Citation: Brandão, A.; Cupertino de

Miranda, C. Does Sustainable

Consumption Behaviour Influence

Luxury Services Purchase Intention?

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906.

https://doi.org/10.3390/

su14137906

Academic Editor: Andreas Ihle

Received: 6 April 2022

Accepted: 9 June 2022

Published: 29 June 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in

published maps and institutional affil-

iations.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article

distributed under the terms and

conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution (CC BY) license (https://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/

4.0/).

sustainability

Article

Does Sustainable Consumption Behaviour Influence LuxuryServices Purchase Intention?Amélia Brandão 1,* and Carmo Cupertino de Miranda 2

1 Cef.up (Center for Economics and Finance), School of Economics and Management, University of Porto,4200 Porto, Portugal

2 Department of Management, School of Economics and Management, University of Porto,4200 Porto, Portugal; carmo_cuper@hotmail.com

* Correspondence: ameliabrandao@fep.up.pt

Abstract: The current study adds to the literature on the indirect and direct effect of sustainability inluxury services purchase intention. The agenda of researchers and professionals in the luxury industryis constantly changing, and not consensual in the literature, but sustainability has been playing animportant role in society. Luxury services have also followed this trend, although studies are stillquite limited. The aim of this study is to understand the role of sustainability in a luxury service inpurchasing decision-making. The authors employed a quantitative method approach, conducting anonline survey with 734 respondents, mainly in Europe, Brazil, and North America. The analysis ofempirical research reveals that the bigger the consideration a luxury service has for sustainability, thegreater the purchase intention of the consumer. The results confirm the role of hedonism, perceived value,high quality, status-gratification, social image, and perceived self-expression in the purchase intentiondecision, leading to an indirect and direct influence on the purchase intention. Furthermore, the findingsdemonstrate that sustainable consumption behaviour plays a mediating role in the decision-makingwhen purchasing a luxury service. The study results provide practical guidance for service managersconsidering sustainability. Practical implications for driving the growth of sustainable consumptionbehaviour conclude this article.

Keywords: sustainability; luxury services; luxury; hospitality industry

1. Introduction

Throughout the past decades, the luxury industry has gained great notoriety andimportance.

The growing demand for luxury brands is complicating the luxury market by pre-senting brand managers with new challenges [1]. The fact of understanding consumerexpectations and their ability to manage according to profit leads the company to success inbrand management [2,3]. Specifically, luxury hotels are trying to build lasting relationshipswith trustworthy customers through loyalty programs that aim to offer exclusive benefitsto their loyal customers, as well as some exclusive amenities and personalized and uniqueexperiences and services [4].

In the context of the hospitality industry, sustainability has been predominantly activeover the past decades. Many sustainability related practices are considered by hotelcustomers [5] and they have found that hotels are increasingly taking actions related towater conservation, energy efficiency, and waste reduction [6–8] It was also explored thatcustomer take into account sustainable activities in hotels [9]. Recently, pro-environmentalbehaviour in the hospitality industry showed concern within decision-making in thechoice of a sustainable hotel instead of a less sustainable one [10]. In addition, customers’characteristics, such as propensity to act in a pro-environmental way, show a high positiveimpact in their preference in selecting sustainable hotels [11–15].

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137906 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 2 of 28

Moreover, consumers who are used to travel reflect a high intention to stay in anenvironmentally friendly hotel and pay more for environmentally friendly products andservices [16–20].

It also seems that customer’s income levels aim to affect their preferences when choos-ing sustainable hotels [21,22]. Even some features, such as its size [23,24], its culturalcontext [25,26], the attitudes, and unique treatment of the employees [27] and their so-cial media strategies [28] are reflected in the impact of the effectiveness of sustainabilitystrategies.

This study aims to understand whether awareness and concern with environmentalpractices interfere in the intention and decision to purchase luxury services when motivatedby determinants, such as hedonism, perceived value, social image, high quality, status-gratification and self-expression.

Thus, the relevance of this study for the academic environment resides in the factthat today we are facing increasing importance of sustainability, which needs an analysisof what are its determinants. From the management perspective, it allows companies tounderstand and prepare themselves on the dimension of this phenomenon, by creatingactions and determinants. This allows companies to develop capabilities on the scale of thephenomenon and create effective defence mechanisms.

From a managerial perspective, this research provides understanding to servicesmanagers and marketers into how to increase sustainable consumption by developing sus-tainable practices upon the items that are influencing customer consumption and purchaseintention behaviour.

2. Literature Review2.1. Conceptual Background—Theory and Hypotheses2.1.1. Sustainability and Luxury

Standing out in the market is perhaps one of the main indicators of success for a brandor company, and sustainability plays a very important role in the search for this recognition.Sustainability differs through the set of policies and actions, economically sustainable andsocially responsible, applied to the operations and products of a company [29]. Althoughsustainability needs a clear and more precise definition, it has been around for a longtime [30]. Many authors have been devoting extensive research efforts to clarify thisconcept e.g., [31–34] however, sustainability is understood and explained in dissimilarapproaches and absence, a generally pure meaning that defines its limits [35]. Certainterms, such as green, ecology, biological, conscientious, and responsible, are also related.The values of altruism, restraint, and moderation inherent to sustainability, based onethics, contrast with hedonism, aestheticism, rarity, wealth, superfluity, and its immoralsocio-historical narrative [36].

As well as sustainability, the definition of luxury is not consensual in the literature [37].It is multiple and intangible, an ever-changing concept evolving with consumers’ tastes andlikings. Linked to an idealized life, extras need and social image, unnecessarily luxuriousitems, or intimate exceptions of self-indulgence [38], luxury varies according to individualexperiences and perceptions. This concept has been changing over time [39]. Luxury valuesare very often associated with personal and experimental pleasures, while sustainableconsumption is related to modesty and ethics [40]. Luxury is also no longer associated onlywith service, but additionally with its brand, experience, and lifestyle it represents [41].

Sustainability and luxury goals remained deemed divergent, and sustainability matterswere ignored in the luxury business [42,43]. This exponential growth in luxury revealsthat this industry is tackling a shortage of reserves [44]; in addition, there is a bigger needfor sustainable practices. Society’s ideals, theories, and goals have changed meaningfullyaround the world in the past, as they are increasingly concerned about the environmentand social effect of luxury services purchase intention [45]. Sustainability appeared asan opportunity for companies to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Thestruggle of the luxury market is not simply economic and financial (clients, market share,

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 3 of 28

sales, and revenue), but conjointly for sustainable initiatives to be able to obtain newcustomers, by satisfying their requests and exceeding expectations [46–50]. For this, luxurycompanies should fortify the link among the three main pillars of sustainability; specifically,environmental, economic, and social [51] by innovating through technology, procurement,production, packing, operations, logistics, retail, reuse, and recycling practices [52–54]. Therelationship between luxury and sustainability is a co-dependent relationship in whichone player does not exist without the other. This relationship is due to the fact that newluxury consumers have strong social and environmental values and are engaged in moresustainable consumption patterns. They combine the not only the ethical criteria, byconsidering animals and nature protection, but also the luxury consumption criteria, asuniqueness and self-concept [55,56]. Hereupon, we verify a clear duality between luxuryand sustainable consumption.

2.1.2. Sustainability and Context Luxury Services

The economic evolution in developing countries, generated by technological revolu-tion and globalization, led to an exponential increase in consumption patterns boosted bythe market, as well as unsustainable consumption. It is crucial to look at the economic issueand the cost that sustainable actions will have on a company’s coffers, such as the return oninvestment, and the capital invested must be taken into consideration. It was observed thatmany types of consumption exhaust useful resources [57]. Sustainable development is oneof the main concerns of the young world, and the concern with the sustainable aspect ofbusiness, besides its environmental and social impact, may be determinant for companies’futures and even the environment, and hospitality services and goods are an example ofthis [39].

The growth of a business must be beneficial not only to its owners; the consumerand other people involved in the production and development of that business also needto benefit. All of this must be conducted without damaging the environment in which itoperates. Corporate sustainability should also work for the company that makes use ofits policies. Actions and decisions must also be sustainable for the company, ensuring itsfuture. Proving corporate sustainability results in integrated reporting [58]. There is a clearconsensus that paths to sustainability involve a reliable supply of ecosystem services whichcontribute to human well-being [59,60]. The ecosystem service is an important backgroundin sustainability [61]. One of the major reasons that drew attention to sustainable consump-tion behaviour in the luxury market was the origin of raw materials, such as animal skins,gold, and precious stones; human labour conditions, such as the existence of clandestinefactories, forced labour, or child exploitation; manufacturing methods or disposal of envi-ronmentally harmful waste, such as the use of mercury to treat skins, among others [62].Sustainability can be transformed into a strong competitive advantage and, consequently,generate more profits for companies. Whenever there are investments in activities, cor-porate actions or programs combined with sustainable consumption behaviour and goodcommunication, there is a high chance of business success.

Services are time-based and have no transfer of ownership that occurs in servicestransactions. These are economic activities carried out by one party to another throughaccess to labour, talents, expertise, knowledge, facilities, networks, and systems [63] whichis crucial for the luxury services context. The luxury services experiences are also time-based, and are based on consumers’ values, desires, and goals [64]. As many definitions ofluxury require a focus on high-quality services, the reasons often quoted for purchasingluxury services are hedonic consumption, quality, status-gratification, perceived valueand social image, and a physical benefit of superiority that stipulates amusement, just forpurchasing intention.

2.1.3. Luxury Hospitality Industry

In tourism, sustainability represents a key driver of success for most companies [10,65–68].

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 4 of 28

In the luxury hospitality industry market, many hotels offer superior and more person-alized services to retain their loyal customers on the market of excellence [69]. The hospital-ity industry has experienced notable growth and stands for the third-largest market sharein the universal luxury industry [70,71]. The customers and businesses were more assuredabout their funds and spent extra on luxuries, such as traveling [72]. The most significanttrends stem from an essential change in luxury consumption, from possessing to being.This luxury hospitality market is characterized by experiential and unique experiences thatinclude high-quality goods and services, exclusivity, and luxury hotels [73]. A luxury hotelcan be unique, provide superiority in quality, and excellent service [70,71]. For this, thehotels should consider the importance of sustainable consumption behaviour [74,75] andadopt environmentally sustainable practices. Lately, [10] explored the pro-environmentalbehaviour in hospitality and highlighted the importance of the decision making in choosinga sustainable hotel rather than a less sustainable one. Likewise, [70,71] demonstrate thatconsumers decide to choose the luxury hotel, if it adopts new green practices.

Previously, the hospitality industry was linked to concepts, such as extreme con-sumerism, excessively high costs, elitism, or guilty pleasures. Specifically, the desire toexpress a self-concept is understood as one of the main motivations behind the choice of ahospitality brand. Therefore, consumption contributes to the creation of consumers’ self-concepts, using the brand identity, assisting to build a self-image. Furthermore, the hotelhedonic and symbolic value influence consumers’ emotions and purchase intentions [70,71].Indeed, status consumption is fundamental in luxury hospitality, despite the differencesbetween luxury hospitality services and luxury goods [76].

The new generations are increasingly aware of the social and environmental point ofview and, therefore, have greater expectations for the hospitality brands to be more sustainableand ethical in their production processes. This means that if hospitality brands want to retainthese customers, they need to develop ethical and sustainable hospitality models.

In hospitality, the brands’ activities nowadays include sustainable consumption be-haviours and development measures in their daily activities. According to the triplebottom line conceptualized by [77], sustainable achievements must cover environmental,social, and economic factors to focus on the values of the corresponding generations andminimize the negative effects. Previous research on sustainable consumption behaviourhas mainly focused on the economic dimension of sustainability [78,79]. Other authorshave specifically addressed the environmental dimension [80–83]. Few studies have high-lighted that sustainability management comprises all three pillars of sustainability [84–86].There have been pointed out various reasons and anticipations leading to sustainableconsumption behaviour performance and inquired into their repercussions on businessperformance [87–89].

Managers’ behaviour can be seen as a primary factor, since most companies in the hos-pitality industry are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), dependent on managers’choices, in discrepancy to large hotel chains [89,90]. To take advantage of a more endemicunderstanding of what drives sustainable consumption behaviour in companies, a denseradvance in the field of research that deals with dynamic organizational determinants andpossible mediators need to be affected. Thus, it is proceeded to examine the connectionbetween purchasing a luxury service and sustainable practices on sustainable consumptionbehaviours, always in the presence of intermediaries, which are understood as an elementof advantage of sustainable consumption behaviour.

2.2. Conceptual Framework and Development of HypothesesSustainable Consumption Behaviour (SCB)

The behaviour of sustainable consumption is related to consumers who place greatimportance on sustainability and aim to satisfy their basic daily needs, significantly im-proving consumers’ life quality without threatening the demands and interests of futuregenerations [91,92]. These consumers carry out activities that aim to protect the envi-ronment and give preference to this lifestyle, avoiding behaviours that harm the natural

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 5 of 28

environment, living organisms, as well as other humans [91,93]. Sustainable consumptionbehaviour takes into account the product and services life cycle, as well as manufacturing,transportation, circulation, use, disposal, recycling, etc., with the main objective of avoidingpolluting emissions and damaging the ecosystem, reducing hazards to human health, andpreventing irreversible prejudice to the environment [92,94,95].

Sustainable consumption intends to reduce environmental concerns, increase security,achieve a reasonable natural resource distribution, increase well-being, create a healthfullife, and adopt social responsibility [96]. Most of these behaviours in the hospitality industryinclude energy conservation, replacing traditional lamps for efficient ones, purchasingenergy-efficient products with low consumption, and water savings. Another crucialbehaviour is the recycling of resources and goods, and environmental protection or greenconsumption activities, and the purchase of recycled goods [91].

The influence of society can easily promote the customer’s sustainable consumptionbehaviour, and the influence of service providers, to comply with the strategy of sustainableconsumption. The hotels must provide green and sustainable products and facilities andcreate new products and services so that the concept of sustainable development canbe integrated into the accommodation and penetrate the behaviour of customers. Manyresearchers observed an increase in the number of consumers who buy luxury servicesfrom a hedonic, aesthetic, and symbolic experience that makes them acquire their benefits.

3. Hypotheses Development3.1. The Impact of Hedonism on Sustainable Consumption Behaviour

Hedonism has an important role in mediating the relationship among consumeremotions, attitudes, and behaviours in the context of luxury services [97–99], having thepredominantly empirical notion that the consumption of luxury services considers pleasureone of the main benefits [100,101]. The key to this escapism is liminality, the divergencebetween social classes and linked to the ways of being [102,103], the consumers escape therealism of their lives by purchasing a luxury service. Hedonic motivation is the person-ification of fun and pleasure within an individual that can manifest in all acts [100,101];everyone has hedonism, as pleasure remains fundamental [104]. Other studies have alsoassumed that consumers with high hedonic motivation interact enthusiastically and easilysocialize with others while shopping [105]. Nowadays, hedonism can easily promotecustomers’ sustainable consumption behaviour, as well as affect luxury service providers,to comply with the sustainable consumption strategy. [106] recognised a paradox on the fitbetween hedonism and sustainable luxury. A consumer may see sustainability as utilitarianand luxury as hedonic [107], however, [108] suggest that hedonism is part of sustainableluxury, and that sustainability is a great added value.

Services must have green and sustainable products and facilities, as well as contributeto the creation of new products and services so that sustainable development penetratescustomers’ behaviour. Therefore, when customers decide to purchase luxury services, theyare influenced by hedonism and will prefer to adopt sustainable and environmentallyfriendly consumer behaviours.

Based on discussions related to the growing importance of green consumerism anddue to the fact that several researchers have become familiar with the concept of greenmarketing, such as greenwashing and green concern [109], environmental concern [110],environmental knowledge [111], our research was carried out to test the impact of hedonismon sustainable consumption behaviour and purchase intention, to bridge the gap and thusthis research proposes the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Hedonism positively influences sustainable consumption behaviour.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 6 of 28

3.2. The Impact of Perceived Value on Sustainable Consumption Behaviour

The perceived value is based on the perceptions of the service that is offered and given;the consumer assesses its usefulness [112,113], which may also be associated with the trade-off between perceived benefits and costs. The perceived value has a great influence on thedecision-making process of customers, having a significant role in determining decision-making and purchasing behaviour. The experience perceived by customers is measuredas a value, this means that if what the customer obtained of what he bought exceeded ornot his expectations and what he had to give up obtaining it [112–114]. Therefore, it ishypothesized that:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Perceived value positively influences sustainable consumption behaviour.

3.3. The Impact of High Quality on Sustainable Consumption Behaviour

The quality and delivery of services differ from producer to producer, customer tocustomer, day to day, and hour to hour. It has been verified that to retain customers,the superior quality of the service can have a highly positive influence in the context ofhospitality, including not only customer satisfaction, but also the corporate image and caninfluence consumer retention [115]. On the other hand, hotel companies that do not deliverservice quality may face contentious issues, for instance, customer satisfaction [116,117]which may be shared in online reviews. The hospitality service reports hotel services,location, hygiene, price, safety, and staff friendliness as main aspects of service quality [118].Apart from these attributes, we can identify others that can interfere in defining hotels,delivering, and measuring service quality. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). High quality positively influences sustainable consumption behaviour.

3.4. The Impact of Status-Gratification on Sustainable Consumption Behaviour

Status-gratification is the need for a sense of accomplishment, social recognition, andthe desire to enjoy the finer things in life [119,120], the desire or need to impact other people,to control or be in a position of influence. In this motivational process, individuals striveto improve their social position through the conspicuous consumption that they conferand symbolize a status for both themselves and the other significant people around them.Consumers with a high sense of status-gratification are more conscious of appearance andvisibility, among others. Therefore, they are interested in expensive, exclusive, and uniqueservices which provide superiority among others in society. The statuses seek visibleevidence of the superior position that they claim before others, through the acquisitionof superior services, which communicate meanings about themselves in reference groups.Attitudes related to luxury consumption are directly linked to a display of wealth andsymbolic meanings of people’s social position according to the consumption of status thatmeets the needs of hedonic consumption [121]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Status-gratification positively influences sustainable consumption behaviour.

3.5. The Impact of Perceived Social Image on Sustainable Consumption Behaviour

The perceived social image is involved in major psychosocial processes, such asself-presentation, emotional responses to moral violations, meta stereotypes, and thecontrol of deviations in social groups [122]. The protection of one’s social image and otherimportant ones plays a greater role in responding to interpersonal conflict in collectivistcultures than individualist ones; people are more concerned with what other peoplethink of them than what they are. Many of the services that people enjoy are related toexclusivity and uniqueness. This need for uniqueness is a service of unsatisfactory self-evaluation [123]. Unique service experiences are one of the main reasons for consumers todifferentiate themselves from others and express their social image. Therefore, enjoying

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 7 of 28

these luxury services can also give these consumers a unique opportunity to a feeling ofsuperiority among peers. The value of services grows when their awareness of exclusivityand uniqueness increases and leads to a status superiority in a social hierarchy. Therefore,it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Perceived social image positively influences sustainable consumption behaviour.

3.6. The Impact of Self-Expression on Sustainable Consumption Behaviour

Self-expression is the act of expressing one’s self-concept or individuality through asituation [124], as is the case of enjoying and purchasing a luxury service. This relates tothe concept of conspicuous and hedonic consumption, which causes individuals to findpleasure in activities that demonstrate their status, knowledge, preferences, superiorityposition, and social image [125].

In the context of hospitality, self-expression is noteworthy, since consumers give greatsymbolic meaning to a leisure activity, superfluous [126], as in the case of luxury services,in the hospitality industry. For this, the consumer’s choice, its enjoyment, experience, andparticipation in the activities contained therein, serve as a means of expressing individualityand contributing to creating the impression to convey to others [127]. Therefore, it ishypothesized that:

Hypothesis 6 (H6). Self-expression positively influences sustainable consumption behaviour.

3.7. The Impact of Sustainable Consumption Behaviour in the Purchase Intention

Purchase intention refers to all precedence of product portfolios for consumers whenthey are in the process of decision-making [128].

Therefore, the purchase intention can be a specific selection or purchase plan for prod-ucts or services. The purchasing behaviour is connected to purchase intent and is affectedby attitudes [129]. If consumers prove a positive attitude towards the environment, theyintend to purchase green products [130]. Knowledge of the consumer’s environment [96]and the attitude towards the environment [131] acquire positive effects when they intendto purchase. These types of consumers are more likely to purchase effectively than thosewho do not intend to purchase. The green purchasing intentions have a positive effect ongreen purchasing behaviours [132].

The purchase intention of consumers of green products or services inevitably affectsthe sustainable behaviour of those who care about the environment and motivates them tochoose products that do not cause environmental damage. Thus, the intention to chooseenvironmentally friendly products or services will cause a high effect on the consumer’ssustainable consumption behaviour [93]. This study builds the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7 (H7). Sustainable consumption behaviour positively influences purchase intention.

4. Method4.1. Measures

To test the research hypothesis of the study, a self-completion questionnaire wasadministrated in English. Before launching this questionnaire, ten Portuguese individualswere requested to pre-test the questionnaire to refine the final version.

The constructs were developed based on scales from previous studies. Nine itemsadapted were used to measure sustainable consumption behaviour when purchasing aluxury service. In the questionnaire, respondents were shown a list of sustainable servicesconsumption behaviours to take into consideration when answering the following questionsto avoid different interpretations of the meaning of sustainable luxury services.

Hedonism, the desire to purchase the luxury service, was adapted from [98,100,105,133–147],and was measured using the scale: adventure; escape: fondness for the experience; fun; enjoyable

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 8 of 28

feeling (pleasure); interest in buying; search for products/service (hunting); pleasant way tospend time during purchase; joy; new product or services; enthusiasm; satisfaction; stress relief;fondness for product/service; comment sharing; forgetting problems; belonging to environment;raising self-esteem; seeing other feeling well; seizing an opportunity; enchantment, using a7-point Likert scale, (1) = totally disagree and (7) = totally agree measured each item.

Perceived value was measured using three items adapted from [148], plus threeadapted from [149], using a 7-point Likert scale, (1) = totally disagree and (7) = totally agreemeasured each item. Regarding quality measurement, three items were used, adaptedfrom [150], items adapted from [151,152], measured using a 7-point Likert scale, (1) = totallydisagree and (7) = totally agree measured each item.

Status-gratification was adapted from social value, from [153] which introduced thiscustomer value dimension into a multidimensional model. For this, four items were used,also measured using a 7-point Likert scale, (1) = totally disagree and (7) = totally agreemeasured each item. Perceived social image was adapted from [154–156] and it used sevenitems, also measured using a 7-point Likert scale, (1) = totally disagree and (7) = totallyagree measured each item.

Concerning the construct of sustainable consumption behaviour, the items were devel-oped according to [91,92,94] guidelines. Purchase intention was measured by four itemsadapted from [157,158]. Finally, self-expression behaviour was measured by six items andwas adapted from [159] a 7-point Likert scale, 1 = totally disagree and 7 = totally agree.

In the last section of the survey respondents provided their demographic data (e.g.,gender, age, nationality, and net monthly household income).

Attitude towards having a sustainable consumption was measured as a qualitative purpose,suggested by [157,160,161], ranging from bad, foolish, unpleasant, negative, unsatisfactory,unfavourable, and undesirable to good, wise, pleasant, positive, satisfactory, favourable, anddesirable respectively, since a scale was not used, demonstrated below in Table 1.

Table 1. Constructs for the research model.

Construct Definition

HedonismDesire to increase pleasure/sensory pleasure, a subjective feeling when choosing a

luxury service.(Adapted from [100,101,162–164])

Perceived valueConsumers overview on the utility of the luxury service based on perceptions of what

is provided.(Adapted from [112–114,148,165])

High qualityLuxury service expectations with respect to their performance. A high-quality service

must meet the customer’s needs.(Adapted from [58,116,117,166–168])

Status-gratification The ability to reward yourself, namely in fulfilling desires, such as luxury services.(Adapted from [58,169–172])

Perceived Social ImageMental perceptions of how others see themselves when purchasing a luxury service,

namely the luxury hospitality industry.(Adapted from [150,173]

Self-expressionSelf-expression is the degree to which participants express their self-concept or

individuality when purchasing a luxury service.(Adapted from [124,125,174])

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 9 of 28

Table 1. Cont.

Construct Definition

Attitude towards luxury services Beliefs and evaluation that can lead the customer to purchase a luxury service.(Adapted from [150,169,175–177])

Purchase intentionThe intention to perform a certain behaviour or the decision-making to purchase a

luxury service.(Adapted from [128,129,132,178])

Sustainable Consumption BehaviourSatisfy current needs while simultaneously benefiting or limiting environmental

impact, in a luxury service.(Adapted from [91,92,94]).

4.2. Data and Sample Collections

The data were collected through an online questionnaire distributed to mainstreamconsumers, since the objective of the study is to understand the impact of sustainableconsumption behaviour when purchasing a luxury service, to the luxury services con-sumers. The survey was spread through social media, one-to-one, email, and throughAmazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk is a crowdsourcing platform, a very commontechnique to engage participants for survey research [179], with the advantage of increasingthe greatest number of cross-cultural responses and data worldwide. A total of 734 validquestionnaires were obtained and retained for further analysis.

5. Results

Existing studies have adopted a quantitative methodology to identify determinants forthe adoption of sustainable luxury services, a quantitative study is more suitable for a studyof monitoring, measuring, and validating results with larger samples [180], also providinglarger insights into the importance of each determinant for assuming sustainable con-sumption behaviour when choosing a luxury service, including new variables. Hereupon,the research questions had a quantitative approach, using the of Partial Least Squares—Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) for data analysis, following the variables thatwere considered in the proposed conceptual model (see Figure 1).

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 27

Self-expression Self-expression is the degree to which participants express their self-concept or individuality when

purchasing a luxury service. (Adapted from [124,125,174])

Attitude towards luxury

services

Beliefs and evaluation that can lead the customer to purchase a luxury service. (Adapted from [150,169,175–177])

Purchase intention

The intention to perform a certain behaviour or the decision-making to purchase a luxury service. (Adapted from [128,129,132,178])

Sustainable Consumption

Behaviour

Satisfy current needs while simultaneously benefiting or limiting environmental impact, in a luxury service.

(Adapted from [91,92,94]).

4.2. Data and Sample Collections The data were collected through an online questionnaire distributed to mainstream

consumers, since the objective of the study is to understand the impact of sustainable consumption behaviour when purchasing a luxury service, to the luxury services consumers. The survey was spread through social media, one-to-one, email, and through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk is a crowdsourcing platform, a very common technique to engage participants for survey research [179], with the advantage of increasing the greatest number of cross-cultural responses and data worldwide. A total of 734 valid questionnaires were obtained and retained for further analysis.

5. Results Existing studies have adopted a quantitative methodology to identify determinants

for the adoption of sustainable luxury services, a quantitative study is more suitable for a study of monitoring, measuring, and validating results with larger samples [180], also providing larger insights into the importance of each determinant for assuming sustainable consumption behaviour when choosing a luxury service, including new variables. Hereupon, the research questions had a quantitative approach, using the of Partial Least Squares—Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) for data analysis, following the variables that were considered in the proposed conceptual model (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Theoretical model.

A model from which it is intended to give an empirical answer to the research objective by identifying the determinants when choosing a luxury service, by adopting a

Figure 1. Theoretical model.

A model from which it is intended to give an empirical answer to the research ob-jective by identifying the determinants when choosing a luxury service, by adopting asustainable consumption behaviour. An option that arises from previous empirical obser-

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 10 of 28

vation supported by the literature. This study aims to analyse sustainable consumptionbehaviour in the context of luxury services, and it is intended to analyse the growth trendof this phenomenon of sustainability. Thus, identifying the determinants and consequencesof sustainability in the decision-maker when choosing a luxury service, namely hospi-tality. PLS-SEM was selected because this analysis tests a theoretical framework with aforecasting perspective, it is a complex structural model with many constructs and rela-tionships. It is also because PLS-SEM is suitable for samples that do not follow a normaldistribution [181,182]. Smart PLS 2.0 software was used to run PLS-SEM.

5.1. Reliability and Validity of the Measures

A total of 734 valid responses to the questionnaire were obtained, a number that,according to [183], reaches the minimum necessary to proceed with the PLS-SEM analysis.Some demographic questions were not fully answered but the respondents were notremoved from the database as other relevant points in the questionnaire were fully reached.Table 2, below, illustrates the profile of respondents.

Table 2. Profile of participants—personal aspects.

Sex Frequency %

Male 430 58.9

Female 300 41.1

Age Frequency %

15–25 83 11.3

25–35 378 51.6

35–45 173 23.6

45+ 99 13.5

Income Frequency %

Until 2000 185 25.4

2000–5000 341 46.8

More than 5000 202 27.7

Country of origin Frequency %

Brazil 56 7.7

Canada 15 2.1

India 236 32.6

Italy 37 5.1

Portugal 33 4.6

Spain 11 1.5

UK 11 1.5

USA 282 39.0

Others 42 5.8

Considering Table 2, it appears that there was a reasonably balanced distribution re-garding the gender of respondents (60M/40F). As for the age group, the fact that practically75% are between 25 and 45 years old can be an indication of potential users of luxuryservices, since in this group the construction of a more stable financial life and with greaterpurchasing power is assumed for that type of service. Strictly speaking, this considerationseeks a relationship between age group and use of luxury services, which, in the data col-lection, was already somehow guaranteed by the first question of the questionnaire (Haveyou ever experienced a luxury service?). Those who were not luxury service users can

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 11 of 28

complete the questionnaire until the end, but their data were excluded when analysing theresponses. Another point that stands out in the table is that practically 75% of respondentshad an income above 2000, which supports these people regarding the possibility of usingluxury services. Finally, regarding the respondent’s country of origin, there is a greaterconcentration in India and the USA, but, in total, there was the participation of people from38 different countries, which greatly enriched the scope of the research.

Following [184], the proposed theoretical model was initially evaluated regardingthe loading of items (phrases) in each construct (cross-loading), composite reliability,convergent validity, and discriminant validity. This initial procedure allows for checkingthe reliability (the phrases are related to each other) and the validity (the phrases analysethe construct) of the collection instruments used.

Factor loadings are the correlation of each measured variable (indicator, assertion, orphrase) with the factor (or construct) related to it, indicating the degree of correspondencebetween the variables and the factor. Factor loadings are, therefore, the means of inter-preting the role that each variable plays in factor definition, with larger loads making thevariable more representative of the factor [183].

However, a phrase can be linked to two different factors. Therefore, it is necessaryto cross-loading analysis, which indicates whether each variable is associated with only asingle factor or if it has factor loadings relevant to more than one factor or to a differentfactor than expected when building the model [183,185]. This analysis has both a qualitativecharacter (alignment of each variable to its respective factor) and a quantitative one (valueof the factor loading of a variable in each factor). During the analysis, the phrases in thequestionnaire that did not show minimum acceptable adherence to the model adjustments(factor loading <0.7) were removed. As shown, below in Table 3, loads of the remainingitems are above the value of 0.7, as recommended by [181]. In this analysis, in additionto verifying the factorial validity of the constructs, there is an early indication of theirdiscriminant validity [186].

Table 3. Cross-loadings of indicators into constructs.

Hedonism HighQuality

PerceivedSocial Image

PerceivedValue

PurchaseIntention

SustainableConsumption

Behaviour

Self-Expression

Status-Gratification

Hedon07 0.713 0.192 0.512 0.364 0.456 0.488 0.521 0.460

Hedon10 0.705 0.303 0.552 0.439 0.409 0.449 0.516 0.465

Hedon15 0.788 0.166 0.559 0.376 0.437 0.490 0.616 0.572

Hedon17 0.786 0.276 0.545 0.468 0.449 0.552 0.608 0.552

Hedon18 0.769 0.317 0.603 0.493 0.448 0.533 0.610 0.588

Hedon19 0.770 0.285 0.508 0.432 0.459 0.508 0.488 0.490

Hedon20 0.746 0.296 0.492 0.426 0.466 0.467 0.494 0.420

Hedon21 0.721 0.370 0.555 0.514 0.429 0.495 0.530 0.478

PSI01 0.476 0.566 0.741 0.597 0.500 0.526 0.472 0.461

PSI02 0.528 0.462 0.803 0.536 0.507 0.499 0.493 0.518

PSI03 0.555 0.437 0.820 0.537 0.494 0.536 0.558 0.536

PSI04 0.604 0.327 0.807 0.537 0.559 0.602 0.696 0.646

PSI05 0.668 0.247 0.789 0.495 0.541 0.636 0.778 0.716

PerVal01 0.363 0.666 0.480 0.751 0.373 0.429 0.320 0.327

PerVal02 0.602 0.401 0.632 0.706 0.434 0.530 0.642 0.679

PerVal04 0.468 0.594 0.553 0.857 0.508 0.521 0.476 0.448

PerVal05 0.394 0.656 0.482 0.800 0.440 0.444 0.367 0.361

PerVal06 0.463 0.606 0.521 0.839 0.485 0.504 0.438 0.424

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 12 of 28

Table 3. Cont.

Hedonism HighQuality

PerceivedSocial Image

PerceivedValue

PurchaseIntention

SustainableConsumption

Behaviour

Self-Expression

Status-Gratification

PurInt01 0.557 0.298 0.601 0.456 0.811 0.696 0.611 0.505

PurInt02 0.523 0.374 0.575 0.501 0.883 0.673 0.532 0.431

PurInt03 0.474 0.381 0.540 0.506 0.879 0.632 0.512 0.410

PurInt04 0.471 0.375 0.541 0.495 0.862 0.618 0.465 0.389

Quality01 0.289 0.872 0.440 0.635 0.340 0.359 0.262 0.295

Quality02 0.321 0.875 0.421 0.638 0.343 0.408 0.290 0.319

Quality03 0.350 0.878 0.460 0.645 0.402 0.419 0.322 0.351

SCB01 0.518 0.402 0.586 0.528 0.623 0.831 0.624 0.510

SCB02 0.537 0.428 0.588 0.556 0.644 0.858 0.591 0.497

SCB03 0.584 0.340 0.592 0.463 0.628 0.798 0.613 0.542

SCB04 0.550 0.323 0.577 0.486 0.619 0.802 0.660 0.512

SE01 0.599 0.433 0.646 0.589 0.531 0.652 0.752 0.588

SE02 0.605 0.278 0.664 0.490 0.477 0.616 0.856 0.723

SE03 0.656 0.288 0.679 0.502 0.564 0.679 0.895 0.726

SE04 0.654 0.257 0.665 0.481 0.550 0.658 0.902 0.715

SE05 0.615 0.203 0.625 0.411 0.487 0.594 0.852 0.689

SE06 0.629 0.253 0.670 0.485 0.567 0.675 0.876 0.710

Status-G01 0.598 0.366 0.672 0.532 0.465 0.548 0.702 0.877

Status-G02 0.628 0.335 0.660 0.522 0.458 0.569 0.742 0.916

Status-G03 0.592 0.301 0.656 0.508 0.461 0.575 0.732 0.912

Status-G04 0.600 0.325 0.656 0.508 0.439 0.557 0.727 0.885

After the cross-loading analyses, the composite reliability and convergent validitywere evaluated. Reliability indicates that the phrases in the questionnaire are related to eachother. Convergent validity means that these same phrases are measuring the correspondingconstruct and no others. Table 4 below summarizes the convergent validity (AVE) andcomposite reliability (CR) metrics for the scales. According to the guidelines proposedby [187], the scales used in this study presented parameters considered appropriate forboth measures (AVE > 0.5; CR > 0.7).

Table 4. Summarizes the convergent validity (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) metrics for the scales.

AVE Composite Reliability

Hedonism 0.563 0.911

High Quality 0.765 0.907

Perceived Social Image 0.628 0.894

Perceived Value 0.628 0.894

Purchase Intention 0.739 0.919

Sustainable ConsumptionBehaviour 0.677 0.893

Self-expression 0.734 0.943

Status-gratification 0.806 0.943

Finally, to verify the discriminant validity of the scales, the procedure recommendedby [188] was followed, comparing the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE)

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 13 of 28

of each construct with the Pearson correlation verified between the constructs. If there isdiscriminant validity, the correlations would have values smaller than the square root of theAVE of the scales. As can be seen below in Table 5, the correlations between the constructswere below the square root of the AVE of each construct, indicating the existence ofdiscriminant validity in the scales used. At the end of this stage, all parameters (compositereliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity) obtained satisfactory indices.

Table 5. Discriminant validity.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Hedonism 0.750

2. High Quality 0.368 0.875

3. Perceived Social Image 0.721 0.503 0.793

4. Perceived Value 0.586 0.731 0.680 0.793

5. Purchase Intention 0.592 0.415 0.659 0.570 0.859

6. SustainableConsumption Behaviour 0.665 0.454 0.712 0.618 0.765 0.823

7. Self-expression 0.732 0.334 0.770 0.577 0.620 0.756 0.857

8. Status-gratification 0.673 0.369 0.736 0.576 0.508 0.626 0.809 0.898

Finally, in a study such as this, using a self-reported questionnaire, where the samedata sources and research context were used to measure different constructs, there maybe the occurrence of systematic error, the so-called Common Method Bias (CMV), gen-erator of the variance of the common method, causing spurious values for the studiedrelationships [189–191]. To reduce any common method variance problem and ensure dataefficiency, Harman’s single factor test was performed, first testing whether an unrotatedsingle factor solution arises from the exploratory factor analysis test, and secondly testingwhether a general factor accounts for most of the variance between items. The results showthat the unrotated factor solution revealed five factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1.The greatest variance explained by a general factor was 46.015%, indicating that no singlefactor was responsible for more than 50% of the variance between items. This suggests thatcommon method bias was not a verified problem and therefore the sample data can beaccepted as valid [189–191].

5.2. Hypothesis Testing

After the analyses that proved that the scales used were valid and reliable, the theoret-ical model was analysed, following the statistical analysis of the relationships between theconstructs involved in it, which shows the result of the structural equation model generatedby the SmartPLS software. Table 6 shows the results of the structural model with the esti-mated path coefficients and the associated t values of each path, indicating that all of themare significant (t > 1.96), with 95% confidence, with the status-gratification→ sustainableconsumption behaviour relation within the limit of this significance (t = 1.956). The modelaccounts for 64.9% of the variance of sustainable consumption behaviour (R2 = 0.649) and58.5% of purchase intention (R2 = 0.585), indicating the model’s ability to explain the re-lationships between the constructs. Thus, hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H5, H6, and H7 weresupported, with the hypothesis H4 at the limit of significance and, oddly, with an inverted(negative) sign since a positive relationship was expected between status -gratification andsustainable consumption behaviour. Please see below in Table 6.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 14 of 28

Table 6. Structural model—path coefficients and respective statistical significance.

Paths Paths Coefficients Standard Error T Value

Hedonism—Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.135 0.045 3.022

High Quality—Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.105 0.043 2.427

Perceived Social Image—Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.170 0.058 2.935

Perceived Value—Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.113 0.056 2.004

Sustainable Consumption Behaviour—Purchase intention 0.765 0.023 33.720

Self-expression—Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.515 0.059 8.731

Status-gratification—Sustainable Consumption Behaviour -0.109 0.056 1.956

Such results led to speculation about the potential existence of multicollinearity be-tween the antecedent variables of sustainable consumption behaviour. The phenomenon ofmulticollinearity occurs due to the high correlation between independent variables, so thattheir relationships with the dependent variable can be compromised, without being ableto safely establish such relationships, as happened with status-gratification→ sustainableconsumption behaviour.

Table 7 below shows the VIF values, with some of them above the conservative limit of 3.

Table 7. Variance inflation factor. (*) antecedent variables of sustainable consumption behaviour.

Antecedent Variables (*) VIF

Hedonism 2.575

High Quality 2.257

Perceived Social Image 3.546

Perceived Value 3.234

Self-expression 3.998

Status-gratification 3.241(*) Variables antecents of Sustainable Consumption Behaviour.

The analysis of correlations (see Table 8, below) between the same variables indicatedhigh and significant values, but only the pair self-expression and status-gratification wasabove 0.8, implying that these two variables would be the most problematic, owing one ofthem be eliminated.

Table 8. Correlation coefficients. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Hedonism 1

2. High Quality 0.368 ** 1

3. Perceived Social Image 0.721 ** 0.503 ** 1

4. Perceived Value 0.586 ** 0.731 ** 0.680 ** 1

5. Self-expression 0.732 ** 0.334 ** 0.770 ** 0.577 ** 1

6. Status-gratification 0.673 ** 0.369 ** 0.736 ** 0.576 ** 0.808 ** 1

To verify which of the two variables brought a greater contribution to the model, twoalternatives were tested: (1) model with self-expression and without status-gratification and(2) model without self-expression and with status-gratification. In both, the explanatorypower of purchase intention was the same (R2 = 0.585) and similar to the original model thatcontained the two variables. For the case of sustainable consumption behaviour, however,

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 15 of 28

model 1, with self-expression and without status-gratification, showed greater explanatorypower (R2 = 0.645) and proximity of the original model with the two variables, than model2, without self-expression and with status-gratification, which had an R2 equal to 0.582.Thus, it was demonstrated that the best variable to be eliminated to avoid the phenomenonof multicollinearity is status-gratification, resulting in the model.

Concerning the hypotheses, Hypothesis 4 (status-gratification → sustainable con-sumption behaviour) was disregarded by the elimination of status-gratification and a newframework of relationships was established, as can be seen below in Table 9. In this newscenario, the hypotheses H1, H3, H5, H6, and H7 were supported, and the hypothesis H2was rejected.

Table 9. Structural model without status-gratification—path coefficients and respective statistical significance.

Paths Path Coefficients Standard Error t Value

Hedonism—Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.126 0.046 2.760

High Quality—Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.105 0.041 2.536

Perceived Social Image—Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.147 0.054 2.732

Perceveid Value—Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.105 0.059 1.791

Sustainable Consumption Behaviour—Purchase Intention 0.765 0.023 32.966

Self-expression—Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.455 0.051 8.968

The statistical robustness of the test performed was verified using the G*Power® 3.1.9.2software, obtaining as a result a power value greater than 0.99 (post-hoc test) and effectsizes (f2) greater than 0.35, considering large effect sizes, from hedonism, high quality,perceived social image, perceived value, and self-expression to sustainable consumptionbehaviour, as well as from sustainable consumption behaviour to purchase intention.

Finally, considering the structure of the proposed model, the possibility of sustainableconsumption behaviour acting as a mediating variable in the relationship of hedonism,high quality, perceived social image, perceived value, and self-expression, with purchaseintention was speculated.

The analyses showed the existence of direct and significant paths from hedonism,perceived social image, perceived value, and self-expression to purchase intention in theabsence of the mediator variable sustainable consumption behaviour, as shown in Table 10.The direct relationship between high quality and purchase intention did not prove to besignificant.

When analysing the effects of hedonism, high quality, perceived social image, per-ceived value and self-expression on purchase intention through sustainable consumptionbehaviour (indirect effects), it is noticed the existence of a mediating effect of this variableon the direct paths previously verified, either due to loss of significance or loss of intensityand consequent influence of indirect (mediated) paths. The paths between hedonism,high quality, perceived social image, perceived value and self-expression with sustainableconsumption behaviour and then with purchase intention were all significant, the firstcondition for the mediating effect. The significance of indirect paths was verified by theSobel test, which shows such significance with 95% confidence when the test value isgreater than 1.96. The questioning that is often asked of the Sobel test for being based onthe standard normal distribution (z scores) was offset by the sample size used [185,192,193].Please see Table 10, below.

Thus, it follows that: (a) the direct and significant path between hedonism and pur-chase intention in the absence of the mediator becomes non-significant in the presenceof sustainable consumption behaviour, offering this variable a significant indirect path;(b) the direct and non-significant path between high quality and purchase intention inthe absence of the mediator, does not change in the presence of sustainable consumptionbehaviour, however offering an indirect and significant path; (c) the direct and significant

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 16 of 28

path between perceived social image and purchase intention in the absence of the medi-ator remains significant in the presence of sustainable consumption behaviour, but withless intensity and with the existence of an indirect path, this one also significant, whichcould be called partial mediation, despite the fact that such expression does not informwhich portion of the effect is exerted via mediation [194]; (d) the direct and significantpath between perceived value and purchase intention in the absence of the mediator be-comes non-significant in the presence of sustainable consumption behaviour, but there isno significant indirect path through the variable; and, finally, the direct and significant pathbetween self-expression and purchase intention in the absence of the mediator becomesnon-significant in the presence of sustainable consumption behaviour, offering this variablea significant indirect path. In terms of explanatory power concerning purchase intention,the direct model, without mediating variable, presents an R2 of 0.497, while the model withthe mediating variable moves this indicator to 0.616, indicating the best explanation of themodel with mediation.

Table 10. Path coefficients—sustainable consumption behaviour mediation action.

Pathswithout Meditation with Meditation

Direct t Value Direct t Value Indirect Sobel

Hedonism—Purchase Intention 0.140 2.359 0.065 1.266 0.073 2.737

High Quality—Purchase Intention 0.042 0.771 −0.014 0.300 0.060 2.372

Perceived Social Image—Purchase Intention 0.272 3.289 0.190 2.628 0.085 2.638

Perceveid Value—Purchase Intention 0.156 2.347 0.088 1.573 0.063 1.876

Self-expression—Purchase Intention 0.209 3.087 −0.060 0.906 0.266 7.260

Considering all the results obtained, it is concluded that sustainable consumptionbehaviour plays a mediating role of hedonism, high quality, perceived social image, and self-expression for purchase intention, the same not occurring when considering the relationshipbetween perceived value and purchase intention.

This situation can be corroborated by qualitative questions that were presented torespondents about aspects related to ecologically responsible luxury services and whoseanswers are shown below, in Table 11.

Table 11. Questions related to ecologically responsible luxury services.

QuestionYes No

Frequency % Frequency %

1. Usually, you choose a luxury service withenvironmentally friendly clothing, labelling, products orpackaging techniques

595 81.7 133 18.3

2. Usually, you choose a luxury service for havingclothes made from organically grown natural fibers orrecycled materials

533 72.9 198 27.1

3. I would recommend this service to friends or relatives 697 95.5 33 4.5

4. This service was more than a service for me 618 84.5 113 15.5

5. This service was special to me 657 90.2 71 9.8

As can be seen in Table 11, questions involving ecologically sustainable luxury servicesalways received favourable opinions from respondents as the question addressed theparameters for choosing the service sought (usually, you choose a luxury service withenvironmentally friendly clothing, labelling, products, or packaging techniques/usually,you choose a luxury service to have clothes made from organically grown natural fibres or

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 17 of 28

recycled materials), with a clear identity of the service proposal with the significance it hasfor the respondent (I would recommend this service to friends or relatives/this service wasmore than a service for me/this service was special to me).

Finally, the respondents were asked questions related to their attitude towards sus-tainable consumption behaviour, whose answers are shown below in Table 12.

Table 12. Answers to the question: For me, choosing a sustainable consumption behaviour is . . . .

Alternatives Frequency %

Bad 17 3.0

Good 546 97.0

Foolish 29 11.4

Wise 225 88.6

Unpleasant 13 4.5

Pleasant 276 95.5

Negative 16 3.8

Positive 410 96.2

Unsatisfactory 13 4.2

Satisfactory 296 98.8

Unfavourable 10 3.2

Favourable 306 96.8

Undesirable 13 5.3

Desirable 230 94.7

Corroborating the data in Tables 11 and 12 shows responses that adhere to the idea ofsustainable consumption behaviour, even when there is no specification of this behaviouraimed at luxury services. Thus, most respondents consider sustainable consumption be-haviour as good, wise, pleasant, positive, satisfactory, favourable, and desirable, reinforcingthe idea of applying this same behaviour to the sustainable consumption of luxury services.

6. Discussion

This study examined the relationship between luxury services, hedonism, perceivedvalue, high quality, status-gratification, perceived social image and self-expression, con-sidering sustainable consumption behaviour, which may influence and lead to purchaseintention. The literature review revealed that these links are not widely investigated, butthat they may be important in understanding the reasons why consumers buy and chooseluxury services. This study contributes to the literature on sustainable luxury servicesand purchase intention, since the purchase intention motivations of luxury brands arerelated to consumer characteristics; that is, demographic, cultural, social, and economicfactors [29,58,195]. It enriches the literature by investigating the relationship betweensustainability and luxury, since the ideals, theories, and goals of society are constantlychanging around the world, and people are increasingly concerned about the environmentand the social effect of the intention to purchase luxury services [45]. Based on our study,we can state that, according to [36], values of altruism, restraint, and moderation inherentto sustainability, based on ethics, contrast with hedonism, aestheticism, rarity, richness,superfluousness, and its social narrative immoral history.

In addition to the literature the context of luxury services, and the indirect effect of luxurybrand value on purchase intent, which according to [46,196], the luxury market is growing.According to many authors, [10,65–68], in the tourism industry, sustainability representsthe main driver of success, and it is the third largest market share in the universal luxuryindustry [70,71]. Moreover, we supplemented the literature on the exploration of the luxury

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 18 of 28

hospitality industry, using sustainability as a mediator in purchase intention, since in thehospitality industry, sustainability has been a major focus, as they are considered practicesrelated to sustainability by customers [5]. Furthermore, it was studied which customersconsider sustainable activities in hotels [9]. Recently, the pro-environmental behaviour ofhospitality has shown concern in the decision to choose a sustainable hotel instead of aless sustainable one [10] and customers have shown great impact in choosing sustainablehotels [11–15,70,71] which can be justified above. Based on our study, it was found thathedonism, perceived value, high quality, perceived social image and self-expression related tosustainable consumption behaviour positively affect purchase intention, in contrast to status-gratification. It is worth mentioning that all determinants influence purchase intention in apositive way, with the exception of status-gratification. Therefore, sustainable consumptionbehaviour plays a mediating role in hedonism, high quality, perceived social image and self-expression for purchase intention, the same not happening when considering the relationshipbetween perceived value and purchase intention.

First, the paths between hedonism, high quality, perceived social image, perceivedvalue and self-expression with sustainable consumption behaviour and then with purchaseintention were all significant, they were the first condition for the mediating effect. We canverify that hedonism is supported by the conclusions of [70,71], that suggest that hedonisminfluences consumers’ emotions and purchase intention, and reproduces emotional values,which we can confirm a predominance of the empirical consumption of luxury servicesconsiders pleasure and playfulness one of the main benefits [98,101]. Thus, the direct andsignificant path between hedonism and purchase intention in the absence of the mediatorbecomes non-significant in the presence of sustainable consumption behaviour, offeringthis variable a significant indirect path; considering all the results obtained, sustainable con-sumption behaviour plays, in addition to hedonism, a mediating role in high quality, whichaccording to some studies is based on the interaction between customer and employee [167],and other attributes, such as hygiene, price, safety, and friendliness of the staff [118]. Con-cerning perceived social image and self-expression for purchase intention, the same doesnot occur when considering the relationship between perceived value and purchase inten-tion, which can be corroborated by qualitative questions that were presented to respondentsabout aspects related to ecologically responsible luxury services. It was confirmed thatluxury services involve important psychosocial processes, such as self-presentation, emo-tional responses to moral violations, meta-stereotypes, and the control of deviations insocial groups [122], and are linked to an idealized life, need for extras, and social imageof unnecessarily luxurious items or intimate exceptions of self-indulgence [38]. Moreover,we realized that self-expression, perceived social image and hedonism are the greatestpredictors of the constructs and, therefore, the ones with the greatest indirect influenceon purchase intention, taking into consideration the sustainable consumption behaviour.Excluding mediation, we can verify that the determinants of self-expression, perceivedsocial image and perceived value are the biggest predictors, this means they are the majorinfluencers in the consumer’s decision to choose a luxury service, that is, purchase intentiondirectly. This means that hedonism, high quality, perceived social image, perceived valueand self-expression can act as decision-makers for sustainable consumption behaviour.However, respondents reported positive perceptions of sustainable services, intending topurchase luxury services, planning, willing and intending to have a sustainable behaviourwhen choosing a luxury service. Furthermore, we can highlight that self-expression isthe most significant determinant, in the presence of sustainable consumption behaviourcompared to all others, which may be associated with a demonstration of individualitythrough the use of luxury services. This means, how people wilfully see their spirit andtrue character of who the person really is, related to hedonic consumption, which makespeople enjoy activities that demonstrate their status, knowledge, preferences, superiorposition, and social image [125], as a decisive factor for consumers to purchase intention,considering the sustainable consumption behaviour. Hereupon, the WOM effect should bea booster to stimulate consumer decision-making, maintaining personal high confidence.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 19 of 28

These results may be related to [150], who state that the social dimension of luxury isrelated to the recognition that the individual obtains, in social groups, as conspicuous andprestigious. According to [29,58,195], luxury is associated with dreams and encompassesmotivations, such as rarity, timelessness, personal rewards, and hedonism; moreover, thedimension comprises seduction and is associated with social status, lifestyle, and highersocial position and approval by society. The status-gratification directly to the mediator werealized that contrary to what was stated by [76], status consumption is not fundamental inluxury hospitality, despite the differences between luxury hospitality services and luxurygoods, hence it was eliminated, the determinant status-gratification, and this determinant,came to be disregarded by the elimination of the status bonus.

Second, the findings of this study suggest that environmental knowledge for sustain-able consumption has a direct influence on purchase intent, which refer to all precedenceof product portfolios for consumers when they are in the decision-making process [128].Based on this knowledge, and according to the study, green purchasing intentions havea positive effect on green purchasing behaviours [132]. This result can demonstrate thatconsumers are informed and aware, but that there are still consumers who are not so awareof this, which can lead to an obstacle in creating a positive intention towards sustainableconsumption and responses may arise from ignorance of environmental impacts, sincestatus-gratification was eliminated due to diffuse agreement with the items. Then accordingto [74,75], it must be considered the importance of sustainable consumption behaviour andadopting environmentally sustainable practices. It was found that high quality has the leastimpact on sustainable consumption behaviour and, consequently, on purchase intention,which means that people are not so concerned about the quality of services, contrary towhat was studied by [39,58,73] who claimed it to be important.

Finally, considering all the results obtained, it is concluded that sustainable consump-tion behaviour plays a mediating role of hedonism, high quality, perceived social image,and self-expression for purchase intention, the same not occurring when considering therelationship between perceived value and purchase intention. This situation can be sup-ported by qualitative questions that were presented to respondents about aspects related toecologically responsible luxury services.

7. Conclusions

Considering customer’s perceptions is always essential for proper decision-makingand purchase intention. Specifically, in the context of luxury services, where customerimpressions are a determining element in attracting consumers and marketing strategiesthat lead them to buy. Luxury, according to [38], is linked to an idealized life, extraneeds and social image with unnecessarily luxurious items or intimate exceptions of self-indulgence, and associated with personal and experimental pleasures, while sustainableconsumption is related to modesty and ethic [40]. Therefore, marketers consider thisinformation when creating consumer segments and strategies. Studies of luxury productsor services are not new in the specialized literature; therefore, this study contributes to theexisting literature on luxury services, sustainable consumption behaviour and expands theinfluence on the intention to purchase sustainable luxury services.

However, several studies were carried out in different contexts without a clear consen-sus on the concept of luxury [37], although characteristics, such as high price and premiumquality, are common variables within the current concept of luxury brands [197,198]. Inaddition to luxury, several authors, such as [30], do not have a concrete definition of sustain-ability, only that luxury values are associated with personal and experimental pleasures,while sustainable consumption is related to modesty and ethics [40]. Some authors suggestthat the relationship between luxury brands and sustainability [39] gives rise to variablescloser to consumer decision-making, leading to their purchase. Thus, understanding howconsumers’ minds operate in a highly competitive market is critical since consumer per-ceptions influence behavioural intent towards luxury services. Therefore, in the existingliterature, this work develops a conceptualized model for the intention to purchase a luxury

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 20 of 28

service from the consumer’s perception of sustainability; the results of this work contributeto the current body of knowledge in several ways. Thus, one of the strengths of this workis the contribution of knowledge concerning the relationship of these variables in the newcontext of luxury services.

The most important finding is the relationship between the value of the variablesand sustainability, which shows that the value of sustainability positively increases theintention to purchase luxury services, in line with the results [41]. Although the effectof this relationship is not new, it is an interesting contribution to a model with variables,such as hedonism, perceived value, high quality, status-gratification, perceived socialimage, self-expression, and customer attitude in a new context. Therefore, and follow-ing the considerations of [122,125] people enjoy luxury services that demonstrate theirstatus, knowledge, preferences, superior position, and social image, which are the mainantecedents of the intention to purchase.

As a matter of fact, the results suggest that both self-expression and perceived socialimage significantly influence the consumer’s purchase intention, in line with the findingsobtained by [199], in which the social needs of consumers impact the buying and choosingof luxury services as an extension of your social identity or social traits. These dimensionshad a similar predictive load. However, it is confirmed that social characteristics, dependingon social identity and based on sustainable behaviour, positively and significantly influencepurchase intention. In this sense, the importance of the brand in the development ofthe customer identity is evident, as well as the ability to generate effective bonds withconsumers [39]. It is also important to highlight that sustainable consumption behaviour isa strong moderator of all determinants, with a very similar and very significant predictiveload, among them, as occurs between these two dimensions in terms of purchase intention.

The luxury service industry is constantly facing new challenges. The current studytakes along some important contributions and managerial implications, which can beadopted by luxury service managers, in order to increase their competitiveness in attractingnew customers and carry out strategies focused on social and environmental aspects.

First, our results show that it is important to consider sustainable consumption andhighlight the compatibility between luxury and environmental sustainability practicesin the context of luxury services. Some of the practices can be adopted at an environ-mental level, aiming to reduce energy and water consumption, in order to obtain bettereconomic results. In the case of energy, actions include measuring the carbon footprint andimplementing corrective measures that encourage the use of renewable energy. Associatedwith sustainability, we must consider another resource that is increasingly scarce: water,for which control measures, such as flow meters, can be implemented. Along with thesecomplex actions, there are other important measures, such as the recycling of paper, plastic,or glass, toners, the use of recycling baskets, energy-efficient showers, and refillable hygieneproduct dispensers. Therefore, companies must incorporate environmental concerns andresponsibilities into their core values and communicate their green efforts consistently andcoherently with the company’s overall strategies and actions. This study shows managersthat the adoption of environmental practices can be considered an investment and nota cost. Including these practices, the level of customer satisfaction is high, and the com-pany’s image increases notoriety. Thus, consumers trust companies’ ecological efforts andstrategies, communicating them in a clear and honest way, incorporating this concern andenvironmental responsibility into the core values and identity of the brand.

Second, in the luxury segment, most customers want to be associated with people fromthe same socioeconomic class. In this way, the company uses luxury services, emphasizingexclusivity so that its customers can enjoy, value, and use the WOM by sharing theirexperiences in their social group. For example, a luxury hotel is a symbol of a luxuryvacation or can be associated with a certain region. Furthermore, the WOM effect mustalso be strengthened to stimulate consumer decision-making, maintaining good levels ofconfidence. They will be willing to advertise the service and, consequently, enjoy moreservices from that brand, by attending to specific customer needs.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 21 of 28

Third, in this technological era, managers must be aware and follow social networks,such as social media, where they can share, communicate, and implement new marketingstrategies. For example, using influencers who share their experiences, and influencepotential consumers, which take into consideration the image and social status.

Finally, luxury service managers must develop sustainable practices and adjust newstrategies by satisfying and meeting the consumers specific needs. This study shows thatthe aforementioned factors are the key to luxury service competitiveness, positive results,and new potential customers.

8. Limitations and Future Research

Although this study adds knowledge to the literature, its limitations should be noted,which should be improved in future studies.

Based on the nature of this study, the data collected through self-administered ques-tionnaires are limited to the respondent’s ability to correctly read and interpret each item,as well as the free will to carry out or not to the end, hence some of the answers have notbeen answered by all participants.

This research is restricted to the consumption of sustainable luxury services. Futureresearch may investigate the impact of barriers to sustainable consumption of services inrelation to purchasing intentions. Future research can use and compare different effectsof barriers, that is, use other items that can change the consumer’s purchase decisionand choice, giving a special focus to sustainable behaviour, also delimiting whether ourpredictive model offers different results for different behaviours.

Another crucial limitation was related to the selection of barriers and variables to beincluded in this model created by the authors. Future studies may add other variablesregarding sustainable luxury services to explore how they influence purchase intent.

Since this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, it maybe interesting to understand whether the barriers that impact individual perceptions ofsustainable luxury services have changed significantly over this specific period or whetherthere has been no significant difference.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.B.; Methodology, A.B. and C.C.d.M.; Software, A.B. Allauthors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References1. Hennigs, N.; Wiedmann, K.P.; Behrens, S.; Klarmann, C. Unleashing the power of luxury: Antecedents of luxury brand perception

and effects on luxury brand strength. J. Brand Manag. 2013, 20, 705–715. [CrossRef]2. Atwal, G.; Williams, A. Luxury Brand Marketing- The experience is everything! J. Brand Manag. 2009, 16, 338–346. [CrossRef]3. Babin, B.J.; Lee, Y.K.; Kim, E.J.; Griffin, M. Modeling consumer satisfaction and word-of-mouth: Restaurant patronage in Korea. J.

Serv. Mark. 2005, 19, 133–139. [CrossRef]4. Lo, A.S.; Im, H.H.; Chen, Y.; Qu, H. Building Brand relationship quality among hotel loyalty program members. Int. J. Contemp.

Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 458–488. [CrossRef]5. Sourvinou, A.; Filimonau, V. Planning for an environmental management programme in a luxury hotel and its perceived impact

on staff: An exploratory case study. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 649–667. [CrossRef]6. Rhou, Y.; Singal, M. A review of the business case for CSR in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 84, 102–330.

[CrossRef]7. Richins, H.; Scarinci, J. Climate change and sustainable practices: A case study of the resort industry in Florida. TOURISMOS Int.

Multidiscip. J. Tour. 2009, 4, 107–128.8. Rico, A.; Olcina, J.; Banos, C.; Garcia, X.; Sauri, D. Declining water consumption in the hotel industry of mass tourism resorts:

Contrasting evidence for Benidorm, Spain. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 23, 770–783. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 22 of 28

9. Moyeen, A.; Kamal, S.; Yousuf, M. A content analysis of CSR research in Hotel Industry, 2006–2017. In Responsibility andGovernance; Crowther, D., Seifi, S., Wond, T., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 163–179.

10. Kim, J.; Kim, S.; Lee, J.S.; Kim, P.B.; Cui, Y. Influence of choice architecture on the preference for a pro-environmental hotel. J.Travel Res. 2020, 59, 512–527. [CrossRef]

11. Baker, M.A.; Davis, E.A.; Weaver, P.A. Eco-friendly attitudes, barriers to participation, and differences in behaviour at greenhotels. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2014, 55, 89–99. [CrossRef]

12. Nilashi, M.; Ahani, A.; Esfahani, M.D.; Yadegaridehkordi, E.; Samad, S.; Ibrahim, O.; Akbari, E. Preference learning for eco-friendlyhotels recommendation: A multi-criteria collaborative filtering approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 767–783. [CrossRef]

13. Noor, N.A.M.; Kumar, D. ECO friendly ‘activities’ VS ECO friendly ‘attitude’: Travelers intention to choose green hotels inMalaysia. World Appl. Sci. J. 2014, 30, 506–513.

14. Sirakaya-Turk, E.; Baloglu, S.; Mercado, H.U. The efficacy of sustainability values in predicting travelers’ choices for sustainablehospitality businesses. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2014, 55, 115–126. [CrossRef]

15. Vinzenz, F. The added value of rating pictograms for sustainable hotels in classified ads. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 29, 56–65.[CrossRef]

16. Han, H.; Hsu, L.T.; Sheu, C. Application of the Theory of planned behaviour to green hotel choice: Testing the effect ofenvironmental friendly activities. Tour. Manag. 2010, 30, 325–334. [CrossRef]

17. Han, H.; Yoon, H. Hotel customers’ environmentally responsible behavioural intention: Impact of key constructs on decision ingreen consumerism. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 45, 22–33. [CrossRef]

18. Kang, K.H.; Stein, L.; Heo, C.Y.; Lee, S. Consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives of the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp.Manag. 2012, 31, 564–572. [CrossRef]

19. Kang, K.H.; Stein, L.; Heo, C.; Lee, S. Views on environmentalism and consumers’ willingness to pay for environmentalsustainability in the hotel industry. Curr. Issues Tour. 2012, 6, 197–208.

20. Masau, P.; Prideaux, B. Sustainable Tourism: A role for Kenya’s hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2003, 31, 564–572. [CrossRef]21. Chen, A.; Peng, N. Green hotel knowledge and tourists’ staying behaviour. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 2211–2219. [CrossRef]22. Lian Chan, J.K.; Baum, T. Ecotourists’ perception of ecotourism experience in lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. J. Sustain.

Tour. 2007, 15, 574–590. [CrossRef]23. Mackenzie, M.; Peters, M. Hospitality managers’perception of corporate social responsibility: An explorative study. Asia Pacific J.

Tour. Res. 2014, 19, 257–272. [CrossRef]24. McNamara, K.E.; Gibson, C. Environmental sustainability in practice? A macro-scale profile of tourist accommodation facilities

in Australia’s coastal zone. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008, 16, 85–100. [CrossRef]25. Cheer, J.M.; Lew, A.A. Understanding tourism resilience: Adapting to social, political, and economic change. In Tourism, Resilience

and Sustainability: Adapting to Social, Political and Economic Change; Cheer, J.M., Lew, A.A., Eds.; London Routledge: London, UK,2017; pp. 3–17.

26. Gössling, S. New performance indicators for water management in tourism. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 233–244. [CrossRef]27. Sloan, P.; Legrand, W.; Tooman, H.; Fendt, J. Best practices in sustainability: German and Estonian hotels. Adv. Hosp. Leis. 2009, 5,

89–107.28. Do Paço, A.; Alves, H.; Nunes, C. Ecotourism from both hotels and tourists’ perspective. Econ. Sociol. 2012, 5, 132–142. [CrossRef]29. Phau, I.; Prendergast, G. Consuming hospitality brands: The relevance of the ‘Rarity Principle’. J. Brand Manag. 2000, 8, 122–138.

[CrossRef]30. Bendell, J.; Kleanthous, A. Deeper Luxury. 2007. Available online: https://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/luxury_report.pdf

(accessed on 5 April 2022).31. Glavic, P.; Lukman, R. Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1875–1885. [CrossRef]32. Kajikawa, Y. Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 2008, 3, 215–239. [CrossRef]33. Dresner, S. The Principles of Sustainability; Earthscan: London, UK, 2008.34. Swanson, L.A.; Zhang, D.D. Perspectives on corporate responsibility and sustainable development. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2012,

23, 630–639. [CrossRef]35. Partridge, D.J. Activist capitalism and supply chain citizenship: Producing ethical regimes and ready-to-wear clothes. Curr.

Anthropol. 2011, 52, 97–111. [CrossRef]36. Carrier, J.G.; Luetchford, P. Ethical Consumption: Social Value and Economic Practice; Berghahn Books: New York, NY, USA, 2012.37. Kapferer, J.N.; Laurent, G. Where do consumers think luxury begins? A study of perceived minimum price for 21 luxury goods in

7 countries. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 332–340. [CrossRef]38. De Barnier, V.; Rodina, I.; Valette-Florence, P. Which luxury perceptions affect most consumer purchase behaviour? A cross

cultural exploratory study in France, The United Kingdom and Russia. In Proceedings of the Congrés Paris-Venise des TendencesMarketing, Paris, France, 20–21 January 2006.

39. Chevalier, M.; Gutsatz, M. Hospitality Retail Management: How the World’s Top Brands Provide Quality Product and Service Support;John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.

40. Naderi, I.; Strutton, D. I support sustainability but only when doing so reflects fabulously on me. Can green narcissists becultivated? J. Macromarketing 2015, 35, 70–83. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 23 of 28

41. Kapferer, J.N. All that glitters is not green: The challenge of sustainable hospitality. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2010, 40–45. Avail-able online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Noel-Kapferer/publication/306152247_All_that_glitters_is_not_green_The_challenge_of_sustainable_luxury/links/57bb181308ae9fdf82ef020c/All-that-glitters-is-not-green-The-challenge-of-sustainable-luxury.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2022).

42. De Angelis, M.; Adıgüzel, F.; Amatulli, C. The role of design similarity in consumers’ evaluation of new green products: Aninvestigation of luxury fashion brands. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 1515–1527. [CrossRef]

43. Lee, S.; Ha-Brookshire, J.; Chow, P.-S. The moral responsibility of corporate sustainability as perceived by fashion retail employees:A USA-China cross-cultural comparison study. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 1462–1475. [CrossRef]

44. Kunz, J.; May, S.; Schmidt, H.J. Sustainable luxury: Current status and perspectives for future research. Bus. Res. 2020, 13, 541–601.[CrossRef]

45. Arrigo, E. The flagship stores as sustainability communication channels for luxury fashion retailers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018,44, 170–177. [CrossRef]

46. Deloitte 2019. Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2019: Bridging the Gap between the Old and the New Deloitte. Available on-line: ww2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ar/Documents/Consumer_and_Industrial_Products/Global-Powers-of-Luxury-Goods-abril-2019.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2021).

47. Shim, D.; Shin, J.; Kwak, S.-Y. Modelling the consumer decision-making process to identify key drivers and bottlenecks in theadoption of environmentally friendly products. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 1409–1421. [CrossRef]

48. Stewart, R.; Niero, M. Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: A review of corporate sustainability reports in thefast-moving consumer goods sector. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 1005–1022. [CrossRef]

49. Testa, F.; Sarti, S.; Frey, M. Are green consumers really green? Exploring the factors behind the actual consumption of organicfood products. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 327–338. [CrossRef]

50. Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Yang, F.; Wang, Y.; Li, J. Consumer familiarity, ambiguity tolerance, and purchase behaviour towardremanufactured products: The implications for remanufacturers. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 1741–1750. [CrossRef]

51. Pinto, D.C.; Herter, M.M.; Gonçalves, D.; Sayin, E. Can luxury brands be ethical? Reducing the sophistication liability of luxurybrands. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1366–1376. [CrossRef]

52. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E. Shashi Evaluating environmental sustainability strategies in logistics industry. Bus.Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 1563–1574. [CrossRef]

53. De Oliveira Neto, G.C.; Correia, J.M.F.; Silva, P.C.; de Oliveira Sanches, A.G.; Lucato, W.C. Cleaner production in the textileindustry and its relationship to sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 1514–1525. [CrossRef]

54. Yang, S.; Song, Y.; Tong, S. Sustainable retailing in the fashion industry: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1266.[CrossRef]

55. Vanhamme, J.; Lindgreen, A.; Sarial-Abi, G. Luxury ethical consumers: Who are they? J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 1–34. [CrossRef]56. Pencarelli, T.; Ali Taha, V.; Škerháková, V.; Valentiny, T.; Fedorko, R. Luxury products and sustainability issues from the

perspective of young Italian consumers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 245. [CrossRef]57. Hüttel, A.; Ziesemer, F.; Peyer, M.; Balderjahn, I. To purchase or not? Why consumers make economically (non) sustainable

consumption choices. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 827–836. [CrossRef]58. Kapferer, J.N.; Bastien, V. The specificity of hospitality management: Turning marketing upside down. J. Brand Manag. 2009, 16,

311–322. [CrossRef]59. Griggs, D.; Stafford-Smith, M.; Gaffney, O.; Rockström, J.; Öhman, M.C.; Shyamsundar, P.; Steffen, W.; Glaser, G.; Kanie, N.; Noble,

I. Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 2013, 495, 305–307. [CrossRef] [PubMed]60. Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-beingin changing landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28,

999–1023. [CrossRef]61. Liu, J.; Mooney, H.; Hull, V.; Davis, S.J.; Gaskell, J.; Hertel, T.; Lubchenco, J.; Seto, K.C.; Gleick, P.; Kremen, C.; et al. Systems

integration for global sustainability. Science 2015, 347, 1258832. [CrossRef]62. Kapferer, J.N. Kapferer on Hospitality: How Hospitality Brands Can Grow Yet Remain Rare, 1st ed.; Kogan Page Limited: London, UK,

2015.63. Wirtz, J.; Lovelock, C. Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, 8th ed.; World Scietific: Hackensack, NJ, USA, 2016.64. Loureiro, S.M.C.; Guerreiro, J.; Ali, F. 20 years of research on virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism context: A

text-mining approach. Tour.Manag. 2020, 77, 104028. [CrossRef]65. Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M.; Bagur-Femenias, L.; Llach, J.; Perramon, J. Sustainability in small tourist businesses: The link between

initiatives and performance. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 1–20. [CrossRef]66. Brauer, R.; Dymitrow, M.; Tribe, J. The impact of tourism research. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 77, 64–78. [CrossRef]67. Dans, E.P.; González, P.A. Sustainable tourism and social value at World Heritage Sites: Towards a conservation plan for Altamira,

Spain. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 74, 68–80. [CrossRef]68. Font, X.; Garay, L.; Jones, S. A social cognitive theory of sustainability empathy. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 58, 65–80. [CrossRef]69. Umashankar, N.; Bhagwat, Y.; Kumar, V. Do loyal customers really pay more for services? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2017, 45, 807–826.

[CrossRef]70. Peng, N.; Chen, A. Examining consumers’ luxury hotel stay repurchase intentions-incorporating a luxury hotel brand attachment

variable into a luxury consumption value model. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 1348–1366. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 24 of 28

71. Peng, N.; Chen, A. Luxury hotels going green—The antecedents and consequences of consumer hesitation. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019,27, 1374–1392. [CrossRef]

72. Ibis World. Global Hotels & Resort Industry—Market Research Report. 2019. Available online: https://www.ibisworld.com/global/market-research-reports/global-hotels-resorts-industry/ (accessed on 5 April 2022).

73. The Boston Consulting Group. Growth in the Luxury Market. 2017. Available online: https://www.bcg.com/it-it/industries/consumer-products/luxury.aspx (accessed on 5 April 2022).

74. Giardina, G. Expo 2020 and sustainability: Luxury hotel properties challenges and future outlook. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes2019, 11, 314–326. [CrossRef]

75. Jones, P.; Hillier, D.; Comfort, D. Sustainability in the hospitality industry: Some personal reflections on corporate challenges andresearch agendas. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 36–67. [CrossRef]

76. Yang, W.; Matilla, A.S. The impact of status seeking on consumers’ word of mouth and product preference—A comparisonbetween luxury hospitality services and luxury goods. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2017, 41, 3–22. [CrossRef]

77. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks, the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Capstone Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1997.78. Prudhomme, B.; Raymond, L. Sustainable development practices in the hospitality industry: An empirical study of their impact

on customer satisfaction and intentions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 116–126. [CrossRef]79. Susskind, A.M. Guests’ reactions to in-room sustainability initiatives: An experimental look at product performance and guest

satisfaction. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2014, 55, 228–238. [CrossRef]80. Fraj, E.; Matute, J.; Melero, I. Environmental strategies and organizational competitiveness in the hotel industry: The role of

learning and innovation as determinants of environmental success. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 30–42. [CrossRef]81. Garay, L.; Font, X.; Corrons, A. Sustainability-oriented innovation in tourism: An analysis based on the decomposed theory of

planned behaviour. J. Travel. Res. 2019, 58, 622–636. [CrossRef]82. Ramanathan, R.; Ramanathan, U.; Zhang, Y. Linking operations, marketing and environmental capabilities and diversification to

hotel performance: A data envelopment analysis approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 176, 111–122. [CrossRef]83. Yu, Y.; Li, X.; Jai, T.-M. The impact of green experience on customer satisfaction: Evidence from TripAdvisor. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.

Manage. 2017, 29, 1340–1361. [CrossRef]84. Horak, S.; Arya, B.; Ismail, K.M. Organizational sustainability determinants in different cultural settings: A conceptual framework.

Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 528–546. [CrossRef]85. Gerdt, S.-O.; Wagner, E.; Schewe, G. The relationship between sustainability and customer satisfaction in hospitality: An

explorative investigation using eWOM as a data source. Tour. Manag. 2019, 74, 155–172. [CrossRef]86. Kuokkanen, H.; Sun, W. Companies, meet ethical consumers: Strategic CSR management to impact consumer choice. J. Bus.

Ethics 2019, 166, 403–423. [CrossRef]87. Porter, M.; Reinhardt, F. A strategic approach to climate. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2007, 85, 22–26.88. Molina-Azorin, J.F.; Claver-Cortes, E.; Pereira-Moliner, J.; Tari, J.J. Environmental practices and firm performance: An empirical

analysis in the Spanish hotel industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 516–524. [CrossRef]89. Kornilaki, M.; Thomas, R.; Font, X. The sustainability behaviour of small firms in tourism: The role of self-efficacy and contextual

constraints. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 97–117. [CrossRef]90. Park, J.; Jeong Kim, H.; McCleary, K.W. The impact of top management’s environmental attitudes on hotel companies’ environ-

mental management. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2014, 38, 95–115. [CrossRef]91. Leary, R.B.; Vann, R.J.; Mittelstaedt, J.D.; Murphy, P.E.; Sherry, J.F. Changing the marketplace one behaviour at a time: Perceived

marketplace influence and sustainable consumption. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1953–1958. [CrossRef]92. Wang, P.; Liu, Q.; Qi, Y. Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviours: A survey of the rural residents in China. J.

Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 152–165. [CrossRef]93. Biswas, A.; Roy, M. Leveraging factors for sustained green consumption behaviour based on consumption value perceptions:

Testing the structural model. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 95, 332–340. [CrossRef]94. Webb, D.; Mohr, L.A.; Harris, K.E. A re-examination of sociallyresponsible consumption and its measurement. J. Bus. 2008, 61,

91–98. [CrossRef]95. Wu, C.S.; Zhou, X.X.; Song, M. Sustainable consumer behaviour inChina: An empirical analysis from the Midwest regions. J.

Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 147–165. [CrossRef]96. Maniatis, P. Investigating factors influencing consumer decision-making while choosing green products. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 132,

215–228. [CrossRef]97. Arora, R.; Singer, J. Cognitive and affective service marketing strategies for fine dining restaurant managers. J. Small Bus. Strategy

2006, 17, 51–61.98. Babin, B.J.; Darden, W.R.; Griffin, M. Work and/or fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value. J. Consum. Res. 1994,

20, 644–656. [CrossRef]99. Maio, G.R.; Esses, V.M. The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. J. Personal.

2001, 69, 583–614. [CrossRef] [PubMed]100. Hirschman, E.C.; Holbrook, M.B. Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. J. Mark. 1982, 46, 92–101.

[CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 25 of 28

101. Holbrook, M.B.; Hirschman, E.C. The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. J. Consum. Res.1982, 9, 132e–140e. [CrossRef]

102. Turner, V.W. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure; Aldine: Chicago, IL, USA, 1969.103. Turner, V.W. Liminal to liminoid in play, flow and ritual: An essay in comparative symbology. Rice Univ. Stud. 1974, 60, 53–92.104. O’Shaughnessy, J.; O’Shaughnessy, N.J. Marketing, the consumer society and hedonism. Eur. J. Mark. 2007, 35, 524–547. [CrossRef]105. Arnold, M.J.; Reynolds, K.E. Hedonic shopping motivations. J. Retail. 2003, 79, 77–95. [CrossRef]106. Athwal, N.; Wells, V.K.; Carrigan, M.; Henninger, C.E. Sustainable luxury marketing: A synthesis and research agenda. Int. J.

Manag. Rev. 2019, 21, 405–426. [CrossRef]107. Steinhart, Y.; Ayalon, O.; Puterman, H. The effect of an environmental claim on consumers’ perceptions about luxury and

utilitarian products. J. Clean.Prod. 2013, 53, 277–286. [CrossRef]108. Cervellon, M.C.; Shammas, L. The value of sustainable luxury in mature markets: A customer-based approach. J. Corp. Citizsh.

2013, 52, 90–102. [CrossRef]109. Zhang, L.; Li, D.; Cao, C.; Huang, S. The influence of greenwashing perception on green purchasing intentions: The mediating

role of green word-of-mouth and moderating role of green concern. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 740–750. [CrossRef]110. Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J. Retail.

Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134. [CrossRef]111. Maichum, K.; Parichatnon, S.; Peng, K.C. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior model to investigate purchase

intention of green products among Thai consumers. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1077. [CrossRef]112. Cronin, J.R.; Brady, M.K.; Hult, G.T.M. Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural

intentions in service environments. J. Retail. 2000, 76, 193–218. [CrossRef]113. Zeithaml, V.A. Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. J. Market. 1988, 52, 35–48. [CrossRef]114. Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2. [CrossRef]115. Mohsin, A.; Lockyer, T. Customer perceptions of service quality in luxury hotels in New Delhi, India: An exploratory study. Int. J.

Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 22, 160–173. [CrossRef]116. Akbaba, A. Measuring service quality in the hotel industry: A study in a business hotel in Turkey. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2006, 25,

170–192. [CrossRef]117. Dedeoglu, B.B.; Demirer, H. Differences in service quality perceptions of stakeholders in the hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.

Manag. 2015, 27, 130–146. [CrossRef]118. Rauch, D.A.; Collins, M.D.; Nale, R.D.; Barr, P.B. Measuring service quality in mid-scale hotels. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2015,

27, 87–106. [CrossRef]119. Ang, S.H.; Cheng, P.S.; Lim, E.A.C.; Tambyah, S.K. Spot the Difference: Consumer Responses Towards Counterfeits. J. Consum.

Mark. 2001, 18, 219–235. [CrossRef]120. Wang, F.; Zhang, H.; Zang, H.; Ouyang, M. Purchasing pirated software: An initial examination of Chinese consumers. J. Consum.

Mark. 2005, 22, 340–351. [CrossRef]121. Eng, T.-Y.; Bogaert, J. Psychological and cultural insights into consumption of luxury Western brands in India. J. Cust.Behav. 2010,

9, 55–75. [CrossRef]122. Rodriguez Mosquera, P.M.; Uskul, A.; Cross, S. Social image [Special Issue]. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 41, 403549.123. Fromkin, H.L. Feelings of interpersonal indistinctiveness: An unpleasant affective state. J. Exp. Res. Personal. 1972, 6, 178–182.124. Gross, M.J.; Brown, G. An empirical structural model of tourists and places: Progressing involvement and place attachment into

tourism. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 1141–1151. [CrossRef]125. Schau, H.J.; Gilly, M.C.; Wolfinbarger, M. Consumer identity renaissance: The resurgence of identity-inspired consumption in

retirement. J. Consum. Res. 2009, 36, 255–276. [CrossRef]126. Gross, M.J.; Brown, G. Tourism experiences in a life style destination setting: The roles of involvement and place attachment. J.

Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 696–700. [CrossRef]127. Kyle, G.; Chick, G. The social nature of leisure involvement. J. Leis. Res. 2002, 34, 426–448. [CrossRef]128. Lin, S.T.; Niu, H.J. Green consumption: Environmental knowledge, environmental consciousness, social norms, and purchasing

behaviour. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 1679–1688. [CrossRef]129. Chekima, B.; Wafa, S.A.W.S.K.; Igau, O.A.; Chekima, S.; Sondoh, S.L. Examining green consumerism motivational drivers: Does

premium price and demographics matter to green purchasing? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3436–3450. [CrossRef]130. Atkinson, L.; Rosenthal, S. Signaling the green sell: The influence of eco-label source, argument specificity, and product

involvement on consumer trust. J. Advert. 2014, 43, 33–45. [CrossRef]131. Mostafa, M.M. Gender differences in Egyptian consumers’ greenp urchase behaviour: The effects of environmental knowledge,

concern and attitude. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 220–229. [CrossRef]132. Wei, C.F.; Chiang, C.T.; Kou, T.C.; Lee, B.C.Y. Toward sustain-able livelihoods: Investigating the drivers of purchase behaviour

forgreen products. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 626–639. [CrossRef]133. Childers, T.L.; Carr, C.L.; Peck, J.; Carson, S. Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. J. Retail.

2002, 77, 511–535. [CrossRef]134. Bernardo, M.; Marimon, F.; del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M. Functional quality and hedonic quality: A study of the dimensions of

e-service quality in online travel agencies. Inf. Manag. 2012, 49, 342–347. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 26 of 28

135. Borges, G.R.; Mondini, V.; Domingues, M.J.; Lavarda, C.E. Identification of Items Used in Scales to Measure Hedonism. Int. J.Mark. Commun. New Media 2016, 4, 30–45. Available online: http://u3isjournal.isvouga.pt/index.php/ijmcn (accessed on 12 June2022).

136. Carpenter, J.M.; Moore, M. Utilitarian and hedonic shopping value in the US discount sector. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2009, 16,68–74. [CrossRef]

137. Grappi, S.; Montanari, F. The role of social identification and hedonism in affecting tourist re-patronizing behaviours: The case ofan Italian festival. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1128–1140. [CrossRef]

138. Murray, K.B.; Bellman, S. Productive play time: The effect of practice on consumer demand for hedonic experiences. J. Acad.Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 376–391. [CrossRef]

139. Sarkar, A. Impact of utilitarian and hedonic shopping values on individual’s perceived benefits and risks in online shopping. Int.Manag. Rev. 2011, 7, 58–65.

140. Moore, D.J.; Lee, S.P. How advertising influences consumption impulses. J. Advert. 2012, 41, 107–120.141. Olsen, S.O.; Skallerud, K. Retail attributes’ differential effects on utilitarian versus hedonic shopping value. J. Consum. Mark. 2011,

28, 532–539. [CrossRef]142. Zhang, L.; Zhang, W. Real-time Internet news browsing: Information vs. experience-related gratifications and behaviors. Comput.

Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 2712–2721. [CrossRef]143. Clarke, P.D.; Mortimer, G. Self-gifting guilt: An examination of self-gifting motivations and post-purchase regret. J. Consum. Mark.

2013, 30, 472–483. [CrossRef]144. Yim, M.Y.C.; Yoo, S.C.; Sauer, P.L.; Seo, J.H. Hedonic shopping motivation and co-shopper influence on utilitarian grocery

shopping in superstores. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2014, 42, 528–544. [CrossRef]145. Davis, R.; Lang, B.; San Diego, J. How gender affects the relationship between hedonic shopping motivation and purchase

intentions? J. Consum. Behav. 2014, 13, 18–30. [CrossRef]146. Stock, R.M.; Oliveira, P.; Hippel, E. Impacts of Hedonic and Utilitarian User Motives on the Innovativeness of User-Developed

Solutions. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 32, 389–403. [CrossRef]147. Guido, G.; Peluso, A.M.; Capestro, M.; Miglietta, M. An Italian version of the 10-item Big Five Inventory: An application to

hedonic and utilitarian shopping values. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2015, 76, 135–140. [CrossRef]148. Allameh, S.M.; Pool, J.K.; Jaberi, A.; Salehzadeh, R.; Asadi, H. Factors influencing sport tourists’ revisit intentions: The role

and effect of destination image, perceived quality, perceived value and satisfaction. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2015, 27, 191–207.[CrossRef]

149. Kwon, H.H.; Pyun, D.Y.; Choi, K.K. "The mediating role of perceived value in two different price settings. Int. J. Sports Mark.Spons. 2014, 15, 27–39. [CrossRef]

150. Wiedmann, K.P.; Hennigs, N.; Siebels, A. Value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behaviour. Psychol. Mark. 2009, 26,625–651. [CrossRef]

151. Washburn, J.H.; Plank, R.E. Measuring Brand Equity: An Evaluation of a Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale. J. Mark. TheoryPract. 2002, 10, 46–61. [CrossRef]

152. Yoo, B.; Donthu, N. Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale. J. Bus. Res. 2001, 52,1–14. [CrossRef]

153. Sheth, J.N.; Newman, B.I.; Gross, B.L. Consumption Values and Market Choices. Theory and Applications; South-Western Publishing:Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1991.

154. Park, E.J.; Kim, E.Y.; Funches, V.M.; Foxx, W. Apparel product attributes, web browsing, and e-impulse buying on shoppingwebsites. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1583–1589. [CrossRef]

155. Song, Y.; Qin, Z.; Yuan, Q. The impact of eco-label on the young Chinese generation: Themediation role of environmentalawareness and product attributes in green purchase. Sustainability 2019, 11, 973. [CrossRef]

156. Wu, D.G.; Chalip, L. Effects of co-branding on consumers’purchase intention andevaluation of apparel attributes. J. Glob. Sch.Mark. Sci. 2014, 24, 1–20.

157. Armitage, C.J.; Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M.; Loach, J.; Willetts, D. Different Perceptions of Control: Applying an Extended Theoryof Planned Behavior to Legal and Illegal Drug Use. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 21, 301–316. [CrossRef]

158. Yazdanpanah, M.; Forouzani, M. Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to predict Iranian students’ intention topurchase organic food. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 342–352. [CrossRef]

159. Lochrie, S.; Baxter, I.W.F.; Collinson, E.; Curran, R.; Gannon, J.M.; Taheri, B.; Thompson, J.; Yalinay, O. Self-expression and play:Can religious tourism be hedonistic? Tour. Recreat. Res. 2019, 44, 2–16. [CrossRef]

160. Fishbein, M.; Hennessy, M.; Yzer, M.; Douglas, J. Can we explain why some people do and some do not act on their intentions?Psychol. Health Med. 2003, 8, 3–18. [CrossRef]

161. Kim, Y.; Han, H. Intention to pay conventional-hotel prices at a green hotel—A modification of the theory of planned behavior. J.Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 997–1014. [CrossRef]

162. Hoyer, W.D.; MacInnis, D.J. Comportamento do consumidor, Portuguese version; Cengage Learning: São Paulo, Brazil, 2011.163. Allam, H.; Shoib, S. A proposed three dimensional hedonic model for intrinsic motivation on social tagging tools. In Proceedings

of the 2013 International Conference on Current Trends in Information Technology (CTIT), Dubai, United Arab Emirates,11–12 December 2013; pp. 226–231.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 27 of 28

164. Kumar, A.; Paul, J.; Unnithan, A.B. “Masstige” marketing: A review, synthesis and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 113, 384–398.[CrossRef]

165. Slack, N.J.; Singh, G.; Ali, J.; Lata, R.; Mudaliar, K.; Swamy, Y. Influence of fast-food restaurant service quality and its dimensionson customer perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions. 2020. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/BFJ-09-2020-0771/full/html (accessed on 5 April 2022).

166. Tynan, C.; Mckenchie, S.; Chhuon, C. Co-creating value for luxury brands. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 1156–1163. [CrossRef]167. Brady, M.K.; Cronin, J.J., Jr. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. J. Mark.

2001, 65, 34–49. [CrossRef]168. Ghorbani, A.; Yarimoglu, E.K. E-Service Marketing. In Marketing in the Cyber Era: Strategies and Emerging Trends; Ghorbani, A.,

Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2014; pp. 1–8.169. O’cass, A.; McEwen, H. Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption. J. Consum. Behav. Int. Res. Rev. 2004, 4, 25–39.

[CrossRef]170. Shukla, P. Conspicuous consumption among middle age consumers: Psychological and brand antecedents. J. Prod. Brand Manag.

2008, 17, 25–36. [CrossRef]171. Vigneron, F.; Johnson, L.W. A review and conceptual framework of prestige seeking consumer behaviour. Acad. Mark. Sci. Rev.

1999, 99, 1–15.172. Tsai, S. Impact of Personal Orientation on Luxury-Brand Purchase Value: An International Investigation. International. J. Mark.

Res. 2005, 47, 429–454. [CrossRef]173. Ruvio, A.; Shoham, A.; Brencic, M.M. Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Short-form scale development and cross-cultural

validation. Int. Mark. Rev. 2008, 25, 33–53. [CrossRef]174. Whiting, J.; Hannam, K. Creativity, self-expression and leisure. Leis. Stud. 2015, 34, 372–384. [CrossRef]175. Nan, X.; Heo, K. Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in

cause-related marketing. J. Advert. 2007, 36, 63–74. [CrossRef]176. Wong, N.Y.; Ahuvia, A.C. Personal taste and family face: Hospitality consumption in Confucian and Western societies. Psychol.

Mark. 1998, 15, 423–441. [CrossRef]177. Sirgy, M.J. Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. J. Consum. Res. 1982, 9, 287–300. [CrossRef]178. Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J. Ofmarketing

Res. 1991, 28, 307–319.179. Difallah, D.E.; Catasta, M.; Demartini, G.; Ipeirotis, P.G.; Cudré-Mauroux, P. The Dynamics of Micro-Task Crowdsourcing: The

Case of Amazon MTurk. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, Florence, Italy, 18–22 May 2015.180. Hague, P.; Harrison, M.; Cupman, J.; Truman, O. Market Research in Practice: An Introduction to Gaining Greater Market Insight, 3rd

ed.; Kogan Page: Chambersburg, PA, USA, 2016.181. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [CrossRef]182. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31,

2–24. [CrossRef]183. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Análise Multivariada de Dados, 6th ed.; Bookman Editora: Porto

Alegre, RS, USA, 2009.184. Wong, K.K.-K. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Techniques Using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull. 2013, 24,

1–32.185. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage:

Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014.186. Ringle, C.M.; Da Silva, D.; Bido, D.D.S. Modelagem de equações estruturais com utilização do SmartPLS. Rev. Bras. De Mark.

Remark. 2014, 13, 56–73. [CrossRef]187. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York,

NY, USA, 2010.188. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.

1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]189. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in Organizational Research Problems and Prospects. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1986, 12,

531–544. [CrossRef]190. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on

How to Control It. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569. [CrossRef]191. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of

the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [CrossRef]192. Abu-Bader, S.; Jones, T.V. Statistical Mediation Analysis Using the Sobel Test and Hayes SPSS Process Macro. Int. J. Quant. Qual.

Res. Methods 2021, 9, 42–61.193. Vinzi, V.E.; Chin, W.W.; Henseler, J.; Wang, H. Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010.

[CrossRef]194. Preacher, K.J.; Kelley, K. Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects.

Psychol. Methods 2011, 16, 93–115. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7906 28 of 28

195. Husic, M.; Cicic, M. Hospitality consumption factors. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2009, 13, 231–245.196. Bain and Company. The Personal Luxury Goods Market Delivers Positive Growth in 2018 to Reache 260billion—A Trend That

Is Expected to Continue through 2025. 2018. Available online: www.bain.com/about/media-center/press-releases/2018/fall-luxury-goods-market-study/ (accessed on 10 January 2021).

197. Fionda, A.M.; Moore, M.C. The anatomy of the luxury fashion brand. J. Brand Manag. 2009, 16, 347–363. [CrossRef]198. Turunen, L.L. Interpretation of Luxury: Exploring the Consumer Perspective; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2017.199. Kleine, R.E., III; Kleine, S.S.; Kernan, J.B. Mundane consumption and the self: A social-identity perspective. J. Consum. Psychol.

1993, 2, 209–235. [CrossRef]