Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Circular Economy and Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-024-00367-5
1 3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Addressing Plastic Concern: Behavioral Insights intoRecycled
Plastic Products andPackaging inaCircular Economy
FilippoCorsini1,2 · NataliaMarziaGusmerotti3· EdoardoBartoletti4·
FrancescoTesta4· AndreaAppolloni3· FabioIraldo4
Received: 18 October 2023 / Accepted: 27 March 2024 / Published online: 11 April 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
The excessive production and use of new plastic materials pose a critical environmental
challenge, and reducing its consumption has emerged as a major global hurdle. Under-
standing human behavior is thus essential for creating a circular economy for plastics. The
study aims to gain insights into consumers’ buying habits concerning recycled plastic,
which has received relatively little attention in prior research on the subject of environmen-
tally friendly consumer behavior. This study draws on the Theory of Planned Behavior to
analyze the factors influencing consumer behavior regarding products and packaging made
from recycled plastic. To this end, we employed a questionnaire, which was administered
to 511 consumers in Italy. Results support that concerns about plastics and perceived effi-
cacy exert a direct influence on attitudes. Additionally, our findings demonstrate that social
norms, attitudes, and perceived behavioral control significantly shape purchasing behaviors
concerning recycled plastic. The research contributes to extending the Theory of Planned
Behavior model in predicting environmental-friendly behavior by adding new empirical
evidence and provides valuable suggestions for companies to develop effective communi-
cation strategies and policies to redirect plastic consumption behavior towards less-impact-
ing use of plastic.
Keywords Plastic concern· Purchase behavior· Recycled plastic· Theory of Planned
Behavior· Recycled packaging· Recycled product
Introduction
The OECD [70] asserts that the unsustainable nature of human activities is evident in
the notable harm being caused to ecosystems, human health, and overall quality of life,
which are consequences of the swift growth of industrialization and urbanization. Plas-
tic, among others, is posing a significant threat to the environment [35]. Geyer etal. [44]
reported that between 1950 and 2015, the global production of new plastic amounted to
approximately 8.3 billion metric tons (Mt), out of which more than 6.3 billion Mt were
disposed of as waste. Disaggregating the waste, it was found that 9% was subjected to
recycling, 12% was subjected to incineration, and the remaining 79% was deposited in
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1962
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
landfills or the natural environment. According to Geyer etal. [44], if the present manu-
facturing and waste management practices persist, research indicates that the quantity
of plastic waste in the form of garbage deposited in landfills or the natural environment
could surpass 12,000 Mt by the year 2050.
In light of the critical levels of plastic production and the resulting accumulation of
waste, it is essential to actively promote and implement recycling strategies. These strat-
egies should aim to decrease the use of new plastic and lessen the amount of waste
sent to landfills, thereby helping to mitigate the environmental hazards associated with
plastic. Currently, most plastics are recyclable and can be repurposed [78]. However,
the potential for recycling plastic waste is considerably underutilized, as evidenced by
Ragaert etal. [78, 79]. The capacity for recycling is constrained due to variations in
the sizes of waste streams, the quality of different types of plastic, and geographic or
political factors, as noted by Hahladakis and Iacovidou [51] and Gong etal. [45]. Addi-
tionally, companies do not demand enough recycled plastic as these products are not
considered a valuable resource, since the costs of recycling plastic are higher than those
of processing virgin materials [18].
Calvo-Porral and Lévy-Mangin [20] argue that the adoption of recycled plastic prod-
ucts and packaging by the public can significantly lessen the ecological impact of plastic
waste by creating demand for such products and supporting sustainable business mod-
els. Scholars and policymakers concur that consumer behavior plays a pivotal role in
facilitating the transition to a circular economy [41, 47, 91, 93], and various organiza-
tions have initiated campaigns aimed at promoting a shift in people’s plastic consump-
tion habits [11, 53]. Although consumers are generally aware of companies producing
goods from recycled plastic [66], and show an interest in sustainable products, there is
often a gap between this interest and actual purchase behaviors, as observed by Park and
Lin [73].
To reduce the use of new plastic products and packaging and provide valuable
insights for companies, a deeper comprehension of consumer attitudes and purchasing
behavior is thus essential. While previous studies have examined multiple drivers of
pro-environmental behavior [30], such as recycling [65], energy conservation [102], and
organic food consumption [86], minimal evidence exists regarding the determinants of
behavior related to the purchase of recycled plastic products and packaging. Further-
more, the factors influencing different pro-environmental behaviors can vary consider-
ably [29]. The capacity to motivate individuals to adopt more environmentally friendly
consumption practices is crucial in addressing the current environmental challenges [31,
39].
The objective of this study, anchored in the theoretical framework of the Theory of
Planned Behavior [3–5], is to investigate the factors that influence pro-environmental con-
sumer behavior concerning the purchase of products and packaging made from recycled
plastic. This understanding is crucial for promoting the circular economy model, in which
materials are recycled into new products, thereby decreasing dependence on the produc-
tion of new plastics and lessening the environmental impact associated with waste disposal
[48].
Specifically, this research explores firstly the impact of plastic concern and perceived
efficacy in shaping attitudes towards recycled plastic. Secondly, the research explores the
influence of social norms, attitudes, and perceived behavioral control in shaping purchasing
behaviors concerning recycled plastic. To accomplish this goal, the study analyzes original
data gathered from a survey of 511 consumers in Italy. The findings indicate that concerns
regarding plastics and perceived efficacy directly impact attitudes. Furthermore, the results
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1963
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
show that social norms, attitudes, and perceived behavioral control play a significant role in
shaping purchasing behaviors related to recycled plastic.
The findings offer valuable information for future consumer-based plastics research and
for developing effective communication plans and regulations that promote more sustain-
able and low-impact plastic usage.
Literature Review andResearch Hypotheses
When discussing the factors influencing consumer behavior, the theory of planned behav-
ior [3–5] is often utilized. While this model has faced criticism and competition from other
behavioral models, it is still considered a highly effective approach for developing inter-
ventions aimed at changing human behavior [106]. The TPB posits that attitudes towards
behavioral intentions, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (PBC) have a
significant influence on shaping both behavioral intention and actual behavior. However,
as these factors can vary greatly depending on the circumstances surrounding a specific
behavior, further research into behavior prediction is still necessary [3, 87].
Our research extends the application of the TPB framework in the context of consumer
behavior toward recycled plastic. First, we look at how the concern of plastic and perceived
efficacy can help to shape attitudes toward recycled plastic. These constructs have never
been studied before regarding recycled plastic purchasing behavior. Second, we investigate
the relationship between plastic concern, perceived efficacy, and recycled plastic purchas-
ing behavior by examining attitudes’ previously unknown mediation effect.
According to previous research [81, 84], individuals who have a concern for the envi-
ronment tend to exhibit eco-friendly consumer behavior. The NEP scale, created by Dunlap
and Van Liere in the late 1970s, was designed to measure general environmental concern,
but subsequent research has shown that ecological crises do not always lead to environ-
mental-friendly behavior [84, 107]. Owing to the significant harm inflicted by plastic, par-
ticularly on marine ecosystems, there has been a shift towards alternatives free from plastic
[77]. Recent research indicates that individuals worried about plastic pollution tend to have
favorable views on minimizing plastic usage [68] and are more inclined to eschew the pur-
chase of single-use plastic items while shopping for groceries [21]. These findings indicate
that plastic concern is a significant predictor of pro-environmental behavior.
Overall, these studies demonstrate a positive correlation between consumers’ plastic
concern and their likelihood to engage in behaviors that promote sustainability. Plastic
concern is identified as a significant behavioral factor that influences consumer decision-
making regarding the consumption of recycled plastic products. Therefore, further research
in this area is warranted, by setting the following hypotheses:
H1: High plastic concern positively affects individuals’ attitudes towards recycled prod-
ucts.
H2: Attitudes mediate the relationship between plastic concern and purchase behavior
regarding recycled plastic.
The value-beliefs-norm theory suggests that individual values, beliefs, and norms affect
pro-environmental behaviors. Previous research by Stern [87] and Ajzen and Fishbein
[5] has shown that environmental beliefs, including perceived self-efficacy, can influence
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1964
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
attitudes, which in turn predict pro-environmental behaviors. Self-efficacy is typically
understood as a personal capacity that drives motivation and cognitive resources [7, 105],
thereby influencing behavioral choice [7]. In this context, self-efficacy is informed by an
individual’s self-assessment of prior performance levels, thereby establishing a robust
association between past performance and self-efficacy, as described by Vancouver etal.
[101]. Although self-efficacy has been studied in measurable settings, such as organiza-
tional contexts [28], sports [42], and health [8], more recent research has begun to exam-
ine the role of self-efficacy in prosocial and altruistic activities, such as pro-environmental
behavior, which may not offer immediate or tangible rewards [104]. In particular, self-effi-
cacy has been demonstrated to foster pro-environmental attitudes, like recycling [88, 89],
and the adoption of reusable shopping bags [62], while also influencing consumer behav-
ior towards food conservation, thereby mitigating environmental issues. However, research
on the function of perceived self-efficacy in shaping attitudes toward recycled plastic pur-
chases is limited. Thus, our hypotheses are as follows:
H3. The perceived efficacy of buying recycled products positively affects individual atti-
tudes.
H4: Attitudes mediate the relationship between perceived efficacy and purchase behav-
ior regarding recycled plastic.
Krumpal [61] posits that individuals adopt specific actions in pursuit of social accept-
ance and adherence to social norms. According to Cialdini and Trost’s [27] definition,
social norms are guidelines and expectations that shape and restrict human conduct within
a group without the enforcement of laws. These norms may be categorized as either
descriptive or injunctive influencers on human motivation, as outlined by Cialdini etal.
[26]. Descriptive norms embody beliefs about others’ actual behaviors, signifying what is
typical based on the majority’s actions. In contrast, injunctive norms comprise beliefs or
rules regarding what others morally endorse or reject, indicating the behaviors one should
adopt to avoid social disapproval.
The extent to which social norms are internalized by individuals determines their impact
on behavior [97], with adherence to injunctive norms likely influenced by individuals’ stra-
tegic calculations regarding social status, and internalized norms having a stronger associa-
tion with behavior.
Numerous field experiments have confirmed the significant effect of social norms on
pro-environmental behaviors [14, 19, 23, 69, 72, 90]. For instance, Muralidharan and Shee-
han [68] found that social norms significantly impact consumer intentions to avoid plastic
packaging, while Borg etal. [15] reported that social norms strongly affect consumers’
avoidance of single-use plastic items such as cups, bags, and takeaway boxes. Moreover,
Byerly etal. [19] underscored the significance of social norms in consumer decision-mak-
ing and their capacity to inspire pro-environmental behaviors in various domains, includ-
ing recycling, energy consumption, and other activities [95]. In contrast, Bertoldo and Cas-
tro [13] argued that social norms negatively impact recycling behavior. There are few or
no social costs of not participating, and social models predict recycling behaviors less than
personal norms and environmental identity. However, a specific focus on how social norms
affect consumer behavior toward recycled plastic consumption remains unexplored. Thus,
we suggest the following hypothesis:
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1965
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
H5. The presence of social norms has a positive impact on purchase behavior regard-
ing recycled plastic.
The TPB model [3] suggests that factors such as social norms, perceived behavioral
control, and attitudes toward a specific behavior can shape an individual’s behavioral
intention. Thurstone [98], an early contributor to the field, defined behavioral attitude
as a combination of an individual’s inclinations, feelings, preconceived notions, fears,
beliefs, and other related factors toward a specific subject. Numerous studies have exam-
ined attitudes as underlying factors for pro-environmental behaviors [58]. The literature
presents a diverse range of results concerning the relationship between attitudes and
pro-environmental behavior. Vermeir and Verbeke’s [103] study indicates that attitudes
exert a more significant influence than societal norms on sustainable consumption deci-
sions. Ha and Janda [49] discovered that attitudes serve as the primary predictors of the
intention to purchase energy-efficient products. Similarly, Tonglet etal. [99] posited that
recycling attitudes are the key determinants of recycling behavior. Conversely, Bortoleto
etal. [16] found that attitudes toward waste prevention did not directly influence pre-
vention behavior,instead, personal norms played a mediating role in this impact. Simi-
larly, Moser [67] utilized the TPB as a theoretical framework to identify key antecedents
of sustainable product purchasing behavior and found that attitudes did not serve as a
significant predictor. Since a specific focus on how attitudes affect consumer behavior
toward recycled plastic consumption has not been addressed before, we propose the fol-
lowing hypotheses:
H6. Attitudes towards recycled products positively affect purchase behavior regard-
ing recycled plastic.
Exploiting the TPB framework, several studies have demonstrated the significance
of perceived behavioral control in stimulating behavior, along with personal character-
istics. (e.g., [6]). Perceived behavioral control is defined as an individual’s assurance in
accomplishing a behavior [3]. Consequently, an individual’s high perceived behavioral
control to achieve a specific behavior strengthens their conviction in successfully per-
forming that behavior, thus heightening the likelihood of adopting said behavior [2].
However, despite evidence for the beneficial function of perceived behavior con-
trol, research on recycling-related concerns has yet again produced inconsistent results.
While some studies have pinpointed perceived behavioral control as the key determinant
of various pro-environmental actions, like recycling waste and batteries [17, 63], others
have established that perceived behavioral control indirectly impacts recycling via other
mediating elements [34]. Additionally, some scholars have found that most consumers
feel uncertain when assessing the environmental sustainability of plastic packaging [57]
due to the existence of conflicting environmental logic [92].
Considering the abovementioned contrasting evidence, as well as the fact that buy-
ing products with recycled plastic content is still unexplored, we posit the subsequent
hypothesis:
H7. The impact of perceived behavioral control on the purchase behavior regarding
recycled plastic is positive.
Figure1 presents the model to be tested.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1966
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
Methodology
Data Description
We surveyed a representative sample of the Italian population to test the hypotheses
concerning purchasing behavior related to recycled plastic, as outlined in the preceding
section.
The questionnaire was developed to reduce standard method variance in behavioral
research, which may compromise its reliability. To guarantee the clarity of the question-
naire, an initial assessment was conducted with two potential respondents, following the
recommendations of Tourangeau and Yan [100]. All identified deficiencies were addressed
before its distribution.
We collected data through an electronic questionnaire during the first three months of
2020, using a commercial surveying service provider to select participants from an online
access panel to ensure representativeness in terms of gender, age, residency, and educa-
tion among Italians between the ages of 18 and 75. The representativeness of the data was
evaluated using the Dillman formula [36] after 511 comprehensive questionnaires were
gathered. The formula suggests that a sample size of 384 or greater is adequate; therefore,
we gathered several responses exceeding this threshold. The sample size of 511 was also
consistent with Salant and Dillman’s [82] recommendation of a sample size of 400 for gen-
eralizing to a population with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error in studies
involving human dimensions. Table1 presents descriptive statistics of the participants.
We took steps to minimize the potential bias caused by common method variance and
conducted a post hoc test to ensure the accuracy of the questionnaire responses. To test
for the presence of common method variance, we used Harman’s single-factor posthoc
test [75]. This test involves examining the eigenvalues of the factors to determine whether
a single factor explains most of the covariance among the variables. The results showed
Fig. 1 The paths of the model
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1967
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
the presence of at least eight distinct components with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. We
determined that common method variance was not an issue because Harman’s single-factor
posthoc test did not reveal factors accounting for most covariance across the variables [85].
Measurement oftheConstructs
The measurement of purchase behavior regarding recycled plastic was based on studies by
Dodds etal. [38] and Bao et al. [10]. A seven-point Likert scale was employed to evalu-
ate the intention of the participants, based on two items. Afterward, these two items were
merged to create a single factor that demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, as veri-
fied by a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.75.
A commonly used semantic scale was adopted for measuring attitudes to encompass both
affective and cognitive components [90]. Four items were created to test attitudes, and we
used a 7-point Likert semantic scale to rate respondents’ views on a set of qualities. For the
first item, the scale was from "pointless" to "useful," for the second, from "irresponsible" to
"responsible," for the third, from "unnecessary" to "necessary" and for the fourth, from "not
recommended" to "recommended". These items were subsequently combined into a single
factor that demonstrated high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85.
The development of a scale for measuring perceived behavioral control was based on
the foundational work of Grob [46]. In this instance, three items were utilized to evaluate
perceived behavioral control. Also in this case, the level of agreement of the participants
was gauged through a 7-point Likert scale, and the resulting items were aggregated to form
a single factor that exhibited strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81).
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the participants
Age Number Percentage Annual income in euros Number Percentage
18–24 51 10.0% Less than 10.000 € 34 6.7%
25–34 83 16.2% 10.000 – 19.999 € 83 16.2%
35–44 107 20.9% 20.000 – 29.999 € 126 24.7%
45–54 121 23.7% 30.000 – 39.999 € 79 15.5%
55–70 149 29.2% 40.000 – 49.999 € 50 9.8%
Total 511 100% 50.000 – 59.999 € 19 3.7%
60.000 – 69.999 € 18 3.5%
Gender Number Percentage 70.000 – 79.999 € 9 1.8%
Female 257 50.3% 80.000 – 89.999 € 10 2.0%
Male 254 49.7% 90.000 – 99.999 € 2 0.4%
Total 511 100% 100.000 – 109.999 € 3 0.6%
110.000 – 124.999 € 1 0.2%
Education Number Percentage 125.000 € or more 1 0.2%
Middle school or lower 52 10.2% Not stated 76 14.9%
High school 291 56.9% Total 511 100%
Batchelor degree 48 9.4%
Master’s degree 98 19.2%
MBA or Doctorate 22 4.3%
Total 511 100%
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1968
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
Our study was anchored in the preceding research by Do Valle etal. [37] and Gadenne
etal. [43], from which we identified three items to measure social norms. We employed a
7-point Likert scale for the assessment of respondents’ alignment with social norms. The
responses were combined to produce a single factor that showed substantial internal con-
sistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81).
We used items proposed by Huang [54] and Sharma and Dayal [83] to measure per-
ceived efficacy. We created three items and asked respondents to rate their degree of agree-
ment on a 7-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha of the single factor derived by integrating
all elements was 0.88.
To determine plastic concerns, the researchers drew upon Bang etal.’s [9] early work on
environmental concerns, as well as more recent studies by Maichum etal. [64] and Li etal.
[56]. The plastic concern scale consisted of two items, rated on a Likert scale ranging from
one to seven, and was based on a recent study by Cavaliere etal. [21]. The two items were
merged into a single factor, and the resulting scale demonstrated good internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77). Descriptive statistics for the constructs used in the study can be
found in Appendix Table5.
Results
A structural equation model was employed to analyze the collected data and evaluate the
hypotheses. This process involved firstly assessing the measurement model and secondly
testing the hypotheses.
Assessment oftheMeasurement Model
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the qualities of the measures. Table2
displays the fit indices for the measurement model, including chi-square difference (2),
degrees of freedom (df), chi-square statistic adjusted for degrees of freedom (2/df), com-
parative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root-mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and p of Close Fit (PCLOSE). According to Barrett [12], a satisfactory model fit
would result in a non-significant chi-square outcome. However, Iacobucci [55] argues that the
chi-square statistic is sensitive to sample size, and it frequently rejects the model when large
samples are employed. Therefore, a favorable model fit may be characterized by a compara-
tive fit index (CFI), a Tucker-Lewis index (which should typically be 0.95 to indicate a good
fit), and an RMSEA (which should usually be 0.08 to indicate a satisfactory match).
The convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement model were evaluated
using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) for
each variable, which are presented in Table3. These indicators enable an assessment of
whether the construct pieces that are theoretically linked are connected, which is known as
convergent validity [33]. Instead, discriminant validity assesses whether the components in
a concept are unrelated to other things [50]. Typically, an AVE score greater than 0.5 sug-
gests that the constructs have high convergent validity. When AVE levels exceed MSVval-
ues, discriminant validity is not an issue [52].
Table 2 Evaluation of the
measurement model
⁎⁎⁎ p < 0.001
Model χ2 df χ2/df CFI TLI RMSEA
Measurement model 388*** 130 2.93 0.948 0.954 0.059
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1969
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
Verification ofHypotheses
Once the measurement model was evaluated, we determined it to be sufficient for testing
the hypotheses based on the acceptable goodness-of-fit indices. The proposed structural
equation model had a variance of 0.458 (Fig.2).
Fig. 2 The paths of the model
Table 3 Reliability and validity outcomes
CR: In academic research, if the Composite Reliability (CR) value exceeds 0.7, it is deemed acceptable
MaxR(H): When the value of MaxR(H) reaches 0.80, the value is considered acceptable
AVE: Convergent validity is assessed using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), with a score of 0.5 or
higher indicating a considerable degree of convergent validity
MSV: When the value of Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) is less than the AVE, discriminant validity is
confirmed
CR AVE MSV MaxR(H) Per-
ceived
efficacy
Attitude PCB Social
Norm
BehaviorPlastic con-
cern
Per-
ceived
effi-
cacy
0.882 0.714 0.520 0.891 0.845
Attitude 0.852 0.657 0.272 0.852 0.522 0.811
PCB 0.818 0.601 0.457 0.824 0.489 0.194 0.775
Social
Norm
0.820 0.603 0.480 0.823 0.514 0.240 0.676 0.777
Behavior0.734 0.580 0.507 0.740 0.712 0.432 0.538 0.693 0.762
Plastic
con-
cern
0.782 0.645 0.194 0.823 -0.426 -0.411 0.057 -0.005 -0.313 0.803
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1970
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
The coefficients of the model indicate a robust and statistically significant correlation
between plastic concern and attitudes (H1) (b = 0.18, p < 0.001), as well as between per-
ceived efficacy and attitudes (H3) (b = 0.32, p < 0.001). Moreover, the study found sig-
nificant positive relationships between social norms and purchase behavior concerning
recycled plastic (H5) (b = 0.57, p < 0.001), and attitudes and behavior purchase concern-
ing recycled plastic (H6) (b = 0.26, p < 0.001). Finally, the analysis also revealed a signifi-
cant and positive relationship between perceived behavioral control and purchase behavior
regarding recycled plastic (H7) (b = 0.14, p < 0.01).
To evaluate H2 and H4, the study computed the direct and indirect impacts of attitudes
on purchasing behavior concerning recycled plastic. The mediation effect was evaluated by
conducting 5,000 bootstraps resamples using the bias-corrected bootstrap approach, which
yields appropriate statistical power [24]. The results showed that H2 was supported, while
H4 was rejected. Consequently, it was discovered that attitudes function as a mediating fac-
tor between plastic concern and purchasing behaviors related to recycled plastic. Further-
more, these attitudes act as a full mediator between perceived efficacy and the purchasing
behavior concerning recycled plastic products. The direct effect, indirect effect, and media-
tor are all presented in Tables4.
Discussion
Theoretical Contributions
Our research contributes to a better understanding of the beliefs that shape the devel-
opment of favorable attitudes toward recycled products. Specifically, we found that
plastic-related concern has a direct impact on positive attitudes towards recycled prod-
ucts or packaging and, indirectly, on the likelihood of purchasing such products. Previ-
ous studies have also provided strong empirical support for the role of environmental
concern in driving pro-environmental behaviors [71]. Focusing on plastic issues, Chi
[25] found that environmental concern positively affects the probability of buying eco-
friendly plastic products. In our study, we focus on products with recycled plastic and
shed light on the fact that plastic concern represents one of the new drivers in influenc-
ing consumers’ decision-making process.
Second, our research suggests that plastic-related concern represents another specific
environmental-related concern that should be more extensively analyzed in future study.
For instance, purchase behavior regarding recycled plastic [15] could be better explored
also concerning plastic concerns. Moreover, future research leveraging the scale proposed
in our study could also test and validate an appropriate scale for measuring and assessing
plastic-related concerns.
Our research also makes a significant contribution to the ongoing discussion concerning
the impact of perceived self-efficacy by providing fresh empirical evidence that challenges
the inconsistent findings reported in prior studies. Our study supports the observations of
Kollmuss and Agyeman [60], which suggest that perceived self-efficacy can influence atti-
tudes. However, we discovered that perceived self-efficacy does not have a direct effect on
the purchase behavior concerning recycled plastic, which contrasts with other research that
suggests consumer self-efficacy can directly impact sustainable behaviors [96].
Our findings add to the existing body of knowledge based on the Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB) model’s ability to predict eco-friendly behavior. Firstly, our study
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1971
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
Table 4 Results of the mediation tests
Direct effect (Sig.) Indirect effect (Sig.)
Plastic concern – Attitude – Purchase behavior regarding
recycled plastic
0.274 (0.001) 0.054 (0.001)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1972
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
validates the model’s efficacy and its components (i.e., social norms, attitudes, and
perceived behavioral control) in predicting environmentally conscious behavior, such
as purchasing recycled plastic products. For instance, our results indicate a signifi-
cant positive correlation between perceived behavioral control and plastic recycling
behavior, thereby confirming the crucial role of one’s capability to adopt specific green
buying behavior [1, 76]. Secondly, social norms exhibit a more substantial influence
than attitudes and perceived behavioral control over purchasing behavior. Our findings
confirmed the assumption that social norms significantly impact consumers’ buying
behavior regarding recycled plastic, highlighting how behavior is not only influenced
by individual attributes. Consumers’ willingness to engage in sustainable behavior is
heavily influenced by the behavior of others in their social context [74]. When people
perceive that others do not share environmental concerns, they may feel powerless to
make an impact and lose motivation to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors
[15]. Lastly, our study furthers understanding of the determinants of attitude and its
mediating role. Specifically, the empirical models reveal that plastic-related concern
and perceived self-efficacy have a positive impact on attitude, which ultimately acts as
a complete mediator of the positive association between self-efficacy and the behavior
of purchasing recycled plastic products.
Policy andManagerial Implications
Since plastic concern and self-efficacy positively influence attitudes, policymakers could
design education campaigns that emphasize the environmental benefits of plastic recycling
to push for products made from recycled plastic indirectly. Awareness campaigns could
also focus on the role of descriptive (related to observing others’ overt behaviors) and
injunctive (based on the inference of others’ approval) norms. Here, identifying opinion
leaders could effectively change consumer behavior.
Recognizing the influential role of social norms in shaping consumer behavior, as
identified in our study, awareness campaigns could strategically focus on two types of
norms: descriptive and injunctive, as detailed by Keys etal. [59]. Descriptive norms
involve observing others’ overt behaviors [80], and campaigns can highlight this by pre-
senting real-life examples of individuals or communities engaged in sustainable prac-
tices, like using products made from recycled plastic. This method leverages the human
tendency to mimic the actions of others, particularly when these actions are viewed
as positive or beneficial. Injunctive norms, which pertain to perceptions of others’
approval or disapproval [40], can be accentuated through endorsements by influential
figures or opinion leaders. Collaborating with such influential individuals or entities,
such as celebrities, esteemed community members, or organizations renowned for envi-
ronmental advocacy, can significantly impact public opinions and, subsequently, con-
sumer behaviors.
We believe that public policies should design instruments encouraging companies
to make use of recycled plastic in their products or packaging. Guidelines aimed at
standardizing the creation of robust claims and the communication of environmental
benefits could contribute to establishing a fair and transparent communication pro-
cess. This, in turn, could promote the adoption of products and packaging made from
recycled plastics. In addition, managers could design marketing campaigns following
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1973
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
the abovementioned indications to stimulate the consumption of recycled plastic
products.
Since consumers seem to recognize the added value of recycled plastic, managers
should invest resources to find new opportunities for recycling plastic or design plastic
products or packaging with recycled content. In this context, we explicitly recommend
that managers actively seek collaborative pathways with actors along the supply chain. For
instance, initiatives such as industrial symbiosis [32] could foster innovative solutions, like
combining byproducts from various industries with recycled plastics.
Conclusions
This paper employed a structural equation model to examine the factors that influence
consumers’ decisions to purchase recycled plastic products or packaging. Specifically,
we investigated the impacts of plastic concern, self-efficacy, attitude, social norms, and
perceived behavioral control on purchasing decisions. Our research reveals that con-
cerns about plastics and perceived efficacy exert a direct influence on attitudes. Addi-
tionally, our findings demonstrate that social norms, attitudes, and perceived behavio-
ral control significantly shape purchasing behaviors concerning recycled plastic. Thus,
consistent with previous research based on the TPB, this study supports the notion that
social norms, attitudes, and PBC play significant roles in determining consumers’ pur-
chase behavior regarding recycled plastic. Moreover, our study suggests that attitudes
serve as a mediating factor between concerns about plastics and purchasing decisions
related to recycled plastic. These attitudes also function as a complete mediator in the
relationship between perceived efficacy and the purchasing behavior for recycled plas-
tic products.
From a theoretical standpoint, our study offers two primary contributions. Firstly,
it underscores how concerns about plastics significantly influence people’s percep-
tions of recycled products and their purchasing tendencies, thereby highlighting the
role of these concerns in guiding consumer decisions. Secondly, it provides evidence
that perceived self-efficacy affects attitudes but does not directly correlate with pur-
chasing behaviors. The practical implications of our research suggest that educational
campaigns emphasizing the benefits of plastic recycling and the impact of social
norms could positively influence consumer behavior. Furthermore, governmental
policies should advocate for recycled plastic, thereby enhancing the use of recycled
plastic products. From a managerial perspective, managers are encouraged to inves-
tigate recycling opportunities and develop products that incorporate materials based
on these findings. Despite the relevance of our findings, the study presents some limi-
tations which could inspire future research on this topic. First, the inquiry depends
on self-reported data that are founded on individual perceptions instead of factual
conduct. While numerous studies have established the validity of self-reported data
[94], upcoming research should endeavor to obtain data by directly observing purchase
behavior concerning recycled plastic. Moreover, since our measure is quite generic,
future research should focus on specific behaviors to investigate whether there are dif-
ferences in the effect of the variables included in our model.
Second, our research focuses on environmental factors and overlooks the influence of
other aspects such as price, quality, etc. Further investigations could investigate how these
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1974
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
aforementioned factors might create contrasting priorities in a consumer. Experimental
designs such as conjoint analysis may be suitable methodological choices.
Third, our research focuses on a sample representative of the Italian population. Even
though cultural values could be considered homogeneous across Western countries, future
research could test our model in emerging countries such as BRICS countries.
In conclusion, even though we explored five potential factors that may affect behavior,
including perceived efficacy, attitude towards plastic recycled products, perceived behav-
ioral control, and social norms, prior research indicates that contextual factors could also
impact eco-friendly conduct [22]. Therefore, future research forthcoming studies ought
to incorporate supplementary variables like individual attributes, contextual factors, and
behavioral determinants into our model to substantiate the impact of these determinants on
purchase behavior relating to recycled plastic.
Recycled plastics constitute a significant area of future research within the framework
of the circular economy. It is essential that forthcoming studies thoroughly investigate
this topic in the ensuing years. Alongside examining consumer behavior, it is imperative
to explore additional research avenues. Future research should aim to examine the issue
from a more macroscopic perspective, encompassing an analysis of market trends, poten-
tial impacts on supply chains, and the wider economic ramifications of integrating recy-
cled plastics across various industries. Additionally, another area for further investigation
includes delving into the emerging concerns associated with recycled microplastics and
their potential adverse effects on human health.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1975
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
Table 5 Descriptive statistics for the study variables
Construct Items Min Max Average Std. Dev.
Behavior I usually buy products made from recycled plastic or packaged in recycled plastic 1 7 4.90 1.11
Between two equivalent products, I prefer to buy the one with recycled plastic packaging rather than one
made of non-recycled plastic
1 7 5.34 1.22
Social Norm Friends, relatives, and people around me would like me to buy products made from recycled plastic or
packaged in recycled plastic
1 7 4.53 1.42
Friends, relatives, and people around me would approve of my purchases of products made from recycled
plastic or packaged in recycled plastic
1 7 5.08 1.31
Friends, relatives, and people around me buy products made from recycled plastic or packaged in recycled
plastic
1 7 4.60 1.20
Perceived efficacy Buying recycled products helps to conserve natural resources 2 7 5.64 1.16
Buying recycled products saves energy, water, and other resources 1 7 5.52 1.21
Buying recycled products helps to support the market in the transition toward the circular economy 1 7 5.44 1.17
Attitudes (buying recycled
plastic products/packag-
ing is:)
Pointless for environmental protection / Useful for environmental protection 1 7 5.75 1.67
An unnecessary behavior /A necessary behavior 1 7 5.74 1.65
Irresponsible / Responsible 1 7 5.86 1.66
Recommended / Not recommended 1 7 2.84 2.13
Perceived Behavioural Control I have multiple opportunities to buy recycled products in my everyday life 1 7 4.60 1.28
I am fully informed about where to buy recycled products 1 7 4.40 1.33
I have the financial resources to buy "recycled" products (including those that use recycled packaging) 1 7 4.69 1.28
Plastic concern The problem of plastic in the oceans is not overrated/exaggerated enormously by the media, by the news
media
1 7 2.92 1.90
I often think about the problem of plastic in the oceans 1 7 3.29 1.70
Appendix
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1976
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
Authors’ Contributions F.C. conceptualization of the paper, data collection, analyses, and writing the main
parts of the paper. N.M.G. conceptualization of the paper, data collection, analyses, and writing the main
parts of the paper. E.B analyses, writing the main parts of the paper. F.T. conceptualization of the paper,
data collection, analyses, and writing the main parts of the paper. A.A. writing the main parts of the paper,
supervision; F.I. analyses, writing the main parts of the paper, supervision.
Funding Open access funding provided by Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Data Availability Availability Data is registered and stored in compliance with the general rules for scien-
tific data management.
Declarations
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate Not applicable.
Consent for Publication The authors offer their consent for the publication of this article.
Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
1. Agrawal C, Duggal T (2021) A study of consumer switching behaviour in the Indian context with
respect to recycled products. In: Examining the intersection of circular economy, forestry, and inter-
national trade. IGI Global, pp 142–153
2. Ajzen I (2002) Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned
behavior 1. J Appl Soc Psychol 32:665–683
3. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211
4. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs
5. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (2010) Predicting and changing behaviour. The reasoned action approach. Psy-
chology Press (Taylor & Francis), New York
6. Bamberg S, Möser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analy-
sis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 27:14–25
7. Bandura A (2002) Environmental sustainability by sociocognitive deceleration of population growth.
In: Schmuck P etal (eds) Psychology of sustainable development. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands, pp 209–238
8. Bandura A (2005) The primacy of self-regulation in health promotion. Appl Psychol: Int Rev
9. Bang HK, Ellinger AE, Hadjimarcou J, Traichal PA (2000) Consumer concern, knowledge, belief,
and attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory. Psychol Mark
17(6):449–468
10. Bao Y, Bao Y, Sheng S (2011) Motivating purchase of private brands: effects of store image, product
signatureness, and quality variation. J Bus Res 64(2):220–226
11. Bates CH (2010) Use of social marketing concepts to evaluate ocean sustainability campaigns. Soc
Mar Q 16:71–96
12. Barrett P (2007) Structural equation modelling: adjudging model fit. Personal Individ Differ
42(5):815–824
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1977
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
13. Bertoldo R, Castro P (2016) The outer influence inside us: exploring the relation between social and
personal norms. Resour Conserv Recycl 112:45–53
14. Bodin Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-eco-
logical systems. Science 357:eaan1114. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. aan11 14
15. Borg K, Curtis J, Lindsay J (2020) Social norms and plastic avoidance: Testing the theory of norma-
tive social behaviour on an environmental behaviour. J Consum Behav 19(6):594–607
16. Bortoleto AP, Kurisu KH, Hanaki K (2012) Model development for household waste prevention
behaviour. Waste Manag 32(12):2195–2207
17. Botetzagias I, Dima AF, Malesios C (2015) Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior in the context
of recycling: the role of moral norms and of demographic predictors. Resour Conserv Recycl. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2014. 12. 004
18. Bucknall DG (2020) Plastics as a materials system in a circular economy. Phil Trans R Soc A
378(2176):20190268
19. Byerly H, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Hammond Wagner C, Palchak E, Polasky S etal (2018) Nudging
pro-environmental behavior: evidence and opportunities. Front Ecol Environ 16:159–168. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1002/ fee. 1777
20. Calvo-Porral C, Lévy-Mangin JP (2020) The circular economy business model: examining consum-
ers’ acceptance of recycled goods. Admin Sci 10(2):28
21. Cavaliere A, Pigliafreddo S, De Marchi E, Banterle A (2020) Do consumers really want to reduce
plastic usage? Exploring the determinants of plastic avoidance in food-related consumption decisions.
Sustainability 12(22):9627
22. Cecere G, Mancinelli S, Mazzanti M (2014) Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Ecol Econ 107:163–176
23. Centola D, Becker J, Brackbill D, Baronchelli A (2018) Experimental evidence for tipping points in
social convention. Science 360:1116–1119. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. aas88 27
24. Cheung HY, Lau KT, Lu TP, Hui D (2007) A critical review on polymer-based bio-engineered mate-
rials for scaffold development. Compos Part B 38(3):291–300
25. Chi NTK (2022) Ethical consumption behavior towards eco-friendly plastic products: Implication for
cleaner production. Clean Responsible Consum 5:100055
26. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the con-
cept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 58:1015–1026
27. Cialdini RB, Trost MR (1998) Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance. In: The
Handbook of Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 151–192
28. Combs GM, Luthans F (2007) Diversity training: analysis of the impact of self-efficacy. Hum Resour
Dev Q 18(1):91–120
29. Corsini F, Gusmerotti NM, Testa F, Iraldo F (2018) Exploring waste prevention behaviour through
empirical research. Waste Manag 79:132–141
30. Corsini F, Laurenti R, Meinherz F, Appio FP, Mora L (2019) The advent of practice theories in
research on sustainable consumption: past, current and future directions of the field. Sustainability
11(2):341
31. Corsini F, Gusmerotti NM, Frey M (2020) Consumer’s circular behaviors in relation to the purchase,
extension of life, and end of life management of electrical and electronic products: a review. Sustain-
ability 12(24):10443
32. Corsini F, De Bernardi C, Frey M (2024) Industrial symbiosis as a business strategy for the circular
economy: identifying regional firms’ profiles and barriers to their adoption. J Environ Plan Manag
67(5):1148–1168
33. Cunningham WA, Preacher KJ, Banaji MR (2001) Implicit attitude measures: consistency, stability,
and convergent validity. Psychol Sci 12(2):163–170
34. Davies J, Foxall GR, Pallister J (2002) Beyond the intention-behaviour mythology: an integrated model of
recycling. Mark Theory 1:29–113
35. de Sousa FDB (2021) The role of plastic concerning the sustainable development goals: the literature point
of view. Cleaner Responsible Consum 3:100020
36. Dillman DA (2011) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method--2007 update with new internet,
visual, and mixed-mode guide. John Wiley & Sons
37. Do Valle PO, Reis E, Menezes J, Rebelo E (2004) Behavioral determinants of household recycling partici-
pation: the Portuguese case. Environ Behav 36(4):505–540
38. Dodds WB, Monroe KB, Grewal D (1991) Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product
evaluations. J Mark Res 28(3):307–319
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1978
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
39. Eppel S, Sharp V, Davies L (2013) A review of Defra’s approach to building an evidence base for influenc-
ing sustainable behaviour. Resour Conserv Recycl 79:30–42
40. Eriksson K, Strimling P, Coultas JC (2015) Bidirectional associations between descriptive and injunctive
norms. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 129:59–69
41. European Commission (2020) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions. A new Circular Economy Action
Plan. For a cleaner and more competitive Europe, COM(2020) 98 final. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2775/ 855540
42. Feltz DL, Short SE, Sullivan PJ (2008) Self-efficacy in sport. Hum Kinet
43. Gadenne D, Sharma B, Kerr D, Smith T (2011) The influence of consumers’ environmental beliefs and
attitudes on energy saving behaviours. Energy Policy 39(12):7684–7694
44. Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL (2017) Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv
3:ae1700782
45. Gong Y, Putnam E, You W, Zhao C (2020) Investigation into circular economy of plastics: the case of the
UK fast moving consumer goods industry. J Clean Prod 244:118941
46. Grob A (1995) A structural model of environmental attitudes and behaviour. J Environ Psychol
15(3):209–220
47. Gwozdz W, Reisch LA, Thøgersen J (2020) Behaviour change for sustainable consumption. J Consum Pol-
icy 43:249–253. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10603- 020- 09455-z
48. Gusmerotti NM, Testa F, Corsini F, Pretner G, Iraldo F (2019) Drivers and approaches to the circular econ-
omy in manufacturing firms. J Clean Prod 230:314–327
49. Ha H, Janda S (2012) Predicting consumer intentions to purchase energy-efficient products. J Consum Mark
29(7):461–469
50. Ha S, Stoel L (2009) Consumer e-shopping acceptance: antecedents in a technology acceptance model. J
Bus Res 62(5):565–571
51. Hahladakis JN, Iacovidou E (2018) Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials: what is quality and
how does it affect their circularity? Sci Total Environ 630:1394–1400
52. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (2006) Multivariate data analysis with readings, vol 6. Pear-
son Prentice Hall, New York, NY
53. Heidbreder LM, Bablok I, Drews S, Menzel C (2019) Tackling the plastic problem: a review on percep-
tions, behaviors, and interventions. Sci Total Environ 668:1077–1093
54. Huang H (2016) Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior. J Bus Res
69(6):2206–2212
55. Iacobucci D (2010) Structural equations modeling: fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. J Consum
Psychol 20(1):90–98
56. Li G, Li W, Jin Z, Wang Z (2019) Influence of environmental concern and knowledge on households’ will-
ingness to purchase energy-efficient appliances: a case study in Shanxi, China. Sustainability 11(4):1073
57. Lindh H, Olsson A, Williams H (2016) Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging: Contributing to or coun-
teracting environmentally sstainable development? Packag Technol Sci 29:3–23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/
pts. 2184
58. Kaiser FG, Ranney M, Hartig T, Bowler PA (1999) Ecological behavior, environmental attitude and feel-
ings of responsibility for the environment. Eur Psychol 4:59–74
59. Keys N, Thomsen DC, Smith TF (2016) Adaptive capacity and climate change: the role of community
opinion leaders. Local Environ 21(4):432–450
60. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barri-
ers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13504 62022
01454 01
61. Krumpal I (2013) Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual
Quant 47(4):2025–2047
62. Lam S (2006) What makes customers bring their bags or buy bags from the shop? A survey of customers at
a Taiwan hypermarket. Environ Behav 38:318–332. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00139 16505 278327
63. Lizin S, Dael MV, Van Passel S (2017) Battery pack recycling: behaviour change interventions derived
from an integrative theory of planned behaviour study. Resour Conserv Recycl 122:66–82. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2017. 02. 003. (ISSN 0921-3449)
64. Maichum K, Parichatnon S, Peng KC (2017) Factors affecting on purchase intention towards green prod-
ucts: a case study of young consumers in Thailand. Young 16(5):330–335
65. Matthes E, Selge S, Klöckner CA (2012) The role of parental behaviour for the development of behaviour
specific environmental norms – the example of recycling and reuse behavior. J Environ Psychol 32:277–
284. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2012. 04. 003
66. Meng MD, Leary RB (2021) It might be ethical, but I won’t buy it: perceived contamination of, and disgust
towards, clothing made from recycled plastic bottles. Psychol Mark 38(2):298–312
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1979
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
67. Moser SC (2010) Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions: com-
municating climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Clim Chang 1(1):31–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ wcc.
11
68. Muralidharan S, Sheehan K (2016) “Tax” and “Fee” message frames as inhibitors of plastic bag usage
among shoppers: a social marketing application of the theory of planned behavior. Soc Marketing Q
22(3):200–217. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15245 00416 631522
69. Nyborg K, Anderies JM, Dannenberg A, Lindahl T, Schill C, Schluter M etal (2016) Social norms as solu-
tions. Science 354:42–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. aaf83 17
70. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012) OECD environmental outlook to 2050:
The consequences of inaction. OECD Publishing, Paris. https:// www. oecd. org/ g20/ topics/ energy- envir
onment- green- growth/ oecde nviro nment alout lookt o2050 theco nsequ ences ofina ction. htm. Accessed 6 Jul
2022
71. Otsyina HR, Nguhiu-Mwangi J, Mogoa EGM, Mbuthia PG, Ogara WO (2018) Knowledge, attitude, and
practices on usage, disposal, and effect of plastic bags on sheep and goats. Trop Anim Health Prod
50:997–1003
72. Otto IM, Donges JF, Cremades R, Bhowmik A, Hewitt RJ, Lucht W etal (2020) Social tipping dynamics
for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:2354–2365. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1073/
pnas. 19005 77117
73. Park HJ, Lin LM (2020) Exploring attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption: comparison of recy-
cled and upcycled fashion products. J Bus Res 117:623–628
74. Pieters RGM (1991) Changing garbage disposal patterns of consumers: motivation, ability, and perfor-
mance. J Public Policy Mark 10:59–76
75. Podsakoff PM, Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manag
12(4):531–544
76. Prakash G, Pathak P (2017) Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among young consumers of
India: a study on developing nation. J Clean Prod 141:385–393
77. Prince-Ruiz R, Finn JA (2020) Plastic free: the inspiring story of a global environmental movement and
why it matters. Columbia University Press
78. Ragaert K, Delva L, Van Geem K (2017) Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid plastic waste. Waste
Manag 69:24–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. wasman. 2017. 07. 044
79. Ragaert K, Huysveld S, Vyncke G, Hubo S, Veelaert L, Dewulf J, Du Bois E (2020) Design from recycling:
a complex mixed plastic waste case study. Resour Conserv Recycl 155:104646. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
resco nrec. 2019. 104646
80. Rivis A, Sheeran P (2003) Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour:
a meta-analysis. Curr Psychol 22:218–233
81. Roberts JA (1996) Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertising. J Bus Res
36(3):217–231
82. Salant P, Dillman DA (1994) How to conduct your own survey. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York
83. Sharma N, Dayal R (2016) Drivers of green purchase intentions: green self-efficacy and perceived
consumer effectiveness. Glob J Enterp Inf Syst 8(3):27–32
84. Shetzer L, Stackman RW, Moore LF (1991) Business-environment attitudes and the new environmen-
tal paradigm. J Environ Educ 22(4):14–21
85. Steensma HK, Tihanyi L, Lyles MA, Dhanaraj C (2005) The evolving value of foreign partnerships in
transitioning economies. Acad Manag J 48(2):213–235
86. Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research
agenda. J Environ Psychol 29(3):309–317. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2008. 10. 004
87. Stern PC (2000) New environmental theories: toward a coherent view of en- vironmentally significant
behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424
88. Tabernero C, Hernández B (2011) Self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation guiding environmental
behavior. Environ Behav 43:658–675. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00139 16510 379759
89. Tabernero C, Hernández B, Cuadrado E, Luque B, Pereira CR (2015) A multilevel perspective to
explain recycling behaviour in communities. J Environ Manage 159:192–201. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. jenvm an. 2015. 05. 024
90. Testa F, Russo MV, Cornwell TB, McDonald A, Reich B (2018) Social sustainability as buying local:
soft policy, Meso level actors and social influences on purchase intentions. J Public Policy Mark
37:152–166
91. Testa F, Di Iorio V, Cerri J, Pretner G (2021) Five shades of plastic in food: which potentially circu-
lar packaging solutions are Italian consumers more sensitive to. Resour Conserv Recycl 173:105726.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2021. 105726
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1980
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
92. Testa F, Gusmerotti N, Corsini F, Bartoletti E (2022) The role of consumer trade-offs in limiting the
transition towards circular economy: the case of brand and plastic concern. Resour Conserv Recycl
181:106262
93. Testa F, Pretner G, Iovino R, Bianchi G, Tessitore S, Iraldo F (2021) Drivers to green consumption: a
systematic review. Environ Dev Sustain 23:4826–4880. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10668- 020- 00844-5
94. Testa F, Sarti S, Frey M (2019) Are green consumers really green? Exploring the factors behind the
actual consumption of organic food products. Bus Strateg Environ 28:327–338
95. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2009) Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,
Rev. and expanded ed. Penguin Books, New York
96. Thøgersen J, Crompton T (2009) Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental
campaigning. J Consum Policy 32:141–163. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10603- 009- 9101-1
97. Thøgersen J (2006) Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: an extended tax-onomy. J
Environ Psychol 26:247–261
98. Thurstone LL (1928) Attitudes can be measured. Am J Sociol 33(4):529–554
99. Tonglet M, Phillips PS, Read AD (2004) Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate the
determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from Brixworth, UK. Resour Conserv Recycl
41:191–214. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2003. 11. 001
100. Tourangeau R, Yan T (2007) Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull 133(5):859
101. Vancouver JB, Thompson CM, Williams AA (2001) The changing signs in the relationships among
selfefficacy, personal goals, and performance. J Appl Psychol 86(4):605
102. Van der Werff E, Steg L (2015) One model to predict them all: predicting energy behaviours with the
norm activating model. Energy Res Soc Sci 6:8–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. erss. 2014. 11. 002
103. Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2008) Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: theory
of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol Econ 64(3):542–553
104. Wang J, Li M, Li S, Chen K (2022) Understanding consumers’ food waste reduction behavior—a
study based on extended norm activation theory. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(7):4187
105. Wood R, Bandura A (1989) Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and com-
plex decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol 56:407–415
106. Yuriev A, Dahmen M, Paillé P, Boiral O, Guillaumie L (2020) Pro-environmental behaviors through
the lens of the theory of planned behavior: a scoping review. Resour Conserv Recycl 155:104660.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2019. 104660
107. Zimmer MR, Stafford TF, Stafford MR (1994) Green issues: dimensions of environmental concern. J
Bus Res 30(1):63–74
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1981
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:1961–1981
1 3
Authors and Aliations
FilippoCorsini1,2 · NataliaMarziaGusmerotti3· EdoardoBartoletti4·
FrancescoTesta4· AndreaAppolloni3· FabioIraldo4
* Filippo Corsini
filippo.corsini@santannapisa.it
Natalia Marzia Gusmerotti
natalia.marzia.gusmerotti@uniroma2.it
Edoardo Bartoletti
edoardo.bartoletti@santannapisa.it
Francesco Testa
francesco.testa@santannapisa.it
Andrea Appolloni
andrea.appolloni@uniroma2.it
Fabio Iraldo
fabio.iraldo@santannapisa.it
1 Sustainability andClimate Interdisciplinary Center, Sant’Anna School ofAdvanced Studies, Pisa,
Italy
2 Institute ofManagement, Sant’Anna School ofAdvanced Studies, Pisa, Italy
3 Department ofManagement andLaw, University ofRome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
4 Institute ofManagement, Sant’Anna Scuola Universitaria Superiore Pisa, Pisa, Italy
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
