of sustainable consumption. |
4.27 |
0.79 |
0.19 |
Strongly Agree |
Table 4 is highlighting the customers’ overall environmental awareness and climate consciousness level. As per results climate consciousness level of 88.08% respondents was high while 11.92% respondents were less environmental aware.
Table 4: Overall Customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level
|
Overall Awareness |
N |
Percentage |
|
Low |
69 |
11.92 |
|
High |
510 |
88.08 |
|
Total |
579 |
100 |
To check the significance of customers’ environmental awareness and climate consciousness level following hypothesis has been taken:-
H01: Customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level is not significant
Ha1: Customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level is significant
Table 5 is showing the one sample t-test applied to check the significance of Customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level. It can be seen that values of t-statistics is significant which leads to the rejection of null hypothesis, so it can be concluded that Customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level is significant.
Table 5: One sample t-test result to check the significance of Customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level
|
Variable |
Observed Mean |
Test Value = 24 |
Result |
||
|
t-value |
degree of freedom |
p-value |
|||
|
Customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness |
30.09 |
55.298 |
578 |
0.000 |
Significant |
Level of Significance=5%
Further to measure difference in customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level with respect to their city following hypothesis has been taken:-
H02: There is no significant difference in customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level with respect to their city
Ha2: There is a significant difference in customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level with respect to their city
To test this hypothesis ANOVA test has been applied and result is shown in table 6. The value of F-statistic is significant so it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level with respect to their city.
Table 6: ANOVA result to check significance of difference in customers’ environmental awareness & climate consciousness level with respect to their city
|
Source of Variation |
Sum of Squares |
Degree of Freedom |
Mean Sum of Squares |
F-Ratio |
p-value |
Result |
|
Between Samples |
128.69 |
4 |
32.173 |
7.509 |
0.000 |
Significant |
|
Within Samples |
2459.36 |
574 |
4.285 |
|||
|
Total |
2588.05 |
578 |
|
Level of Significance=5%
Review of literature indicated that psychological drivers like attitudes, values, motivation etc affects the sustainable buying intentions; so customers were given statements to test this claim as shown in table 7. Respondents indicated that they prefer to buy products that are environmentally friendly whenever possible (Mean=4.31) because they believe sustainable consumption reflects their personal values (Mean=4.28) and they feel good about themselves when they choose sustainable products (Mean=4.25). Respondents were found to be motivated by long-term benefits of sustainable choices (Mean=4.17) and to reduce their environmental footprint through their purchase (Mean=3.87) as helping the environment is an important part of their identity (Mean=3.62).
Respondents feel satisfied when they choose a brand that supports sustainability (Mean=3.76) so they consciously avoid products that harm the environment (Mean=3.71). They think choosing eco-friendly products is a moral responsibility (Mean=3.48) and adopting a sustainable lifestyle is important for their well-being (Mean=3.42).
Table 7: Impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions
|
Impact of Psychological Drivers on Sustainable Buying Intentions |
Mean |
S.D. |
C.V. |
Agreement Level |
|
Helping the environment is an important part of my identity. |
3.62 |
1.19 |
0.33 |
Agree |
|
I am motivated by long-term benefits of sustainable choices. |
4.17 |
1.26 |
0.30 |
Agree |
|
I am motivated to reduce my environmental footprint through my purchases. |
3.87 |
0.98 |
0.25 |
Agree |
|
I believe sustainable consumption reflects my personal values. |
4.28 |
0.76 |
0.18 |
Strongly Agree |
|
I consciously avoid products that harm the environment. |
3.71 |
1.02 |
0.27 |
Agree |
|
I feel good about myself when I choose sustainable products. |
4.25 |
1.18 |
0.28 |
Strongly Agree |
|
I feel satisfied when I choose a brand that supports sustainability. |
3.76 |
0.87 |
0.23 |
Agree |
|
I prefer to buy products that are environmentally friendly whenever possible. |
4.31 |
0.94 |
0.22 |
Strongly Agree |
|
I think adopting a sustainable lifestyle is important for my well-being. |
3.42 |
0.63 |
0.18 |
Agree |
|
I think choosing eco-friendly products is a moral responsibility. |
3.48 |
1.05 |
0.30 |
Agree |
According to 94.65% respondents psychological drivers have high impact on buying intentions while 5.35% respondents said that psychological drivers have no significant impact on buying intentions.
Table 8: Overall Impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions
|
Overall Impact |
N |
Percentage |
|
Low |
31 |
5.35 |
|
High |
548 |
94.65 |
|
Total |
579 |
100 |
To check the significance of overall Impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions following hypothesis has been taken:-
H03: There is no significant impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions of customers
Ha3: There is a significant impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions of customers
Table 9 is showing the one sample t-test applied to check the significance of impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions of customers. It can be seen that value of t-statistics is significant which leads to the rejection of null hypothesis so it can be concluded that there is a significant impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions of customers.
Table 9: One sample t-test result to check significance of impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions of customers
|
Variable |
Observed Mean |
Test Value = 30 |
Result |
||
|
t-value |
degree of freedom |
p-value |
|||
|
Impact of Psychological Drivers on Sustainable Buying Intentions |
38.92 |
68.793 |
578 |
0.000 |
Significant |
Level of Significance=5%
Further to measure difference in impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions of customers residing in different cities following hypothesis has been taken:-
H04: There is no significant difference in impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions of customers residing in different cities
Ha4: There is a significant difference in impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions of customers residing in different cities
To test this hypothesis ANOVA test has been applied and results are shown in table 10. The value of F-statistic is significant at 5% level of significance so null hypothesis rejected and it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions of customers residing in different cities.
Table 10: ANOVA test result to check significance of difference in impact of psychological drivers on sustainable buying intentions of customers residing in different cities
|
Source of Variation |
Sum of Squares |
Degree of Freedom |
Mean Sum of Squares |
F-Ratio |
p-value |
Result |
|
Between Samples |
215.98 |
4 |
53.995 |
9.517 |
0.000 |
Significant |
|
Within Samples |
3256.45 |
574 |
5.673 |
|||
|
Total |
3472.43 |
578 |
|
Level of Significance=5%
Table 11 is showing the respondents’ opinion about influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision. It was found that respondents get influenced by advertisements promoting green or sustainable products (Mean=4.22) and eco-labels help them decide whether a product is genuinely sustainable (Mean=4.12). Respondents are more likely to try a product if it highlights environmental benefits (Mean=3.84), they trust brands that clearly communicate their environmental practices (Mean=3.84) and sustainability creations increase their confidence in a product (Mean=3.71). According to respondents they prefer buying from the brands with strong environmental reputation (Mean=3.69) and eco-friendly packaging attracts them to a product (Mean=3.64).
Table 11: Influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision
|
Influence of Marketing Factors on Sustainable Purchase Decision |
Mean |
S.D. |
C.V. |
Agreement Level |
|
Eco-friendly packaging attracts me to a product. |
3.64 |
1.08 |
0.30 |
Agree |
|
Eco-labels help me decide whether a product is genuinely sustainable. |
4.12 |
0.93 |
0.23 |
Agree |
|
I am influenced by advertisements promoting green or sustainable products. |
4.22 |
0.68 |
0.16 |
Strongly Agree |
|
I am more likely to try a product if it highlights environmental benefits. |
3.84 |
0.71 |
0.18 |
Agree |
|
I compare eco-labels while choosing between products. |
3.35 |
0.88 |
0.26 |
Neutral |
|
I notice green claims made by companies in their marketing. |
3.31 |
1.08 |
0.33 |
Neutral |
|
I prefer buying from brands with a strong environmental reputation. |
3.69 |
0.96 |
0.26 |
Agree |
|
I trust brands that clearly communicate their environmental practices. |
3.84 |
1.01 |
0.26 |
Agree |
|
Sustainability certifications increase my confidence in a product. |
3.71 |
1.28 |
0.35 |
Agree |
According to 87.91% respondents, marketing factors have high influence on sustainable purchase decision while 12.09% respondents didn’t find any significant influence of marketing factors on sustainable buying decision.
Table 12: Overall Influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision
|
Overall Influence |
N |
Percentage |
|
Low |
70 |
12.09 |
|
High |
509 |
87.91 |
|
Total |
579 |
100 |
To check the significance of overall Influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision following hypothesis has been taken:-
H05: There is no significant influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision of customers
Ha5: There is a significant influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision of customers
Table 13 is showing the one sample t-test applied to check the significance of influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision of customers. It can be seen that value of t-statistics is significant which leads to the rejection of null hypothesis so it can be concluded that there is a significant influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision of customers.
Table 13: One sample t-test result to check significance of influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision of customers
|
Variable |
Observed Mean |
Test Value = 27 |
Result |
||
|
t-value |
degree of freedom |
p-value |
|||
|
Influence of Marketing Factors on Sustainable Purchase Decision |
33.82 |
58.819 |
578 |
0.000 |
Significant |
Level of Significance=5%
Further to measure difference in influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision of customers residing in different cities following hypothesis has been taken:-
H06: There is no significant difference in influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision of customers residing in different cities
Ha6: There is a significant difference in influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision of customers residing in different cities
To test this hypothesis ANOVA test has been applied and results are shown in table 14. The value of F-statistic is significant at 5% level of significance so null hypothesis rejected and it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision of customers residing in different cities.
Table 14: ANOVA test result to check significance of difference in influence of marketing factors on sustainable purchase decision of customers residing in different cities
|
Source of Variation |
Sum of Squares |
Degree of Freedom |
Mean Sum of Squares |
F-Ratio |
p-value |
Result |
|
Between Samples |
328.96 |
4 |
82.240 |
19.195 |
0.000 |
Significant |
|
Within Samples |
2459.22 |
574 |
4.284 |
|||
|
Total |
2788.18 |
578 |
|
Level of Significance=5%
Table 15 is depicting the barriers and challenges faced by customers in adoption of sustainable purchasing products. The major barriers faced by respondents were time & convenience barriers (Mean=4.12) followed by high price of sustainable products (Mean=4.09) and limited variety or options (Mean=4.01). The other moderate level of challenges faced by respondents were inadequate distribution networks for sustainable goods (Mean=3.84), lack of awareness and clear information (Mean=3.72), limited availability and accessibility (Mean=3.65) and less attractive packaging and appearance (Mean=3.61). A significant number of customers also highlighted the problems related to the Greenwashing concerns (Mean=3.52), perception of lower quality (Mean=3.41) and confusing or insufficient eco-labels (Mean=3.29).
Table 15: Barriers and challenges in adoption of sustainable purchasing practices
|
Barriers and Challenges |
Mean |
S.D. |
C.V. |
Rank |
|
High Price of Sustainable Products |
4.09 |
1.01 |
0.25 |
2 |
|
Limited Availability and Accessibility |
3.65 |
1.21 |
0.33 |
6 |
|
Doubts About Authenticity (Greenwashing Concerns) |
3.52 |
0.85 |
0.24 |
8 |
|
Lack of Awareness and Clear Information |
3.72 |
0.99 |
0.27 |
5 |
|
Confusing or Insufficient Eco-Labels |
3.29 |
1.05 |
0.32 |
10 |
|
Perception of Lower Performance or Quality |
3.41 |
1.08 |
0.32 |
9 |
|
Limited Variety or Options |
4.01 |
0.92 |
0.23 |
3 |
|
Time & Convenience Barriers |
4.12 |
0.87 |
0.21 |
1 |
|
Less attractive packaging or appearance |
3.61 |
0.74 |
0.20 |
7 |
|
Inadequate distribution networks for sustainable goods |
3.84 |
0.69 |
0.18 |
4 |
Implications of the study:
The findings of this study have important implications for policymakers, marketers, and sustainability advocates. The high prevalence of sustainable purchasing behavior and the long duration of engagement with green products indicate that sustainable consumption is no longer a nascent trend but an established practice among a substantial segment of consumers. The high level of environmental awareness and climate consciousness (88.08%), along with significant inter-city differences, suggests that local environmental conditions, urban infrastructure, and policy environments shape consumer perceptions. Policymakers and local authorities can leverage this awareness by designing city-specific sustainability campaigns, strengthening urban climate communication, and supporting localized green initiatives that resonate with consumers’ lived experiences of climate change.
From a managerial and marketing perspective, the strong influence of psychological drivers (94.65%) highlights the importance of aligning sustainable products with consumers’ values, self-identity, and emotional rewards. Marketers should emphasize value congruence, personal responsibility, and the positive emotional outcomes of sustainable consumption in their communication strategies. The significant role of marketing factors such as eco-labels, green advertising, brand credibility, and packaging further underscores the need for transparent, credible, and standardized sustainability communication. Clear eco-labeling, authentic green messaging, and trustworthy brand practices can reduce consumer skepticism and enhance confidence in sustainable purchase decisions, particularly given the observed differences across cities.
The identification of time and convenience constraints, high prices, and limited product variety as major barriers offers actionable insights for both firms and policymakers. Businesses should focus on improving product accessibility, simplifying purchase processes, expanding distribution networks, and offering competitively priced sustainable alternatives. At the same time, policymakers can support sustainable markets through incentives, subsidies, and infrastructure development that lower costs and improve availability. Addressing these barriers while reinforcing awareness and motivation can help bridge the gap between intention and behavior, thereby accelerating the transition toward more widespread and consistent sustainable purchasing practices.
References
