ESP-3783

Published

2025-06-27

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 6 (2025): Published

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Kai Fu, Azizah Omar

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

Fu, K., & Omar, A. (2025). Understanding organic vegetable purchase intentions in an emerging market: The role of values, risks, and knowledge. Environment and Social Psychology, 10(6), ESP-3783. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i6.3783

Understanding organic vegetable purchase intentions in an emerging market: The role of values, risks, and knowledge

Kai Fu

PhD candidate at School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

Azizah Omar

Professor of Marketing in School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia


DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i6.3783


Keywords: organic vegetables; sustainable consumption; consumer values; perceived risk; consumer knowledge; purchase intention; emerging markets

Abstract

The environmental consequences of food production, particularly crop cultivation, have become a growing global concern. In China, the high demand for vegetables has intensified agricultural practices, contributing to soil degradation and pollution. This study investigates the psychological and informational determinants of Chinese consumers’ intentions to purchase organic vegetables as a sustainable alternative. Grounded in value theory and perceived risk theory, a structural model was developed and tested using data from 650 respondents through Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Findings reveal that egoistic, altruistic, biospheric, and collectivistic values positively shape consumer attitudes, whereas financial and functional risks exert negative influences. Attitude significantly predicts purchase intention and mediates the effects of both value orientations and perceived risks. Furthermore, consumer knowledge directly enhances purchase intention but weakens the strength of the attitude–intention relationship, suggesting that informed consumers engage in more critical processing. By integrating values, perceived risks, and knowledge into a unified model, this study advances the theoretical understanding of sustainable consumption and provides practical insights for promoting organic food choices through culturally targeted marketing, transparent communication, and public education initiatives in emerging markets.

References

[1]. 1.Robinson GM. Global sustainable agriculture and land management systems. Geography and Sustainability. 2024;5(4):637-46.

[2]. 2.Food and Agriculture Organization. Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems: Global, regional and country trends, 2000–2022. Rome; 2023.

[3]. 3.Qian H, Zhu X, Huang S, Linquist B, Kuzyakov Y, Wassmann R, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation in rice agriculture. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 2023;4(10):716-32.

[4]. 4.UNESCO. UN World Water Development Report 2024. 2024.

[5]. 5.Technology， CUo. Agriculture drives more than 90% of tropical deforestation 2022 [Available from: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220908172312.htm.

[6]. 6.Fund, WW. Sustainable Agriculture 2025 [Available from: https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/sustainable-agriculture.

[7]. 7.World Population Review. Vegetable Consumption by Country 2025 2025 [Available from: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/vegetable-consumption-by-country.

[8]. 8.Zhan X, Shao C, He R, Shi R. Evolution and Efficiency Assessment of Pesticide and Fertiliser Inputs to Cultivated Land in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(7).

[9]. 9.Yang S, Chen H, Li Z, Ruan Y, Yang Q. Temporal and spatial analysis of fertilizer application intensity and its environmental risks in China from 1978 to 2022. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2024;36(1):188.

[10]. 10.Zhang X, Zhao B, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Li Y, Zhong J, et al. Sources, interactions, influencing factors and ecological risks of microplastics and antibiotic resistance genes in soil: A review. Science of The Total Environment. 2024:175226.

[11]. 11.Lin X, Qian J, Chen J, Yu Q, You L, Chen Q, et al. Potential decarbonization for balancing local and non-local perishable food supply in megacities. Resources, Environment and Sustainability. 2025;20:100206.

[12]. 12.Gamage A, Gangahagedara R, Gamage J, Jayasinghe N, Kodikara N, Suraweera P, et al. Role of organic farming for achieving sustainability in agriculture. Farming System. 2023;1(1):100005.

[13]. 13.Zou Y, Liu Z, Chen Y, Wang Y, Feng S. Crop rotation and diversification in China: Enhancing sustainable agriculture and resilience. Agriculture. 2024;14(9):1465.

[14]. 14.Cao D, Xie Q, Yao X, Zheng Y. Organic food consumption in China: food safety concerns, perceptions, and purchase behavior under the moderating role of trust. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2023;7:1319309.

[15]. 15.Anand A, Sharma M. Unveiling the impact of environmental factors on consumer purchase intention for sustainable products. International journal of environmental sciences. 2023.

[16]. 16.Fu K, Jin X, Omar A. Towards sustainable and healthier food consumption: Factors influencing organic vegetables purchase intention of Chinese consumers. Global Business & Management Research. 2024;16.

[17]. 17.Nitzko S. Consumer evaluation of food from pesticide-free agriculture in relation to conventional and organic products. Farming System. 2024;2(4):100112.

[18]. 18.Yang J, Al Mamun A, Reza MNH, Yang M, Abd Aziz N. Predicting the significance of consumer environmental values, beliefs, and norms for sustainable fashion behaviors: The case of second-hand clothing. Asia Pacific Management Review. 2024;29(2):179-94.

[19]. 19.Wei S, Liu F, She S, Wu R. Values, motives, and organic food consumption in China: a moderating role of perceived uncertainty. Frontiers in psychology. 2022;13:736168.

[20]. 20.Wu Y, Yu J. Exploring social influences and values in promoting sustainable food consumption using hybrid three stage methods. Scientific Reports. 2025;15(1):12067.

[21]. 21.Xing Y, Li M, Liao Y. Trust, price sensitivity and consumers' organic food purchasing behaviour in China. Food Science and Technology. 2022;42:e42422.

[22]. 22.Castro Campos B, Qi X. A literature review on the drivers and barriers of organic food consumption in China. Agricultural and Food Economics. 2024;12(1):18.

[23]. 23.Hu T, Al Mamun A, Reza MNH, Wu M, Yang Q. Examining consumers’ willingness to pay premium price for organic food. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024;11(1):1-15.

[24]. 24.Moroșan E, Popovici V, Popescu IA, Daraban A, Karampelas O, Matac LM, et al. Perception, Trust, and Motivation in Consumer Behavior for Organic Food Acquisition: An Exploratory Study. Foods. 2025;14(2):293.

[25]. 25.Al Mamun A, Yang M, Hayat N, Gao J, Yang Q. The nexus of environmental values, beliefs, norms and green consumption intention. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2025;12(1):1-14.

[26]. 26.Li B, Chen Z. Barriers Preventing Chinese Male Consumers from Purchasing Green Beauty Products. 2023.

[27]. 27.Park J, Ryu Y, Kim Y. Factors influencing air passengers' intention to purchase voluntary carbon offsetting programs: The moderating role of environmental knowledge. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2024;118:102619.

[28]. 28.Li J, Guo F, Xu J, Yu Z. What influences consumers’ intention to purchase innovative products: Evidence from China. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13:838244.

[29]. 29.Vega E. The Abyss of Abundance: Consumer Overconsumption and the Road to Environmental Collapse. 2024.

[30]. 30.Linder N, Giusti M, Samuelsson K, Barthel S. Pro-environmental habits: An underexplored research agenda in sustainability science. Ambio. 2022:1-11.

[31]. 31.Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology. 25: Elsevier; 1992. p. 1-65.

[32]. 32.Nazirova Z, Borbala S. Values, attitudes and the behaviour paradigm: a systematic literature review. Journal of Human Values. 2024;30(2):214-39.

[33]. 33.Kim M, Kim S, Jeon S. One in three or three in one: Integrating three competing theoretical models (TPB, VIP, and PADM) to explain the intentions to act/actions against climate change. Heliyon. 2024;10(21):e39337.

[34]. 34.Stern PC, Dietz T. The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of social issues. 1994;50(3):65-84.

[35]. 35.Yang Y, Yuan Y, Liu P, Wu W, Huo C. Crucial to me and my society: How collectivist culture influences individual pro-environmental behavior through environmental values. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2024;454:142211.

[36]. 36.Huang T, Leung AKy, Eom K, Tam K-P. Important to me and my society: How culture influences the roles of personal values and perceived group values in environmental engagements via collectivistic orientation. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2022;80:101774.

[37]. 37.Simeone M, Verneau F, Russo C. Me, us, or the planet: Who comes first? An explanatory analysis of consumer motivation for sustainable food consumption. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption. 2025:100268.

[38]. 38.Hong Y, Al Mamun A, Masukujjaman M, Yang Q. Significance of the environmental value-belief-norm model and its relationship to green consumption among Chinese youth. Asia Pacific Management Review. 2024;29(1):127-40.

[39]. 39.Park-Poaps H, Han T-I. The Roles of Perceived Threat, Organic Trust, and Consumer Effectiveness in Organic Consumption Across Different Organic Products. Sustainability. 2025;17(7):2821.

[40]. 40.Issock PBI, Mpinganjira M, Roberts-Lombard M. Beyond sustainable consumption practices: Linking organic food consumption to hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Appetite. 2023;188:106633.

[41]. 41.Dang VT, Wang J, Nguyen HV, Nguyen QH, Nguyen N. A moderated mediation study of consumer extrinsic motivation and CSR beliefs towards organic drinking products in an emerging economy. British Food Journal. 2022;124(4):1103-23.

[42]. 42.Khan Z, Khan A, Nazish M. “From farm to fork, naturally”: consumers’ intentions to buy organic food through online platforms, extending the UTAUT model with values. British Food Journal. 2025;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).

[43]. 43.Khadka C. The Psychology of Altruism: Insights from Evolutionary and Social Psychology. Namuna Academic Journal. 2025;3(1):75-91.

[44]. 44.Li H, Lin W. Would Altruistic Consumers Place A Higher Value on Sustainable Foods? Foods. 2023;12(19):3701.

[45]. 45.Weigandt S. Altruism, Empathy and Political Orientation: Antecedents of Energy Saving behaviour? 2021.

[46]. 46.Li J, Kim R. Consumers’ green attitude and behavior in China and Singapore: The role of altruistic value and perceived consumer effectiveness, economic motive. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development. 2024;8:9278.

[47]. 47.Bhakta D, Bhowmick S. Cultivating Sustainability: Organic Farming as an Alternative Paradigm. Harvesting Tomorrow. 2024:57.

[48]. 48.Fernandes E, Saraiva A. Alternative consumer practices for a sustainable identity: the perspective of organic food consumption. Journal of Marketing Management. 2022;38(3-4):279-308.

[49]. 49.Hu T, Al Mamun A, Reza MNH, Wu M, Yang Q. Examining consumers’ willingness to pay premium price for organic food. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024;11(1):1249.

[50]. 50.Chang K-F, Lin C-T, Bin Y-Q. Harmony with nature: Disentanglement the influence of ecological perception and adaptation on sustainable development and circular economy goals in country. Heliyon. 2024;10(4).

[51]. 51.Sihombing SO. The Transformation of Indonesian Consumers: Values Shaping Behavior: Penerbit NEM; 2025.

[52]. 52.Xue L-L, Chang Y-R, Shen C-C. The sustainable development of organic agriculture-tourism: The role of consumer landscape and pro-environment behavior. Sustainability. 2020;12(15):6264.

[53]. 53.Phamthi VA, Nagy Á, Ngo TM. The influence of perceived risk on purchase intention in e‐commerce—Systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2024;48(4):e13067.

[54]. 54.Koh LY, Xia Z, Yuen KF. Consumer acceptance of the autonomous robot in last-mile delivery: A combined perspective of resource-matching, perceived risk and value theories. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2024;182:104008.

[55]. 55.Qi L, Xie Y, Zhang Q, Zhang J, Ma Y. Multi-feature fusion-based consumer perceived risk prediction and its interpretability study. PloS one. 2025;20(1):e0316277.

[56]. 56.Abdul-Rahim R, Bohari SA, Aman A, Awang Z. Benefit–risk perceptions of FinTech adoption for sustainability from bank consumers’ perspective: The moderating role of fear of COVID-19. Sustainability. 2022;14(14):8357.

[57]. 57.Cabeza-Ramírez LJ, Fuentes-García FJ, Cano-Vicente MC, González-Mohino M. How generation X and millennials perceive influencers’ recommendations: Perceived trustworthiness, product involvement, and perceived risk. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2022;17(4):1431-49.

[58]. 58.Zhang Z, Hou Y. The effect of perceived risk on information search for innovative products and services: the moderating role of innate consumer innovativeness. Journal of consumer marketing. 2017;34(3):241-54.

[59]. 59.Cui L, He S, Deng H, Wang X. Sustaining customer loyalty of fresh food e-tailers: an empirical study in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 2023;35(3):669-86.

[60]. 60.Featherman M, Jia SJ, Califf CB, Hajli N. The impact of new technologies on consumers beliefs: Reducing the perceived risks of electric vehicle adoption. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021;169:120847.

[61]. 61.Imran HM, Sabbir MM. Understanding Organic Food Consumption as a Sustainable Choice in the Post-COVID Era Through the Lens of Extended Theory of Planned Behavior: The Moderating Role of Health Value. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business. 2025;16(1):21-46.

[62]. 62.Chang Y, editor Study on Buying Intention of Organic Vegetables under Perceived Risk2024: Atlantis Press.

[63]. 63.Tomassetti J. Controlling the shrink levels of organic produce: The Produce News; 2024 Available from: https://theproducenews.com/organics/controlling-shrink-levels-organic-produce.

[64]. 64.Farrah. Fake Organic Food From China is FLOODING U.S 2024 [Available from: https://doctorfarrah.com/2024/05/02/fake-organic-food-from-china-is-flooding-u-s-store-shelves-what-you-need-to-know-2/.

[65]. 65.Michałowska M, Kułyk P, Pietrow L. Consumer Risk in the Purchasing Process in the Organic Food Market. Sustainability. 2024;16(21):9205.

[66]. 66.Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. European review of social psychology. 2000;11(1):1-33.

[67]. 67.Leyva-Hernández SN, Toledo-López A, Hernández-Lara AB, Arango-Ramírez PM, Avendaño-Rito MdC. Values, attitude, and desire in organic food purchase intention in Mexico. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2025;8:1516788.

[68]. 68.Aertsens J, Verbeke W, Mondelaers K, Van Huylenbroeck G. Personal determinants of organic food consumption: a review. British food journal. 2009;111(10):1140-67.

[69]. 69.Zhang Y, Quoquab F, Mohammad J, Tao YM. Eat green, be healthy: Gen-Z’s green food purchase intention–moderated by greenwash and fear of pandemic recurrence. British Food Journal. 2025.

[70]. 70.Wang Z-X, Chee WM, Jantan AHB, Xia Y-H, Xue H, Ye M-J, et al. Impact of perceived value in virtual brand communities on purchase intention of domestic electric vehicles. Acta Psychologica. 2024;248:104371.

[71]. 71.Cahyasita D. Intention to re-consume organic food: Sensory attributes, egoistic motive, and warm glow in the extended TPB. AIMS Agriculture & Food. 2021;6(4).

[72]. 72.Guan T, Zhang Q. Value orientations, personal norms, and public attitude toward SDGs. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023;20(5):4031.

[73]. 73.Boobalan K, Nawaz N, Rm H, Gajenderan V. Influence of altruistic motives on organic food purchase: Theory of planned behavior. Sustainability. 2021;13(11):6023.

[74]. 74.Canova L, Bobbio A, Manganelli AM. Buying organic food products: the role of trust in the theory of planned behavior. Frontiers in psychology. 2020;11:575820.

[75]. 75.Teixeira SF, Barbosa B, Cunha H, Oliveira Z. Exploring the antecedents of organic food purchase intention: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. Sustainability. 2021;14(1):242.

[76]. 76.Mishra U, Thaichon P. Why is no one buying organic food? The role of nature experience and attitude antecedents on purchase intention. Asian Journal of Business Research. 2025;15(1):42-65.

[77]. 77.Jyothychandra R, Sulaimann E. Effect of consumer prior knowledge on attitude, behavioural intention and adoption of artificial intelligence enabled products: A study among generation Y and Z. International Journal of Health Sciences. 2022(II):2109-28.

[78]. 78.Nazir YaK, Maaz Ali. Consumer knowledge of organic food and attitude towards buying organic foods: Moderating role of organic food knowledge: International Islamic University; 2023.

[79]. 79.Cicciù B, Carmona LJDM. The impact of consumer skepticism on the perceived value of organic food and purchase intention. Revista de Administração da UFSM. 2024;17:e8.

[80]. 80.Nguyen TM, Park JH, Choi WL. Factors Influencing Consumer Purchase Intention toward Organic Food Products: an Empirical Study in Vietnam Market. Journal of Channel and Retailing. 2021;26(1):127-47.

[81]. 81.Tarkiainen A, Sundqvist S. Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. British food journal. 2005;107(11):808-22.

[82]. 82.Yadav R, Pathak GS. Intention to purchase organic food among young consumers: Evidences from a developing nation. Appetite. 2016;96:122-8.

[83]. 83.De Groot JIM, Steg L. Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and behavior. 2008;40(3):330-54.

[84]. 84.Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human ecology review. 1999:81-97.

[85]. 85.Shin YH, Moon H, Jung SE, Severt K. The effect of environmental values and attitudes on consumer willingness to pay more for organic menus: A value-attitude-behavior approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 2017;33:113-21.

[86]. 86.Roseira C, Teixeira S, Barbosa B, Macedo R. How collectivism affects organic food purchase intention and behavior: A study with Norwegian and Portuguese young consumers. Sustainability. 2022;14(12):7361.

[87]. 87.Kim I, Jung HJ, Lee Y. Consumers’ value and risk perceptions of circular fashion: Comparison between secondhand, upcycled, and recycled clothing. Sustainability. 2021;13(3):1208.

[88]. 88.Vega-Zamora M, Torres-Ruiz FJ, Parras-Rosa M. Towards sustainable consumption: Keys to communication for improving trust in organic foods. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;216:511-9.

[89]. 89.Li L, Wang Z, Li Y, Liao A. Consumer innovativeness and organic food adoption: The mediation effects of consumer knowledge and attitudes. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 2021;28:1465-74.

[90]. 90.Peña-García N, Gil-Saura I, Rodríguez-Orejuela A, Siqueira-Junior JR. Purchase intention and purchase behavior online: A cross-cultural approach. Heliyon. 2020;6(6).

[91]. 91.Teng C-C, Lu C-H. Organic food consumption in Taiwan: Motives, involvement, and purchase intention under the moderating role of uncertainty. Appetite. 2016;105:95-105.

[92]. 92.Hair JF, Astrachan CB, Moisescu OI, Radomir L, Sarstedt M, Vaithilingam S, et al. Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy. 2021;12(3):100392.

[93]. 93.Ab Hamid MR, Sami W, Sidek MHM, editors. Discriminant validity assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion2017: IOP Publishing.

[94]. 94.Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science. 2015;43:115-35.

[95]. 95.F. Hair Jr J, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, G. Kuppelwieser V. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European business review. 2014;26(2):106-21.

[96]. 96.Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review. 2019;31(1):2-24.

[97]. 97.Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50(2):179-211.

[98]. 98.Yadav R, Pathak GS. Young consumers' intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: Extending the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;135:732-9.

[99]. 99.Kumar B, Manrai AK, Manrai LA. Purchasing behaviour for environmentally sustainable products: A conceptual framework and empirical study. Journal of retailing and consumer services. 2017;34:1-9.

[100]. 100.Dhir A, Talwar S, Kaur P, Malibari A. Food waste in hospitality and food services: A systematic literature review and framework development approach. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;270:122861.

[101]. 101.Roh, Taewoo & Seok, Junhee & Kim, Yaeri, 2022. "Unveiling ways to reach organic purchase: Green perceived value, perceived knowledge, attitude, subjective norm, and trust," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

[102]. 102.Garg, S., Narwal, K.P. and Kumar, S. (2024), "Exploring the determinants of purchase intention of organic consumers for organic food items: an exploratory study in India", British Food Journal, Vol. 126 No. 3, pp. 1238-1258. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2023-0788

[103]. 103.Thøgersen J. Consumer decision-making with regard to organic food products. Traditional food production and rural sustainable development: Routledge; 2016. p. 173-92.

[104]. 104.Zhou Y, Thøgersen J, Ruan Y, Huang G. The moderating role of human values in planned behavior: the case of Chinese consumers' intention to buy organic food. Journal of consumer marketing. 2013;30(4):335-44.

[105]. 105.Abdul Latip M, Newaz F, Mohamad M, Tumin SA, Rahman N, Noh I. The Moderating Effect of Food Safety Knowledge on Organic Food Purchase Intention in a New Normal. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities. 2021;29:2281-99.

[106]. 106.Nautiyal S, Lal C. Product knowledge as a facilitator of organic purchase intention in emerging markets: Empirical evidence from India. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022;372:133782.

[107]. 107.Garg, S., Narwal, K. P., & Kumar, S. (2024). Economic sustainability of organic farming: An empirical study on farmer's perspective. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Management and Informatics, 10(2), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSAMI.2024.137659

[108]. 108.Huo H, Sh. Ahmad F, Teoh B. Evaluating the purchasing behavior of organic food among Chinese consumers. Young Consumers. 2023;24(6):669-85.



21 Woodlands Close #02-10, Primz Bizhub,Postal 737854, Singapore

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com