Environmental Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envres

It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain

João Couto a, Teresa Tiago a,n, Artur Gil b, Flávio Tiago c, Sandra Faria c
a
CEEAplA, University of the Azores and Advance/CSG, ISEG, Universidade de Lisboa, University of the Azores, Ponta Delgada, Portugal
b
Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, University of the Azores, Ponta Delgada, Portugal
c
Advance/CSG, ISEG, Universidade de Lisboa and CEEAplA-Açores, University of the Azores, Ponta Delgada, Portugal

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Firms have recently discovered that it is not enough to optimize internal processes and relationships
Received 31 July 2015 with partners along the value chain to create a sustainable competitive market position. A clear customer
Received in revised form orientation, which acknowledges that consumer buying behavior is complex and includes many ele-
12 March 2016
ments implied in the value chain, is required. As companies offering green products are no exception to
Accepted 3 May 2016
this rule, this study analyzes consumer behavior in Europe from a reserve green supply chain manage-
ment perspective, using descriptive analyses and a structural equation model, with data collected by
Keywords: Flash Barometer comprising 26,573 responses from 28 European countries. The results suggest that
Reverse green supply chain management European consumers are conscious of the green concept, but are not willing to buy or pay more for these
Green consumer
products since the value is unclear. Companies offering green products must therefore rethink their
Buying behavior
strategies, especially in terms of value proposition, communication strategies, and eco-labeling.
Europe
& 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Limiting green supply chain management (GrSCM) to the devel-
opment of environment-friendly activities is a narrow vision of this
concept, as this management strategy seeks to optimize company
operations by ensuring sustainability at three levels: financial, en-
vironmental, and social. In the last two decades, this has led to an
increasing body of work analyzing sustainable value chains. Some of
these studies focus on the processes (Bey, 2001), green design (Zhang
et al., 1997), low-carbon strategies (Hsu et al., 2013), or industrial
ecosystems (Nasr, 1997; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004) and networks. Within
this sample, a wide body of literature from diverse fields has
emphasized on supply chain vulnerabilities and risks. Wu and Olson
(2013) defined risk management as the process of identification,
analysis, and either acceptance or mitigation of uncertainty in in-
vestment decision-making. Jüttner et al. (2003) pointed toward the
lack of ownership, chaos, and inertia as the main sources of
uncertainty and risks. The ownership problems are related to the
distortion of boundaries between buying and supplying firms oper-
ating in the supply chain. The chaos construct is linked to the com-
plexity forces operating in a supply chain, and the diversity of different
agents’ goals. The last source, inertia, is linked to the lack of respon-
siveness to environmental changes (Van Hoek, 1999; Wu et al., 2013)
and market signals. This last point underlies the suggestion by
Bromiley et al. (2015) that a deeper look and new perspective are
needed regarding supply chain risk sources comprising uncertainties
arising from the supply chain–environment interaction, a path that has
already been followed by several authors (Wu et al., 2013; Choi et al.,
2015). Wu and Olson (2013) suggested that risks present four main
characteristics: interconnection/dependence, complexity, uncertainty,
and dynamics. The latter two are the two last properties acknowl-
edged by practitioners in the behavioral domain.
Driven from these perspectives, the main challenges firms face
in adopting a green supply chain management approach involve
internal process optimization (Ferrer and Whybark, 2001; Klein-
dorfer et al., 2005), and understanding the effects of this change at
the level of the external elements. These external elements include
competition (Martin and Matlay, 2001), suppliers (Guide and Van
Wassenhove, 2002), social responsibility, risk (Wu et al., 2015) and,
above all, consumers (Guide and Van Wassenhove, 2009).
However, only a small number of studies analyze the last ele-
ment in this chain: the consumer. This work aims to contribute
toward bridging this gap by analyzing how consumers value green
products and services. In other words, this work aims to determine
the dimensions by which consumers assign value at the time they
choose between products to consume. To this end, we analyzed
data from 26,573 respondents in 28 European countries.

n
2. Background
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: joao.pa.couto@uac.pt (J. Couto),
maria.tp.tiago@uac.pt (T. Tiago), artur.jf.gil@uac.pt (A. Gil), The present context constantly challenges corporate managers
flavio.gb.tiago@uac.pt (F. Tiago), sandra.mc.faria@uac.pt (S. Faria). to maintain a competitive advantage through several processes

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.05.006
0013-9351/& 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Couto, J., et al., It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain. Environ. Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.05.006i
2 J. Couto et al. / Environmental Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

(Porter, 2001) such as: improving production processes, estab- Table 1

lishing strong relations with stakeholders, and acquiring and ap- GrSCM terminology.
plying knowledge.
Publication Terminology
Firms have begun to realize the importance of closely mana-
ging activities in the supply chain to create additional value, which Cucchiella et al. (2012) Sustainable supply network management
can be grounds for significant competitive advantages. Since the Carter and Rogers (2008)
early 1980s, the supply chain management concept has been Svensson (2007)
Young and Kielkiewicz-Young
widely studied (Chen and Paulraj, 2004; Harland, 1996; Ngai et al., (2001)
2008). Much research has emerged from different fields, especially Cruz (2008) Supply and demand sustainability in cor-
logistics/distribution and marketing. More recently, this body of Orlitzky et al. (2011) porate social responsibility networks
literature is complemented by studies in the information tech- Sharfman et al. (2009) Supply chain environmental management
Lippman (2001)
nology field (Nagurney et al., 2002) and in ecological management
Lippmann (1999)
and industrial ecology (Cucchiella et al., 2012; Erkman, 1997). Green et al. (1998) Green purchasing
Oliver and Webber (1992) surveyed North American, European, Min and Galle (1997)
and Japanese firms, and concluded that traditional distribution Zhu et al. (2013) Green procurement
channel management did not create the expected results. This Nagel (2000)
Moser (2015) Environmental purchasing
conclusion generated the supply chain management (SCM) con- Tate et al. (2012)
cept, which remains relevant in the literature from distinct areas Zsidisin and Siferd (2001)
(Park and Suresh, 2005; Park et al., 2013; Rayport and Sviokla, Nagel (2000) Environmental supply chain
1995; Simatupang and Sridharan, 2002). Dekker et al. (2012) Green logistics
Murphy and Poist (2003)
According to Porter and Kramer (2011), SCM is a model that
González-Benito and González- Environmental logistics
describes the sequential activities that add value to an organiza- Benito (2006)
tion. It establishes the connection between demand (raw materi- Carter and Rogers (2008) Sustainable supply chains
als, entry logistics, and production process) and supply (output Linton et al. (2007)
logistics, marketing, and sales), and includes support activities Walton et al. (1998) Green supply chain

(infrastructures, human resources, and R&D, among others) in its

approach.
Due to the body of research in the field, SCM is now considered
a generic management concept composed of the systemic im-
plementation of processes (Svensson, 2003); it is a series of value-
added activities that connects a company's supply (raw materials,
inbound logistics, and production processes) to its demand (out-
bound logistics, marketing, and sales). Growing environmental
concerns led to an emerging awareness that efforts in supply chain
management should focus on diminishing the environmental
footprint. Accordingly, the GrSCM notion emerged when en-
vironmental concerns are combined with supply chain manage-
ment concerns. Srivastava (2007) stated that GrSCM has its roots
in both environmental management and supply-chain manage-
ment literature. As noticed by Sarkis et al., (2011), over the past
years, the literature has varied significantly in its definition of
GrSCM, as well as its use of terminology around this term (see
Table 1):
A common thread throughout these works is the notion that, re-
gardless of the terminology adopted, environmental concerns should
be integrated into the inter-organizational SCM practices. However,
the focus of analysis changed, as well as the general organizational
theories underlining it (Sarkis et al., 2011). Sarkis et al. (2011) identified
nine organizational theories: (1) complexity theory; (2) ecological
modernization; (3) information theory; (4) resource-based view;
(5) resource dependence theory; (6) transaction cost economics;
(7) social network theory; (8) stakeholder theory; and (9) institutional
theory. In the last three, stakeholders such as governments and con-
sumers effectively pressure firms to incorporate more sustainability
into their SCM (González-Benito and González-Benito, 2006; Seuring
and Müller, 2008).
In this context, the notions of green purchasing (Green et al.,
1998), green logistics practices (Dekker et al., 2012; González-Be-
nito and González-Benito, 2006), and environmentally-oriented
reverse logistics (González-Torre et al., 2010) are combined to re-
spond to stakeholders and effectively manage the product life-
cycle. Moreover, this perspective led to the development of closed-
loop supply chains (CLSC), which focus on taking products back
from customers after regular consumption and reusing its com-
ponents or the entire product to generate new added value (Guide
and Van Wassenhove, 2009).
The center of Fig. 1 shows the interaction between lean pro-
duction and green concerns as vital to the success of any GrSCM
initiative. Managers must usually decide between lean, agile, and
leagile models in the SCM design (Purvis et al., 2014). Lean stra-
tegies have demonstrated their usefulness in reducing costs
(Chiarini, 2014), by mapping and controlling all waste production
and carbon footprints. A leagile configuration will also work for
firms that operate in truly competitive markets, since it combines
high efficiency with a high degree of responsiveness, and therefore
enables diminishing environmental impacts and water and energy
consumption (Hsu et al., 2013).
As shown in Fig. 1, firms are required to manage all conven-
tional SCM economic criteria and environmental principles si-
multaneously to meet the “triple bottom line approach” (social,
economic, and environmental issues), which leads to a viable re-
lationship between economic prosperity and environmental con-
servation and protection. This approach creates an endless chain,
as it considers consumers as both end-users during consumption
and as prime material suppliers when they return old products for
reintroduction into other supply chains. In their consideration of
this endless triple bottom line approach, Zhu et al. (2013) argued
that it is urgent to develop and apply suitable policies that sti-
mulate a green mindset in terms of design, supply chain, lean/
leagile production, worker health and safety, and consumer
protection.
Seuring and Müller (2008) proposed a figure similar to Fig. 1,
though it included only new products and suggested that in most
works, sustainable development is often measured through en-
vironmental improvements. However, as Wu and Cheng (2008)
suggest, successful SCM requires choosing a suitable type of re-
lationship between product and market conditions and adopting
management practices accordingly. Therefore, as in Fig. 2, this
study considers SCM for “sustainable” products as a reverse lo-
gistics process that includes consumer perceptions and behavior
toward “sustainable” products as key elements of the value chain.
The arrows represent the relationships among the different
players and their influences on the GrSCM. Earlier studies indicate
that sustainability is often externally motivated by actors such as

Please cite this article as: Couto, J., et al., It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain. Environ. Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.05.006i
 J. Couto et al. / Environmental Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Fig. 1. Integrated green supply chain.
government, customers, or stakeholders, which results in the re-
flection of their own environmental concerns and sustainability
practices. This Reverse Green Supply Chain approach to sustain-
ability and profitability in activities, processes, and products in the
value chain promotes the reverse supply chain as a method to
recapture value. However, some influential relationships are not
illustrated in the figure in terms of the outcomes of the GrSCM
approach. For instance, Hoekstra (2015) established a direct link
between product life cycle and environmental pressures, and
suggested that distinct potential environmental impacts and in-
fluences can arise during the life cycle of a product. Therefore, a
customer- and environment-oriented reverse supply chain ap-
proach is required to fully understand customer attitudes and
buyer behaviors toward green or sustainable products.
The notion of green consumption has been covered and ex-
tended in several articles since the 1970s. Some of the earliest
works found that a large majority of US citizens considered
themselves to be environmentalists, regardless of their current
buying behavior (Mainieri et al., 1997a, 1997b; Roberts, 1996). Over
four decades, several models attempted to establish the elements
that determine and influence consumer behavior toward green
product consumption (see Table 2).
Several studies reported on the influence of traditional seg-
mentation variables (socio-demographics) and psychographics on
Fig. 2. Reverse green supply chain.
Source: Adapted from Sarkis (2003)
Please cite this article as: Couto, J., et al., It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain. Environ. Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.05.006i
3
consumers’ buying decisions in terms of green products (Sheth
et al., 2011; Shrum et al., 1995; Steg et al., 2005). Additionally, the
Nicosia Model (Nicosia, 1966) established the link between the
consumer and the firm, emphasizing the firms’ relevance in ad-
vertising messages and other forms of communication to enhan-
cing predispositions to consumption and to supporting the de-
velopment of consumer attitudes toward the product and brand.
However, when analyzed separately, these variables con-
siderably limit the understanding of the green consumer, espe-
cially in the full buying decision process (Fig. 3), which is already
applied in other marketing fields (Kim et al., 2012; Nicosia, 1966).
The external and internal factors presented in the left circle
play a decisive role in pro-environment consumer behavior, and
can vary considerably between countries (Ritter et al., 2014; Per-
eira and Almeida, 2014). Most research has focused on these
components and on their influence in all five stages, and most
results show that individuals with higher environmental aware-
ness tend to better understand green products’ positive ex-
ternalities, and are more likely to consume them on a regular basis
(Kim et al., 2012; Moser, 2015). Moreover, Mainieri et al.’s (1997a)
results showed that pro-environmental behavior has its main
roots in regular exposure to this concept and its associated prac-
tices. This demonstrates influences from internal and external
elements in all five stages of the buying decision model.
4 J. Couto et al. / Environmental Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Table 2
Criteria affecting green consumer behavior.
Type of influence Concept
Internal Demographics and environmental knowledge
Psychographics
External Public and governmental
Firms
Green products availability
Other influencers
Nevertheless, the buying process is not complete if it does not
consider elements from the circle on the right. Green consumers’
mindsets acknowledge the environmental issues driven by in-
tensive production/consumption, and may show changing buying
motivations. Consumer behaviorists believed that attitudes predict
individuals’ actions and behaviors (Ajzen, 1991), and thus form the
essence of consumer habits. Solomon et al. (2014) also argued that
buyer behavior relies on buying, having, and being.
Therefore, green consumer behavior is not a simple matter. It
includes internal and external influences that need to be con-
sidered. In light of these challenges, this research addresses the
following questions about green buyer behavior:
1. How knowledge about green products influences consumer
willingness to pay for or buy these products?
2. What are the most prevalent elements considered by con-
sumers in the perceived value composition?
3. Does perceived value have a positive impact on buying deci-
sions and willingness to pay or buy green products?
4. To what extent do the traditional marketing mix elements
controlled by firms and accounted for in the buying decision
influence the buying decision?
3. Methods
To help answer these questions, this paper uses the data
gathered by the Flash Eurobarometer 367 on Attitudes of Europeans
towards building the single market for green products, examining EU
citizens’ knowledge of green products and their reasons for buying
or not buying environmentally friendly products. This data source
allowed us to investigate the willingness to pay for or buy green
products, particularly those products that have a green supply
chain process, because participants were questioned about their
behaviors and attitudes toward environmental friendly products.
Furthermore, they were questioned about their habits, actions, and
Fig. 3. Buyer decision process.
Please cite this article as: Couto, J., et al., It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain. Environ. Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.05.006i
Indicators References
Gender, age, income, education Shrum et al. (1995)
Steg et al. (2005)
Attitudes and values Minton and Rose (1997)
Steg et al. (2005)
Sheth et al. (2011)
Promotion, educational programs Nicosia (1966)
Childers and Rao (1992)
Promotion, advertisement, labeling, packaging Shannon et al. (2002)
Retail strategy Mainieri et al. (1997a)
Culture, family, friends, opinion-leaders Moser (2015)
confidence regarding sustainable consumption, which allowed for
a deeper investigation into their mindsets. Fig. 4 illustrates the
methodological approach applied in the Eurobarometer.
3.1. Conceptual model
The aim of our work was to analyze how consumers assess and
decide to buy green products and services by using a reverse
perspective of the green value chain that emphasizes one of the
last risk dimensions to consumer behavior dynamics and market
signals (Bromiley et al., 2015). As Wu et al. (2015) suggested,
several types of models have been proposed to support risk
management within organizations, and these models have lately
focused on supply chain management. However, there are scarce
references to analyses that look into consumer behavior as a risk
source, as happens when the consumer does not value the firms’
product value proposition, especially when it concerns a sustain-
able or green approach. Therefore, looking to the future of a green
supply chain requires an examination of the dynamic nature of
green-conscious consumer behavior.
Despite the recent attention on multiple dimensions of sus-
tainability, some aspects of green product consumption influence
consumers’ predispositions to buying green products or behaving
in an environmentally friendly manner, which in turn affect the
overall results from a GrSCM. These should be considered when
focusing on green product consumption.
To fully understand green consumer behavior and motivations,
and its impact on reverse GrSCM, consumer ambivalence towards
green products requires a deeper analysis:
1. Willingness to pay/buy: consumers do not directly define product
designs, features, and production processes. However, their buying
decisions and willingness to pay can establish successful and un-
successful products (Solomon et al., 2014). As posited by Zeithaml
et al. (1996), purchase intention and willingness to pay are two of
the main actions linked to consumer behavioral intentions (Ajzen,
 J. Couto et al. / Environmental Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 5

Fig. 4. Methodology approach of Eurobarometer.

1991; Ajzen et al., 2009). When looking at green consumer buying
behavior, Prochaska and DiClemente's model (1986) indicates that
behavioral changes evolve over six phases: pre-contemplation,
contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and habit, and
willingness to buy varies in each stage.
2. Product information: economic theory establishes that con-
sumers need clear and credible market information to rationally
decide what to buy and to determine the product's perceived
value (Stiglitz, 2002). The sources of information that mold
consumer behavior and intention may vary, and this produces
different outcomes (Tam and Ho, 2006; Levin and Gaeth, 1988).
3. Value perception: along with recognizing the higher value of green
products, skepticism toward a firm's motives and competence often
exists, and consumers often express greenwashing concerns (Ritter
et al., 2014). An individual's intention toward a product can be
either favorable or unfavorable, reflecting not only the product
value proposition but also a certain emotional consumer commit-
ment (Kim and Choi, 2005) that reflects the affinity of consumer
personal values with the value proposition posited by the firm or
the product (Mainieri et al., 1997a). Moreover, evidences show a
positive correlation between environmental concern and
environmentally friendly behavior (Lin and Huang, 2012).
4. Buying decision process: of the five stages, the evaluation of
alternatives has received less attention. However, consumers
evaluate dimensions such as quality, brand name, design, and
price compared to competitors, which is why, for instance,
Gleim et al. (2013) suggested that green product prices can
influence purchasing decisions.
Recognizing the importance of these last dimensions on con-
sumer willingness to pay or buy green products, the following
conceptual model was established (Fig. 5):
Fig. 5 illustrates the model proposed to explore and reduce the
uncertainty of consumers’ pro-environmental purchasing behavior
motivations and habits.
Each dimension is supposed to contribute directly to the de-
termination of the behavior intentions – willingness to pay/buy.
However, besides these direct effects, it is also assumed that there
are indirect effects caused by perceived value. In light of the above
discussion, the following hypotheses were constructed for testing
in this study:

Fig. 5. Conceptual model.

Please cite this article as: Couto, J., et al., It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain. Environ. Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.05.006i
6 J. Couto et al. / Environmental Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
H1. : the product information factor positively and significantly
determines the willingness to pay or buy;
H2. : the product information factor positively and significantly
implies the perceived value;
H3. : the perceived value factor positively and significantly influ-
ences the buying decision process;
H4. : the perceived value factor positively and significantly de-
termines the willingness to pay or buy;
H5. : the factor concerned with the buying decision process po-
sitively and significantly leads to paying and buying behavior
intentions.
This study considers a green consumer as any individual whose
buying decision behavior is influenced by environmental concerns.
This means that green consumers are those who actually buy
green products on a regular basis and those who intend to buy in
the near future. Additionally, green products are products that are
perceived by consumers as environmentally friendly – in other
words, those that do not harm the environment when they are
made, used, or disposed of.
3.2. Methods and techniques
Because buying is at the end of the green supply chain, green
supply chain efforts cannot be successful without integrating the
consumers' environmental attitudes and behaviors. Therefore,
after delineating three dimensions as the main influencers of
green consumption, considering their theoretical antecedents, and
aiming to assess the existence of an empirical association between
several theoretical constructs (Goldeberger, 1972) – as described in
the conceptual model – a structural equation modeling (SEM) was
conducted. This model consists of two sub-models and implies
performing several statistical techniques within a family of related
procedures. This statistical procedure is commonly adopted in
social and behavioral sciences (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) when trying
to estimate, in multiple-group populations, a set of multiple re-
gressions with latent variables having multiple indicators (Mulaik,
1998). In the present work, the SEM is proposed with a generalized
measurement part, which allows the use of continuous variables,
as well as dichotomous and ordered categorical variables, also
known as indicators. The measurement model shows how the
latent variables or factors are measured and the structural equa-
tion model indicates the relationships among the latent variables.
The validation of the measurement model is done by using Con-
firmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) (Chen, 1998). Afterwards, the
model is estimated in the AMOS 19 package.
We suppose that product information, perceived value, and the
buying decision process factors each have a direct effect on the
willingness to pay for or buy green products, as well as indirect
effects through the buying decision process. Therefore, we assume
that the behavior intentions are explained not only by the product
but also by the perceived value factor and a factor concerned with
the five stages of the buying decision process.
3.3. Data description
Since there are only a few studies that analyze green consumer
motivations and habits, and these mostly focus on consumers in
North America and China, this work focuses on green consumers
in Europe. The data used for this study was obtained from a survey
provided by the European Commission, Directorate-General for
Environment. It is a general public survey coordinated by the Di-
rectorate-General for Communication. The Flash Eurobarometer
367 (European Commission, 2013) covers the population of the
Please cite this article as: Couto, J., et al., It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain. Environ. Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.05.006i
respective nationalities of the European Union Member States,
including foreign residents in each of the 27 Member States and
Croatia, aged 15 years and over. Some 26,573 respondents from
different social and demographic groups were interviewed via
telephone (landline and mobile phone) in their mother tongues.
The basic sample design applied in all states is multi-stage random
(probability). The sample is stratified by NUTS2 region and urba-
nization to be geographically representative.
The following was reported in the survey technical specifica-
tions report:
“This survey has been requested by the EUROPEAN COMMIS-
SION, Directorate-General for Environment. It is a general
public survey coordinated by the Directorate-General for
Communication (“Research and Speechwriting” Unit). The
FLASH EUROBAROMETER 367 covers the population […] aged
15 years and over. The survey covers the national population of
citizens as well as the population of citizens of all the European
Union Member States that are residents in these countries and
have a sufficient command of the national languages to answer
the questionnaire. […] In every country respondents were
called both on fixed lines and mobile phones. The basic sample
design applied in all states is multi-stage random (probability).
In each household, the respondent was drawn at random fol-
lowing the “last birthday rule” (European Commission, 2013).
The adoption of this database provides access to a considerable
number of participants (26,573), covering 28 countries in Europe.
We choose to work with data gather by a third party, acknowl-
edging that we wouldn’t be able to change or adequate the
questionnaire. However, their questionnaire was suitable for our
purposes and the sample size was quite difficult to gather in-
dependently. This is a random probabilistic sample that can be
seen as representative of the European countries covered. The
analysis we performed enhances the originally conducted data
treatment, since they do not test and estimate the links between
the different variables. The estimation of a structural model allows
us to enhance the knowledge and test the relationships between
the conceptual dimensions found in the literature.
The survey conducted by phone by the TNS Political & Social
network in the 27 member states of the European Union and in
Croatia cover five dimensions of analysis: (1) behaviors and atti-
tudes toward environmentally friendly products; (2) the influence
of environmental considerations on consumption habits; (3) ac-
tions for the environment; (4) consumers’ confidence about en-
vironmental claims; and (5) sustainable consumption. Due to the
aim of this work, from those five dimensions, four sets of variables
where chosen, as presented in Table 3.
4. Results and discussion
Considering the richness of the data source used in this work
and to render a greater sensitivity to the data (Sekaran, 2006), the
first level of analysis comprises a descriptive analysis approach,
which presents the overall results with a focus on some national
differences found in the main domains.
In the second phase, we investigate the relation between pro-
duct information, perceived value, and the buying decision process
in terms of what influences consumers’ willingness to pay for or
buy green products. For this purpose, a structural equation model
with latent variables was used. Therefore, in the first stage, the
measurement model was estimated, supported by a confirmatory
factor analysis where all constructs were measured using multi-
items scales drawn from previous studies that reported high sta-
tistical reliability and validity (Chen, 1998). Afterwards, we
 J. Couto et al. / Environmental Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 7

Table 3
Variables used.

Dimensions Variables from the questionnaire Literature support

Buying Decision Group Q2 Gleim et al. (2013)

Q2.1: Would you say that when making a decision on what products you buy, the product's impact
on the environment aspects is important?
Q2.2: Would you say that when making a decision on what products you buy, the price of the
product aspects is important?
Q2.3: Would you say that when making a decision on what products you buy, the quality of the
product aspects is important?
Q2.4: Would you say that when making a decision on what products you buy, the brand or the brand
name of the product aspects are important?
These variables are measured on a Likert scale of 1 to 4, from very important to not important at all.
Product Information Group Q11 Stiglitz (2002)
Q11.1: Where would you like to find environmental information about a product? Levin and Gaeth (1988)
Tam and Ho (2006)
On the shelf where the product is placed.
Q11.2: Where would you like to find environmental information about a product?
In advertisements about the product on/in TV/radio/newspapers.
Q11.3: Where would you like to find environmental information about a product?
On the Internet.
Q11.4: Where would you like to find environmental information about a product?
In a leaflet in the shop.
Q11.5: Where would you like to find environmental information about a product?
On a bar code that can be scanned by a smartphone or a device provided in the shop.
Q11.6: Where would you like to find environmental information about a product?
On the product itself, on a label.
These variables are on a categorical scale.
Perceived Value Group Q4 Ritter et al. (2014)
Q4.1: EFPs are good value for money Mainieri et al. (1997a)
Q4.2: EFPs are as effective as regular products Kim and Choi (2005)
Q4.3: You feel that using EFP is the right thing to do Lin and Huang (2012)
Q4.4: Buying EFP sets a good example
Q4.5: Buying EFP can make a real difference to the environment
Q4.6: Your family or friends will think it is a good thing if you use EFP
These variables are measured on a Likert scale of 1 to 4, from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Willingness to pay Group Q6: How much more, if anything, would you be willing to pay for products if you were confident Zeithaml et al. (1996);
that they were more environmentally friendly?: You would not be willing to pay more (1), You would Prochaska and DiClemente (1986); Solo-
be willing to pay 5% more (2), You would be willing to pay 6% to 10% more (3), You would be willing to mon et al. (2014)
pay 11% to 20% more (4), You would be willing to pay more than 20% (5).
These variables are measured on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, in which each level represents a higher
level of payment differential.

estimated a structural equation model, since these models have
the capacity to represent causal relationships among the variables
(Fox, 2002; Mulaik, 1998).
4.1. Overall data interpretation
Covering the 27 Member States of the European Union and also
Croatia, the sample size is n¼ 26573, of which 11,002 (41.4%) are
males and 15,571 (58.6%) are females. In terms of age, 24.9% are
over sixty five years old, 20.6% are between 55 and 64 years old,
27.9% are between 25 and 54 years old, and 8.4% are between 15
and 24 years old. Among the people questioned, 2654 are self-
employed (10.0%), 8342 are employees for third parties (31.4%),
1940 are manual workers (7.3%) and 13,540 are not working
(51.0%). As far as educational degree is concerned, 1491 (5.6%) of
respondents are still studying, with 2896 in high school (10.9%),
9668 (36.4%) college-graduated, 11,988 (45.1%) with Master's and/
or PhD degrees, and 152 with no full-time education (0.6%). Most
people (11,563 or 43.5%) live in a two person-household, 5744 live
alone, and 9162 live in households with more than three people.
Most Europeans can be considered occasional consumers of
environmentally friendly products (53.6%), while about a quarter
buy these products on a regular basis (26.4%); 8.3% do not buy but
intend to do so in the near future. Additionally, European con-
sumers recognize these products as great value for money. Most
respondents (50.8%) stated that they are fairly confident that
products labeled or otherwise indicated as environmentally
friendly will cause less damage to the environment than other
products. Furthermore, 13.8% consider themselves fully confident
and 30.5% are not confident regarding these products. Similar
numbers are acknowledged when respondents were questioned
regarding their trust in producers’ claims about the environmental
performance of their products: most Europeans tend to trust these
claims (53.3%), 4.2% trust them completely, and 42.5% tend to not
trust them at all.
Within Europe, Austria, Germany, and Sweden display a higher
percentage of consumers whose buying behavior is influenced by
greater environmental awareness. Occasional buyers are mainly
located in the Netherlands and Finland, while in Romania, Malta,
and Bulgaria, most consumers do not currently buy, nor intend to
buy, such products.
In terms of actions considered to positively affect the en-
vironment, the most commonly cited are recycling and minimizing
waste, followed by buying low energy consuming home appli-
ances, insulating houses and apartments, buying local agricultural
products, travelling less and adopting sustainable models of
transportation, using less water, and buying products from eco-
friendly producers. There is a consensus among Europeans that
buying environmentally friendly products can make a difference
for the environment.
Once again, the results show very different patterns of concern
among European countries. Looking closely, while the average
importance of buying products from eco-friendly producers is 22%,
this attribute is highest among Austrians, where 34% value these

Please cite this article as: Couto, J., et al., It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain. Environ. Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.05.006i
8 J. Couto et al. / Environmental Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Table 4 Similar evidence can be found in Ritter et al.’s (2014) study on

Confirmatory factor analysis. North American consumers. Less than half of EU consumers rely
on producers’ environmental claims regarding production and
Constructs Factor Cronbach α Average
loading environmental product features.
Variance The results show a strong association between environmentally
extracted friendly consumption and age and education. For instance,
younger consumers show less willingness to buy green products,
Buying Decision
Product’s impact on the 0.42*** 0.448 0.376 whereas more educated consumers have a higher consumption
environment level.
Price of the product 0.13***
Quality of the product 0.54***
Brand name of the product 0.32***
4.2. Estimated results

Following the descriptive data treatment effort, a confirmatory

Product information
On the shelf where the product is 0.28 ***
0.60 0.354
factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to determine the standardized
placed loading for items on all scales (see Table 4). This enabled the cal-
***
In advertisements about the 0.56 culation of the average variance extracted, which confirmed the
product convergent and discriminant validity of the scales (Chen, 1998).
On the Internet 0.56***
In a leaflet in the shop 0.59***
Initial measures were derived from the literature, and multi-items
On a bar code that can be scanned 0.49*** scales drawn from Flash Eurobarometer 367, which measured the
by a smartphone concepts mentioned in the literature review, were used.
On a label on the product itself 0.17*** The composite reliability and average of variance-extracted
values are above 0.5, indicating that all measurement variables are
Perceived value significantly related to each of the corresponding constructs. The
EFPs are good value for money 0.40*** 0.746 0.441 Cronbach's α values for all constructs that are used to evaluate
EFPs are as effective as regular 0.25***
products
construct reliability returned results above 0.7, confirming dis-
You feel that using EFPs is the 0.65*** criminant validity for all scales, as reported in Table 1. Although
right thing to do there are two variables with low factor loadings, they are included
Buying EFPs sets a good example 0.66*** because they are relevant and supported by earlier studies (Engel
Buying EFPs can make a real dif- 0.62***
et al., 1995; Solomon et al., 2014).
ference to the environment
Your family or friends will think it 0.55*** After confirming the uni-dimensionality of each construct, the
is a good thing if you use EFPs hypotheses were evaluated using a structural model assessed
using goodness-of-fit measures. The overall fit indices for the
***
All factor loadings are significant at the p o 0.001 level. proposed model were acceptable, with χ2/df ¼ 55.273, root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.036, normed fit index
products, followed by Sweden, where 29% value these products. (NFI) of 0.903, comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.905, and goodness-
On the other hand, in countries like Estonia, Ireland, and the UK, of-fit index (GFI) of 0.905. All fit indices for the final model in-
only 15% of consumers value these products. dicated an acceptable structural model fit (Mulaik, 1998).
Nevertheless, although European consumers stated that they Five hypothesized paths were tested for significance, with re-
are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products, sults reported in Table 5 and Fig. 6. The results indicate that all
they are skeptical of eco-labels and greenwashing practices. paths were significant at p o .001 in the structural model.

Table 5
Standardized regression weights.

Dependent variables Independent variable Estimate S.E. C.R. P

Product’s impact on the environment o— Buying decision 1.000

Price of the product o— Buying decision 0.122 0.012 10,550 ***
Quality of the product o— Buying decision 0.382 0.012 31,593 ***
Brand name of the product o— Buying decision 0.419 0.017 24,471 ***
On the shelf where the product is placed o— Product information 1.506 0.050 29,919 ***
In advertisements about the product o— Product information 1.000
On the internet o— Product information 1.904 0.057 33,355 ***
In a leaflet at the shop o— Product information 2.189 0.066 33,392 ***
On a bar code that can be scanned by a smartphone o— Product information 2.107 0.063 33,211 ***
On a label on the product itself o— Product information 2.021 0.062 32,564 ***
EFPs are good value for money o— Perceived value 1.000
EFPs are as effective as regular products o— Perceived value 1.936 0.053 36,278 ***
You feel that using EFPs is the right thing to do o— Perceived value 1.880 0.052 36,404 ***
Buying EFPs sets a good example o— Perceived value 1.983 0.054 36,689 ***
Buying EFPs can make a real difference to the environment o— Perceived value 1.409 0.040 35,205 ***
Your family or friends will think it is a good thing if you use EFP o— Perceived value 0.528 0.026 20,133 ***
Perceived value o— Perceived value  0.120 0.014  8,605 ***
Buying decision o— Product information 1.383 0.046 29,933 ***
Willingness to pay/buy o— Perceived value 1.000
Willingness to pay/buy o— Product information  0.603 0.062  9,806 ***
Willingness to pay/buy o— Buying decision  0.245 0.028  8,709 ***

nnn
α 40,001. Note: EFP: Environmentally friendly product.

Please cite this article as: Couto, J., et al., It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain. Environ. Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.05.006i
 J. Couto et al. / Environmental Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Fig. 6. Structural model results.
The hypotheses can be verified using the standard regression
weights and their significance levels, which are reported in
Table 5.
By testing the relationships between perceived value and
buying decision process, values were found to impact willingness
to pay or buy negatively, thus not supporting H5 and H4. Product
information was found to affect willingness to pay or buy posi-
tively, thus supporting H1. Furthermore, the positive relationship
between the perceived value and buying decision process was
confirmed, and so H3 was accepted.
As hypothesized, green product willingness to pay or buy is
positively influenced by all of the factors under the product in-
formation dimension, with the information provided in the leaflet
at the shop being the most impacting. However, the other two
main dimensions considered were not found to impact green
product willingness to pay or buy positively.
Hypothesis 1. : in summary, which stated that product informa-
tion has a positive effect on willingness to pay, was supported. The
results show a path coefficient between the two constructs of 0.11,
which was positively significant at p o0.001.
Hypothesis 2. : stated that product information has a positive
effect on perceived value. This hypothesis was not supported, as
the path coefficient between the two constructs was  0.08
(p o0.01).
Hypothesis 3. : which stated that perceived value has a positive
effect on the buying decision process, was supported. The results
returned a path coefficient between the two constructs of 0.56,
which was positively significant at p o0.01.
Hypothesis 4. : which stated that perceived value has a positive
effect on willingness to pay, was not supported with a path coef-
ficient of  0.10 (p o0.01).
Hypothesis 5. : which stated that the buying decision process has
a positive effect on willingness to pay, was rejected, as the path
coefficient between the two constructs was  0.10 (p o0.001).
The structural model results demonstrated a strong relation-
ship between perceived value and the buying decision process, as
well as a positive relationship between product information and
willingness to pay. However, the results show no positive re-
lationship between product information and perceived value,
perceived value and willingness to pay, and the buying decision
Please cite this article as: Couto, J., et al., It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain. Environ. Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.05.006i
9
process and willingness to pay.
5. Discussion and conclusions
It is a challenge to be a green producer, since it involves many
influencing factors. Green consumption is no exception, as the
consumer's decision-making process is highly influenced by the
perceived value of green products. However, a paradox emerges
when we look at the results from the structural model: direct
action does not reflect consumer intentions.
Since price can be a determinant in differentiating regular
consumers from occasional consumers, lowering the price gap
between green and traditional alternatives may increase con-
sumption. However, firms should conduct a deeper cost-benefit
analysis since reluctant consumers consider these products to be
good value for money, suggesting that price is not the only factor
preventing them from purchasing green products, as suggested by
the structural model results.
Producers of environmentally friendly products may, however,
be concerned about consumer perceptions of the effectiveness of
these products compared to regular products, the lack of cred-
ibility of product labels, and the relative importance of price.
These results reveal a distinct reality in Europe compared to
North America, since the relationships differ. Product in-
formation's negative relation to perceived value suggests that the
information available to consumers in Europe is neither sufficient
nor effective. The relationship between perceived value and will-
ingness to pay indicates that consumers in Europe, though ap-
preciative of green products, do not consider them as being sig-
nificantly different from regular products, in terms of value.
The negative connection between the buying process and
willingness to pay may be because product quality, environmental
impact, and brand name are the main factors influencing the
buying process, and price shows a low relevance. Consequently,
willingness to pay is associated with other constructs that limit
the capacity to motivate consumers to pay for or to buy en-
vironmentally friendly products.
The product's environmental impact has no relevance for reg-
ular or occasional buyers, but it is mentioned as a relevant aspect
for reluctant consumers.
The results from the confirmatory factor analysis of the buying
decision construct show that product quality, the product's
10 J. Couto et al. / Environmental Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
environmental impact, and brand, in that order, have the higher
factor loading, while price has a very low, though significant,
loading.
The product information construct shows that information at
shops, product advertising, and the internet are the most relevant
sources of information, while the product label, by itself, is not
considered relevant.
The most consistent construct is perceived value, with the top
feature being the fact that buying environmentally friendly pro-
ducts sets a good example. It is followed by the feeling that using
environmentally friendly products is the right thing to do and that
it can make a difference in environmental conservation. The in-
fluence of family and friends and the fact that environmentally
friendly products are a good value for money are in the middle of
the scale. The belief that environmentally friendly products are as
effective as regular products has the lowest influence.
The results demand better communication from producers and
other firms with green supply chains in terms of product effec-
tiveness, adopting specific eco-label certification, and reinforcing
the value-for-money proposition.
Another salient aspect of this study is the differences among
European consumers in terms of the impact of their environ-
mental awareness on their consumption attitudes and patterns.
This situation may be because individual member states have
varying cultural and socio-economic levels and experiences with
EU membership (and integration). These factors imply the need for
more consistent and stronger efforts and incentives to make the
EU a real and effective supra-national market for green products.
In fact, countries with a higher development index show higher
environmental awareness and lower carbon footprints (Brown
et al., 2014; Selden and Song, 1994). Therefore, these countries
may foster, support, and lead the growth of green products on the
market in a way that is integrated across the EU. Considering the
differences between European countries in terms of socio-eco-
nomic and cultural factors, further research is required to advance
the understanding and monitor the evolution of green consumer
perceptions and the behavioral implications in reverse GrSCM.
To conclude, this study indicates that European consumers are
conscious of the green concept; however, they are not willing to
buy or pay more for these products since their value is unclear.
Companies offering green products must, therefore, rethink their
strategies, especially in terms of value proposition, communication
strategies, and eco-labeling.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from “Funda-
ção para a Ciência e Tecnologia” (FCT - Portugal), national funding
through research grant (UID/SOC/04521/2013). And, the partici-
pation of co-author Artur Gil in this study was supported by the
Post-Doctoral Research Project # SFRH/BPD/100017/2014 from the
“Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia” (FCT), funded by the Na-
tional Budget of the Ministry of Education and Science of Portugal
as well as by the European Social Fund.
References
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. 50 (2),
179–211.
Ajzen, I., Czasch, C., Flood, M.G., 2009. From intentions to behavior: implementation
intention, commitment, and conscientiousness1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 39,
1356–1372.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 16 (1), 74–94.
Bey, C., 2001. Quo vadis industrial ecology. Greener. Manag. Int. 2001 (34), 34–42.
Please cite this article as: Couto, J., et al., It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain. Environ. Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.05.006i
Bromiley, P., McShane, M., Nair, A., Rustambekov, E., 2015. Enterprise risk man-
agement: review, critique, and research directions. Long Range Plan. 48 (4),
265–276.
Brown, M.A., Wang, Y., Sovacool, B.K., D’Agostino, A.L., 2014. Forty years of energy
security trends: a comparative assessment of 22 industrialized countries. En-
ergy. Res. Soc. Sci. 4, 64–77.
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain manage-
ment: moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (5),
360–387.
Chen, F., 1998. Echelon reorder points, installation reorder points, and the value of
centralized demand information. Manag. Sci 44, 221–234.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., 2004. Understanding supply chain management: critical re-
search and a theoretical framework. Int. J. Prod. Res. 42 (1), 131–163.
Chiarini, A., 2014. Sustainable manufacturing-greening processes using specific
Lean Production tools: an empirical observation from European motorcycle
component manufacturers. J. Clean. Prod. 85 (0), 226–233. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.080.
Childers, T.L., Rao, A.R., 1992. The influence of familial and peer-based reference
groups on consumer decisions. J. Consumer Res., 198–211.
Choi, Y., Ye, X., Zhao, L., Luo, A.C., 2015. Optimizing enterprise risk management: a
literature review and critical analysis of the work of Wu and Olson. Ann. Oper.
Res., 1–20.
Cruz, J.M., 2008. Dynamics of supply chain networks with corporate social re-
sponsibility through integrated environmental decision-making. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 184 (3), 1005–1031.
Cucchiella, F., Koh, L., Walker, H., Jones, N., 2012. Sustainable supply chain man-
agement across the UK private sector. Supply Chain Manag. Int J. 17 (1), 15–28.
Dekker, R., Bloemhof, J., Mallidis, I., 2012. Operations Research for green logistics–
An overview of aspects, issues, contributions and challenges. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
219 (3), 671–679.
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W., 1995. Consumer Behaviour, 8th Dryder,
New York.
Erkman, S., 1997. Industrial ecology: an historical view. J. Clean. Prod. 5 (1), 1–10.
European Commission, 2013. Flash Eurobarometer 367: Attitudes of Europeans
towards building the single market for green products. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/
public_opinion/flash/fl_367_en.pdf〉 (last accessed 04.09.15).
Ferrer, G., Whybark, D., 2001. Material planning for a remanufacturing facility. Prod.
Oper. Manag. 10 (2), 112–124.
Fox, J. 2002. Structural equation models Appendix to an R and S-PLUS Companion
to Applied Regression.(Accessed) 〈http://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/math/statlib/R/
CRAN/〉.
Gleim, M.R., Smith, J.S., Andrews, D., Cronin, J.J., 2013. Against the green: a multi-
method examination of the barriers to green consumption. J. Retail. 89 (1),
44–61.
Goldeberger, A., 1972. Structural equation methods in social sciences. Econome-
trica: Journal of the econometric society, 979–1001.
González-Benito, J., González-Benito, Ó., 2006. The role of stakeholder pressure and
managerial values in the implementation of environmental logistics practices.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 44 (7), 1353–1373.
González-Torre, P., Alvarez, M., Sarkis, J., Adenso-Díaz, B., 2010. Barriers to the
implementation of environmentally oriented reverse logistics: evidence from
the automotive industry sector. Br. J. Manag. 21 (4), 889–904.
Green, K., Morton, B., New, S., 1998. Green purchasing and supply policies: do they
improve companies’ environmental performance? Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J.
3 (2), 89–95.
Guide Jr, V.D.R., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2002. The reverse supply chain. Harv. Bus.
Rev. 80 (2), 25–26.
Guide Jr, V.D.R., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2009. OR FORUM-the evolution of closed-
loop supply chain research. Oper. Res. 57 (1), 10–18.
Harland, C.M., 1996. Supply chain management: relationships, chains and net-
works. Br. J. Manag. 7 (S1), S63–S80.
Hoekstra, A.Y., 2015. The sustainability of a single activity, production process or
product. Ecol. Indic. 57, 82–84.
Hsu, C.W., Kuo, T.C., Chen, S.H., Hu, A.H., 2013. Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon
management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. J.
Clean. Prod. 56, 164–172.
Jüttner, U., Peck, H., Christopher, M., 2003. Supply chain risk management: out-
lining an agenda for future research. Int. J. Logist: Res. Appl. 6 (4), 197–210.
Kim, W., Di Benedetto, C.A., Hunt, J.M., 2012. Consumer innovativeness and con-
sideration set as antecedents of the consumer decision process for highly glo-
balized new products: a three-country empirical study. J. Glob. Sch. Mark. Sci.
22 (1), 1–23.
Kim, Y., Choi, S., 2005. Antecedents of green purchase behavior: an examination of
collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Advances in Consumer Research
32, 592.
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K., Wassenhove, L.N., 2005. Sustainable operations man-
agement. Prod. Oper. Manag. 14 (4), 482–492.
Levin, I.P., Gaeth, G.J., 1988. How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute
information before and after consuming the product. J. Consum. Res., 374–378.
Lin, P.C., Huang, Y.H., 2012. The influence factors on choice behavior regarding
green products based on the theory of consumption values. J. Clean. Prod. 22
(1), 11–18.
Lippman, S., 2001. Supply chain environmental management. Environ. Qual. Manag.
11 (2), 11–14.
Lippmann, S., 1999. Supply chain environmental management: elements for suc-
cess. Corporate Environmental Strategy 6, 175–182.
 J. Couto et al. / Environmental Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R., Jayaraman, V., 2007. Sustainable supply chains: An in-
troduction. Journal of Operations Management 25, 1075–1082.
Mainieri, T., Barnett, E.G., Valdero, T.R., Unipan, J.B., Oskamp, S., 1997a. Green
buying: the influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. J. Soc.
Psychol. 137 (2), 189–204.
Mainieri, T., Barnett, E.G., Valdero, T.R., Unipan, J.B., Oskamp, S., 1997b. Green
buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. The
Journal of social psychology 137, 189–204.
Martin, L.M., Matlay, H., 2001. “Blanket” approaches to promoting ICT in small
firms: some lessons from the DTI ladder adoption model in the UK. Internet
Res. 11 (5), 399–410.
Min, H., Galle, W.P., 1997. Green purchasing strategies: trends and implications. Int.
J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 33 (2), 10–17.
Minton, A.P., Rose, R.L., 1997. The effects of environmental concern on en-
vironmentally friendly consumer behavior: an exploratory study. J. Bus. Res. 40
(1), 37–48.
Moser, A.K., 2015. Thinking green, buying green? Drivers of pro-environmental
purchasing behavior. J. Consum. Market 32 (3), 167–175.
Mulaik, S.A., 1998. Parsimony and model evaluation. J. Exp. Educ. 66, 266–273.
Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., 2003. Green perspectives and practices: a “comparative
logistics” study. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 8 (2), 122–131.
Nagel, M.H., 2000. Environmental supply-chain management versus green pro-
curement in the scope of a business and leadership perspective. Paper pre-
sented at the Electronics and the Environment, 2000. ISEE 2000. In: Proceed-
ings of the 2000 IEEE International Symposium on IEEE. pp. 219–224.
Nagurney, A., Loo, J., Dong, J., Zhang, D., 2002. Supply chain networks and electronic
commerce: a theoretical perspective. Netnomics 4 (2), 187–220.
Nasr, N., 1997. Environmentally conscious manufacturing. Careers Eng. 3 (1), 26–27.
Ngai, E., Lai, K.H., Cheng, T., 2008. Logistics information systems: the Hong Kong
experience. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 113 (1), 223–234.
Nicosia, F.M., 1966. Consumer Decision Processes; Marketing and Advertising Im-
plications. Prentice-Hall International, California.
Oliver, K., Webber, M., 1992. Logistics Catches up with Strategy. In: Christopher, M.
(Ed.), Supply-Chain Management. The Strategic Issues, Logistics.
Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A., 2011. Strategic corporate social responsi-
bility and environmental sustainability. Bus. Soc 50 (1), 6–27.
Park, S., Suresh, N.C., 2005. An investigation of the roles of electronic marketplace
in the supply chain. Paper presented at the System Sciences. HICSS'05. In:
Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii Int Conference on IEEE. 161b  161b.
Park, Y., Hong, P., Roh, J.J., 2013. Supply chain lessons from the catastrophic natural
disaster in Japan. Bus. Horiz. 56 (1), 75–85.
Porter, M., 2001. Strategy and internet. Harv. Bus. Rev. 79 (2), 62–78.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2011. Creating shared value. Harv. Bus. Rev. 89 (1/2),
62–77.
Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., 1986. Toward a Comprehensive Model of Change.
Springer.
Purvis, L., Gosling, J., Naim, M.M., 2014. The development of a lean, agile and leagile
supply network taxonomy based on differing types of flexibility. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 151, 100–111.
Rayport, J.F., Sviokla, J.J., 1995. Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harv. Bus. Rev. 73
(6), 75–85.
Ritter, Á.M., Borchardt, M., Vaccaro, G.L., Pereira, G.M., Almeida, F., 2014. Motiva-
tions for promoting the consumption of green products in an emerging coun-
try: exploring attitudes of Brazilian consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 507–520.
Roberts, J.A., 1996. Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for
advertising. J. Bus. Res. 36 (3), 217–231.
Sarkis, J., 2003. A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management.
J. Clean. Prod. 11 (4), 397–409.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., Lai, K.-h, 2011. An organizational theoretic review of green supply
chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 130 (1), 1–15.
Sekaran, U., 2006. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. John
Wiley & Sons.
Selden, T.M., Song, D., 1994. Environmental quality and development: is there a
Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 27 (2),
147–162.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework
for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699–1710.
Shannon, C., Story, M., Fulkerson, J.A., French, S.A., 2002. Factors in the school ca-
feteria influencing food choices by high school students. J. Sch. Health 72 (6),
229–234.
Sharfman, M.P., Shaft, T.M., Anex, R.P., 2009. The road to cooperative supply-chain
environmental management: trust and uncertainty among pro-active firms.
Bus. Strategy. Environ. 18 (1), 1–13.
Sheth, J.N., Sethia, N.K., Srinivas, S., 2011. Mindful consumption: a customer-centric
approach to sustainability. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 39 (1), 21–39.
Shrum, L., McCarty, J.A., Lowrey, T.M., 1995. Buyer characteristics of the green
consumer and their implications for advertising strategy. J. Advert. 24 (2),
71–82.
Simatupang, T.M., Sridharan, R., 2002. The collaborative supply chain. Int. J. Logist.
Manag. 13 (1), 15–30.
Solomon, M.R., Dahl, D.W., White, K., Zaichkowsky, J.L., Polegato, R., 2014. Con-
sumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being. Prentice Hall, NJ.
Srivastava, S.K., 2007. Green supply-chain management: a state-of‐the-art literature
review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 9 (1), 53–80.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse, W., 2005. Factors influencing the acceptability of
energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 25 (4), 415–425.
Please cite this article as: Couto, J., et al., It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain. Environ. Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.05.006i
11
Stiglitz, J.E., 2002. Information and the change in the paradigm in economics. Am.
Econ. Rev., 460–501.
Svensson, G., 2003. Holistic and cross-disciplinary deficiencies in the theory gen-
eration of supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 8 (4), 303–316.
Svensson, G., 2007. Aspects of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM):
conceptual framework and empirical example. Supply chain management: An
international journal 12, 262–266.
Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M., Dooley, K.J., 2012. Environmental purchasing and supplier
management (EPSM): theory and practice. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 18 (3), 173–188.
Tam, K.Y., Ho, S.Y., 2006. Understanding the impact of web personalization on user
information processing and decision outcomes. MIS. Quart., 865–890.
Van Hoek, R.I., 1999. From reversed logistics to green supply chains. Supply Chain
Manag. Int. J. 4 (3), 129–135.
Walton, S.V., Handfield, R.B., Melnyk, S.A., 1998. The green supply chain: integrating
suppliers into environmental management processes. J. Supply Chain Manag.
34 (2), 2.
Wu, D.D., Olson, D.L., 2013. Computational simulation and risk analysis: an in-
troduction of state of the art research. Math. Comput. Model. 58 (9), 1581–1587.
Wu, Y., Cheng, T.E., 2008. The impact of information sharing in a multiple-echelon
supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 115 (1), 1–11.
Wu, D.D., Olson, D.L., Birge, J.R., 2013. Risk management in cleaner production. J.
Clean. Prod. 53, 1–6.
Wu, D., Olson, D.L., Dolgui, A., 2015. Decision making in enterprise risk manage-
ment: a review and introduction to special issue. Omega 57, 1–4.
Young, A., Kielkiewicz-Young, A., 2001. Sustainable supply network management.
Corp. Environ. Strategy 8 (3), 260–268.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral consequences of
service quality. J. Mark., 31–46.
Zhang, H.C., Kuo, T.C., Lu, H., Huang, S.H., 1997. Environmentally conscious design
and manufacturing: a state-of-the-art survey. J. Manuf. Syst. 16 (5), 352–371.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2004. Relationships between operational practices and perfor-
mance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in
Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J. Oper. Manag. 22 (3), 265–289.
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., 2013. Motivating green public procurement in China: an
individual level perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 126, 85–95.
Zsidisin, G.A., Siferd, S.P., 2001. Environmental purchasing: a framework for theory
development. Eur. J. Purch. Supply. Manag. 7 (1), 61–73.
Joâo Pedro Almeida Couto is Associated Professor at
University of Azores, Ph.D. In International Business,
and has the MBA by the University of Porto. Presides
the Department of Economics and Management
Council and coordinates the management section.
Teaches Management Introduction, Strategic Manage-
ment and International Business. He is a Research Fel-
low at the Centre of Applied Economics Studies of the
Atlantic – University of the Azores and Advance/CSG,
ISEG - Lisbon University. His main research interests
include Strategic Management, Entrepreneurship, In-
ternational Business and Marketing. He has published
several articles in international journals such as the
Tourism Management, Business Horizons, Journal of Business and Economic
Management, Multinational Business Review, Journal of the American Academy of
Business, Journal of Comparative International Management among others.
Maria Teresa Borges Tiago is Assistant Professor at Uni-
versity of Azores, Ph.D. in International Marketing, and
has the MsC and MBA by the Portuguese Catholic Uni-
versity. She teaches marketing courses and is a Research
Fellow at the Centre of Applied Economics Studies of the
Atlantic – University of the Azores and Advance/CSG,
ISEG - Lisbon University. Her main research interests
include Digital Marketing, Social Media, Entrepreneur-
ship and Tourism. She has published several articles in
internationals journals such as Management Research
News, Journal of Business and Economic Management,
Business Horizons, Tourism Management, among others.
Artur Gil holds a PhD. in Environmental Science from
the University of the Azores (Portugal). He is currently a
Post-Doctoral Research Scientist in Applied Remote
Sensing and Spatial Planning at the Ce3C – Centre for
Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (De-
partment of Biology, University of the Azores, Portugal),
with the reference SFRH/BPD/100017/2014 from the
"Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia" (FCT), funded by
the National Budget of the Ministry of Education an-
dScience of Portugal and by the European Social Fund.
His current research is focused on the processing,
analysis and modeling of spatial data for decision
support on Land Management and Environmental
12 J. Couto et al. / Environmental Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Planning in very sensitive territories as small islands. He has published several Sandra Dias Faria is an Assistant Professor at University
articles in internationals journals such as Journal of Coastal Research, Journal of of the Azores, Ph.D. in Management (Entrepreneur-
Transport Geography, European Journal of Remote Sensing and Environmental ship), has a MsC in Public Management and a degree in
Science & Policy, among others. Business. She teaches Entrepreneurship, Human Re-
sources and Innovation to masters and undergraduate
courses. She is a Research Fellow at the Advance/CSG,
ISEG - Lisbon University and at the Centre of Applied
Economics Studies of the Atlantic – Azores (Portugal).
Flá1;vio Gomes Borges Tiago is an Assistant Professor at
Her main research interests include Entrepreneurship,
University of the Azores and Chairman of the Board of
Human Resources, Tourism, Healthcare Management
NONAGON – Science and technology Park of S. Miguel –
and Innovation. She has published several articles in
Azores., Ph.D. in Internet Marketing and E-business and,
international conferences and journals such as Business
has the MsC and MBA by the University of the Azores. He
Horizons and Tourism Management, among others.
teaches marketing courses and is a Research Fellow at the
Advance/CSG, ISEG - Lisbon University and at the Centre of
Applied Economics Studies of the Atlantic – Azores (Por-
tugal). Her main research interests include Knowledge
Management, Healthcare management, Digital Marketing,
Social Media, Entrepreneurship and Tourism. He has
published several articles in regional, national and inter-
nationals journals, such as Tourism Management, Business
Horizons, The Business Review, International Journal on Strategic Innovative Marketing
and Management Research News, among others.

Please cite this article as: Couto, J., et al., It’s hard to be green: Reverse green value chain. Environ. Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.05.006i