Sustainability 14 16858 v2

sustainability
Article
Understanding the Barriers to Consumer Purchasing of
Zero-Waste Products
Ye Sang † , Heeseung Yu † and Eunkyoung Han *
Department of Media and Communication, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul 03063, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract: This study uses innovation resistance theory (IRT) to investigate why consumers are
hesitant to purchase zero-waste products. Most of the existing IRT application studies have been
conducted on innovation resistance to technology or devices. This study focuses on consumer
innovation resistance to zero-waste products, extending the theoretical application of IRT to the
field of sustainability research. We further broaden this theory by exploring the moderating role
of perceived environmental responsibility (PER). Data were collected from 400 consumers through
an online survey. To verify the hypothesis, structural equation modeling (SEM) was carried out
using AMOS software, and the moderating effect was verified using SPSS Process Macro Model
1. The results of the study suggest that usage, value, risk and tradition barriers significantly affect
the adoption of zero-waste products. Furthermore, consumer PER shows antagonistic interactions
with the barriers (usage, value, risk and tradition) and zero-waste product purchase intentions; as
consumer PER increases, the impacts of the barriers on zero-waste product purchase intentions also
increase. These results are expected to provide a theoretical framework for future IRT research and
to enable fashion brands to implement effective zero-waste practices and to manage government
and corporate barriers (image, usage, value, risk and tradition) with respect to zero-waste products,
thereby reaping greater profits.
Citation: Sang, Y.; Yu, H.; Han, E.
Understanding the Barriers to
Keywords: zero waste; innovation resistance theory; usage barrier; risk barrier; tradition barrier;
Consumer Purchasing of Zero-Waste
Products. Sustainability 2022, 14,
image barrier; purchase intention
16858. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su142416858
Academic Editors: Ohbyung Kwon,

1. Introduction
Min-jeong Suh and Sujin Bae
The COVID-19 crisis has changed global waste disposal dynamics, and the concept
Received: 29 October 2022 of zero waste has received special attention. Due to the global quest for modern urban
Accepted: 12 December 2022 living [1], people are disposing of increasing amounts of waste. In addition, the preva-
Published: 15 December 2022 lence of plastics and electronics means that the composition of waste has become more
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral complex than ever before. Furthermore, it is estimated that total greenhouse gas (GHG)
with regard to jurisdictional claims in emissions from solid waste account for approximately 5% of the total GHG emissions in
published maps and institutional affil- the atmosphere [2], making waste disposal critical to climate change.
iations. The driving force behind the establishment of the zero-waste concept is the idea of
sustainable development. Waste generation not only burdens the environment, it also,
ultimately, leads to the additional economic costs of waste management [3,4], affecting the
development of a circular economy. It is expected that by 2025, the annual global generation
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. of municipal solid waste (MSW) will be approximately 2.2 billion tons, and 4.2 billion tons
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
by 2055 [5]. This is not in line with target 12.5 proposed by the United Nations General
This article is an open access article
Assembly for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [6]: to achieve a significant
distributed under the terms and
reduction in waste globally by 2030 [7]. Therefore, the sustainable use of materials is the
conditions of the Creative Commons
preferred method for saving resources and limiting waste generation.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
Originally, the most widely used methods of waste disposal included landfills, me-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
chanical and biological treatment, incineration and recycling [8]. However, the term “zero
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16858. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416858 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16858 2 of 20

Originally, the most widely used methods of waste disposal included landfills, me-
chanical and biological treatment, incineration and recycling [8]. However, the term “zero
waste” wasfirst
waste” was firstintroduced
introducedbyby Dr.Dr. Paul
Paul Palmer
Palmer in 1973
in 1973 withwith theofaim
the aim of recovering
recovering re-
resources
sources from chemicals [9]. The focus is now on converting waste into
from chemicals [9]. The focus is now on converting waste into resources without post- resources without
post-processing
processing [10]. The [10].zero-waste
The zero-waste
concept concept includes
includes the 3Rthe 3R rules—reduce,
rules—reduce, reuse andreuse and
recycle
recycle
(Figure (Figure
1) [11]; 1)
for[11]; for example,
example, zero in
zero waste waste in production
production processes
processes using using
naturalnatural ma-
materials
terials
from thefrom theand
earth earth and
zero zeroemissions
waste waste emissions
into the into the air,
air, water, water,
land landenvironments
or other or other environ-
[12].
ments [12]. energy
Renewable Renewable energyfor
is essential is increasing
essential for
GDPincreasing
per capita GDP
andper capita and
improving improving
air quality [13];
air qualitythe
therefore, [13]; therefore, the
valorization valorization
of waste can yieldof many
waste economic,
can yield many economic,and
environmental environ-
social
mental and social
advantages [14]. advantages [14].
Figure 1. The 3Rs of zero waste [15–34].
There is
There is no
no doubt
doubt that
that many
many cities,
cities, organizations,
organizations, individuals
individuals and and waste
waste recycling
recycling
industries around the world are researching and developing “greener” technologies
industries around the world are researching and developing “greener” technologies in in
order to develop a circular economy [35]. The basic goal is to avoid and
order to develop a circular economy [35]. The basic goal is to avoid and limit the use of limit the use of
products and
products and assets
assets through
through different
different material
material cycles
cycles [36,37]. For example,
[36,37]. For according to
example, according to
the Zero Waste Coalition, the zero-waste philosophy is based on a
the Zero Waste Coalition, the zero-waste philosophy is based on a closed-loop system in closed-loop system
in which
which waste
waste is used
is used as aaspotential
a potential source
source of raw
of raw materials
materials [38];[38];
it isitalso
is also
knownknown as
as the
the cradle-to-cradle philosophy [39,40]. Therefore, this paper will analyze
cradle-to-cradle philosophy [39,40]. Therefore, this paper will analyze the impact of zero- the impact of
zero-waste products on waste
waste products on waste management. management.
However, existing research on zero waste has focused on manufacturing innova-
However, existing research on zero waste has focused on manufacturing innovation
tion [41], zero-waste city building [42–46], zero-waste community creation [47,48], zero-
[41], zero-waste city building [42–46], zero-waste community creation [47,48], zero-waste
waste living [49], zero-waste campuses [50,51] and zero-waste recycling programs [52–54].
living [49], zero-waste campuses [50,51] and zero-waste recycling programs [52–54]. Re-
Research on zero-waste products has concentrated on stakeholders, such as governments,
search on zero-waste products has concentrated on stakeholders, such as governments,
businesses and institutions, with little research related to consumers (Figure 1). Consumers
businesses and institutions, with little research related to consumers (Figure 1). Consum-
are an important link in the distribution of zero-waste products and an important partici-
ers are an important link in the distribution of zero-waste products and an important par-
pant in circular economies, ignoring the fundamental macroeconomic aspects of national
ticipant in circular economies, ignoring the fundamental macroeconomic aspects of na-
waste resource recovery operations that can be achieved with zero waste and the fact
tional waste resource recovery operations that can be achieved with zero waste and the
that reliable data on the consumer adoption of zero-waste purchases are not yet available.
fact that reliable data on the consumer adoption of zero-waste purchases are not yet avail-
Therefore, this study addresses the barriers to consumer purchasing of zero-waste products
able. Therefore, this study addresses the barriers to consumer purchasing of zero-waste
as the primary research objective, to shed light on the commencement of a circular economy
products as the primary research objective, to shed light on the commencement of a cir-
for businesses.
cularAdditionally,
economy for the businesses.
zero-waste concept has been implemented in several countries (e.g.,
Additionally, the
South Africa, New Zealand, zero-wasteChinaconcept
and has beenprovinces
India), implemented (e.g.,inNova
several countries
Scotia (e.g.,
(Canada),
South
California) and organizations (e.g., DuPont, Fuji Xerox, Toyota) [55–57]. Europe andCal-
Africa, New Zealand, China and India), provinces (e.g., Nova Scotia (Canada), the
ifornia) and organizations
United States have developed (e.g., DuPont,culture
a consumer Fuji Xerox,
around Toyota) [55–57].
zero-waste storesEurope and thea
that promote
United States
plastic-free have developed
environment a consumer
to customers whoculture around
bring their own zero-waste
containers stores thattheir
to refill promote
food
and to purchase cleaning products and personal care products [58]. South Korea introduced
thepicker, a zero-waste product concept store, in 2016 and subsequently combined zero
waste with K-beauty in an attempt to create a business that both satisfies consumers and
protects the environment. From a consumer perspective, organizations currently lack
reasons to reject zero-waste products; therefore, this paper’s exploration of factors from
basic functions to emotional values will assist brands to develop zero-waste products.
Moreover, zero waste is no longer an option but a necessity that has become widespread
among conscious consumers. Thus, we note that perceived environmental responsibil-
ity (PER) has been further expanded and conceptualized in various studies as another
necessary factor in the promotion of selfless behavior [59]. According to Johri and Sahasak-
montri [60], PER implies that individuals’ intentions can reduce harm to the environment
and help them become conscious purchasers. Furthermore, Piligrimenė et al. [61] explained
that consumers’ PER positively influences their involvement in sustainable consumption
and purchasing behavior. They further suggested examining the association between
PER and perceived environmental behavior in different contextual settings. Therefore,
this study examines PER as a moderator to explore whether it moderates the association
between zero-waste product purchase intentions and barriers, thus allowing high levels of
environmental responsibility to curb the negative effects of zero-waste barriers.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Innovation Resistance Theory
Innovation resistance theory (IRT) was first proposed by Ram and Sheth [62,63] as a
valid framework for studying consumer resistance or barriers. Prior research has shown
that the adoption and use of innovation that leads to deviation from the status quo and from
current beliefs is likely to create resistance. Customer resistance is an important variable in
determining the success or failure of a new technological innovation [64,65]; in other words,
IRT helps us to understand user resistance to innovation. Resistance to change is a normal
consumer response [66]; however, some scholars have previously tended to categorize late
adopters as “laggards” [67]. Resistance to innovation is not the opposite of innovation
adoption but rather the process of behavioral change that occurs when consumers are
exposed to innovative products. Consumers often delay their decisions to innovate until
the innovation evolves into a generic product or until the product or service improves [68].
In the past, IRT was extensively tested for technology-based products, such as internet
banking [69], mobile phone banking [70], online travel agencies [71,72], mobile phone
payment solutions [64], mobile phone social travel [73], online purchasing of cars [74],
smart lighting products and services [75] and food delivery services [76]. In addition,
we found attempts to explain the barriers to the adoption of organic agro-cosmetics in
pro-environmental terms [77], so we believe that IRT will be a reliable tool for measuring
zero-waste adoption barriers.
According to IRT, consumer resistance is divided into active and passive resistances [78].
Active resistance creates barriers [79] when a key characteristic of an innovation that has
received an undesirable evaluation [80] falls short of expectations. Passive resistance arises
from the rejection of an evaluation of an innovation [81], resisting immediately without
evaluating the innovation, in order to be satisfied and to maintain the status quo [82]. In
other words, passive resistance is determined at the knowledge stage before the persuasion
stage, without a sufficient evaluation of the innovation [83]. Active resistance represents
barriers to the adoption and use of an innovation due to the conflicts caused by behavioral
contradictions arising from the use, value and risk of the innovation. On the other hand,
passive resistance appears as a conflict with existing beliefs [84]. Active resistance is studied
through functional barriers (e.g., use, value and risk), whereas passive resistance is studied
through psychological barriers, such as image and tradition [84].
This study considers functional barriers (use, value and risk) and psychological bar-
riers (tradition and image) in examining consumer resistance. There have been multiple
controversies regarding zero waste, and in response to the differences in the practical
(our behaviors as individuals/consumers) and conceptual (related to system design and
functionality) aspects, we argue that consumer resistance may be spontaneous or reactive

because of external factors, such as the products.
2.2. Usage Barriers and Purchase Intention

Usage barriers emerge in response to changes in the consumer status quo for accom-
modating new innovations [63,67]. It was earlier shown that the intention to use mobile
phone banking services was significantly influenced by the perceived ease of use [85,86].
The small size of mobile phone devices, compared with banks, make the text and graphics
more difficult to understand [87], and the complexities of using such services prevent some
consumers from adopting them. The concept promoted by zero waste, while assuming an
alternative vision of shared responsibility among the government, product manufacturers,
retailers and consumers [88], is a challenge for all participants because, even as people
understand the concept of innovation, their consumption habits do not change. Previous
studies on zero-waste products have emphasized that zero waste focuses on innovations in
the chemical ingredients, or on new ingredients, and advances in product technology but
does not actually enhance consumer convenience. For example, Kushwah et al. [89] noted
that environmentally friendly products are more convenient for consumers than traditional
products. Similarly, Tandon et al. [90] showed that usage barriers may be important disin-
centives for consuming unfamiliar products, such as zero-waste products. Therefore, we
argue that barriers to using zero-waste products may result in low purchase rates. This
leads to the derivation of Hypothesis 1:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Usage barriers significantly inhibit consumer zero-waste product purchase
intentions.
2.3. Value Barriers and Purchase Intention

The second functional barrier concerns value and occurs when the innovation deviates
from the existing value system [67]. This can be simply understood as the value that one is
willing to pay for an innovation compared with the alternatives [91]. The value of price
as perceived by consumers is defined as the balance between the perceived benefits of
new technology and the cost of acquiring the latest technology [92]. Focusing mainly on
the perceived value of a product in terms of performance [93], such as the advantages
of mobile phone banking where users can check their account balances and transactions
regardless of location [94], would increase the adoption intent. Regarding the choice of
organic produce, customers reject adoption when their expectations are not met in terms
of the relevant parameters, such as food quality [89]. Previous studies have shown that
customers may refuse to use mobile phone banking apps [84] or shop online [95] when they
encounter value barriers, and there is a negative relationship between the value barrier
and the intention to use in a service innovation environment. Thus, the level of consumers’
perceived benefits in response to an innovative product determines its adoption or rejection.
We therefore argue that value barriers for zero-waste products lead to low purchase rates.
This leads to the formation of Hypothesis 2:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Value barriers significantly inhibit consumer zero-waste product purchase
intentions.
2.4. Risk Barriers and Purchase Intention

Risk barriers arise when there is a high level of uncertainty regarding the innovation,
which can be considered a fixed perceived risk in the innovation. The higher the level of
uncertainty, the higher the perceived risk, which acts as a barrier [96]. Previous studies
have highlighted that risk barriers are negatively correlated with innovation adoption in
various contexts. For example, in organic food delivery services, unprofessional behavior
of delivery personnel or the disclosure of personal addresses are often considered risk
barriers [77]; in online banking, some consumers fear losing connectivity during their
online transactions [86,97,98] or errors may occur [99] when an online purchase differs from
the actual item [95]. These studies suggest that uncertainty and perceived risk can cause
the rejection of innovation adoption. Similarly, there may be adverse effects on purchase
intentions owing to customer doubts about the authenticity and trust regarding zero waste.
Therefore, we propose Hypothesis 3 as follows:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Risk barriers significantly inhibit consumer zero-waste product purchase
intentions.
2.5. Tradition Barriers and Purchase Intention

Tradition barriers arise when innovative products go against consumer values and
established social norms [67], such as when the adoption of a new innovation changes
consumer habits and lifestyles [91] or when new product adoption conflicts with existing
belief systems [99]. Tradition barriers fall under the category of psychological barriers.
Past studies—looking at things such as online banking, wherein bill payments are stored
differently to paper bills [100]; online services, where there is no physical access to sales
clerks resulting in a lack of engagement [101]; and organically farmed foods, with short
shelf lives [102] and lower satisfaction drawbacks [89], which are not in line with consumer
psychology—have shown that there are negative correlations between tradition barriers
and intention to use. In recent years, given the technological advances, zero-waste products
have been made of materials, such as marine litter [103] and human feces as alternative
biological zero-waste energy sources [104], causing consumers to resist the ingredients;
therefore, tradition barriers may negatively affect purchase intention, and Hypothesis 4 is
proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Tradition barriers significantly inhibit consumer zero-waste product purchase
intentions.
2.6. Image Barriers and Purchase Intention

Image barriers arise when consumers compare innovative products or technologies with
generic products in terms of the “category, brand name and country of origin” [105], which
may create negative impressions of the innovations owing to changes in the image or nature
of the product [69]. Previous studies have shown that, when people question the authenticity
of the quality of a green product and its originality for environmental friendliness [106], or
they suspect greenwashing owing to the need for corporate social responsibility (CSR)-based
innovations [107,108], then an image crisis in the country of origin may affect the intention to
purchase an innovative product [109,110], resulting in image barriers. In addition, product
image barriers can occur in terms of the quality of the product being excellent [111,112], the
packaging being environmentally friendly [113,114], the value for money being high [115]
and the brand’s own satisfaction with its reputation [116]. Consumers who do not purchase
environmentally friendly products have trust issues [117], which can be interpreted as the
consumers reasonably suspecting the aforementioned zero-waste product issues that in turn
lead to a negative image of the product claims [76]. Therefore, we argue that image barriers
can deter consumers from adopting zero-waste products. Therefore, this study proposes
Hypothesis 5 as follows:
Hypothesis 5 (H5). Image barriers significantly inhibit consumer zero-waste product purchase
intentions.
2.7. Perceived Environmental Responsibility as a Moderator

In addition to the direct effects of consumption barriers on zero-waste product pur-
chase intention, we considered the moderating effects of PER on the proposed associations
(Figure 1). PER is defined as an individual’s intent to protect the environment by main-
taining awareness while causing minimal harm to society in the purchasing process [60];
because PER is considered morally right and required by law [118], it serves as an expecta-
tion to motivate personal achievement. However, egoism is a universal feature of human
nature [119]; on one hand, the general public expects the government to adopt more aggres-
sive public policies to eliminate environmental problems, while on the other hand, society
is reluctant to make personal sacrifices to cooperate with governmental policies [120,121].
Based on the ideal society theory, knowledgeable people exhibit responsible behaviors to
maintain the values of the ideal society around them [122]. Greater environmental knowl-
edge inspires more responsible environmental attitudes and intentions [123,124], while
citizens who show a higher awareness of environmental damage tend to practice more
sustainable consumption habits and accordingly consider themselves responsible [59]. We
can infer then that the more consumers are aware of their environmental responsibilities,
the more they may be willing to participate in environment-related solutions.
PER is an important factor that influences consumer purchasing behaviors [98]. The
level of environmental concern among consumers may differ significantly based on the
negative impacts of consumer barriers on purchase intentions [89]. Therefore, it is expected
that PER will reduce the negative impacts of barriers (use, value, risk, tradition and image)
on the zero-waste product purchase intentions of consumers by changing their existing
beliefs and status quo. Previously, PER has been associated with various environmental
issues, such as green purchase intentions [125] and environmental activism [79]. To the
best of the authors’ knowledge, no studies have tested the moderating role of PER in a
theoretical framework of resistance to innovation in the context of zero-waste adoption
behaviors. Therefore, based on the above arguments and theory, the following hypotheses
are proposed:
Hypothesis 6 (H6a–e). Perceived environmental responsibility moderates the relationship between

barriers ((a) usage, (b) value, (c) risk, (d) tradition, (e) image) and zero-waste product purchase
intentions.
3. Methods
This study was conducted through an online survey company. Referring to exist-
ing studies applying IRT [65,99,126,127], this study conducted a survey targeting people
who had never purchased zero-waste products to clearly examine their resistance to the
innovation of zero-waste products. Through screening questions, the survey was aimed
at people who had no experience purchasing zero-waste products, and gender and age
were equally collected through assigned sampling. In addition, the online survey program
was programmed to forcibly close the survey to respondents who repeated the same score
in order to process the data as outliers, while gender and age were equally allocated for
generalization of the analysis results and normality of data distribution.
We designed a questionnaire to collect data, and the measurement scales of the research
model constructs were based on previous related research. The survey was conducted on
people in the age range of 20–50 years who had never purchased zero-waste products, and
responses from 400 people were selected for the final analysis (excluding poor responses).
The number of samples relating to the respondents’ gender (male: 200, female: 200) and
age (20s: 100, 30s: 100, 40s: 100, 50s: 100) were all controlled equally. Confirmatory factorial
analysis and structural equation modeling were performed using AMOS, and moderation
analysis was performed using SPSS Process Macro (Model 1).
3.1. Research Model

In this study, the effects of functional barriers (usage, value and risk) and psychological
barriers (tradition and image) on zero-waste product purchasing intentions were analyzed
through a survey of respondents who had never purchased zero-waste products. In
addition, the relationship between the barriers and zero-waste product purchase intentions
was analyzed with regard to the role of PER as a moderator. To this end, a research model,
as shown in Figure 2, is presented.
In this study, the effects of functional barriers (usage, value and risk) and psycholog-
ical barriers (tradition and image) on zero-waste product purchasing intentions were an-
alyzed through a survey of respondents who had never purchased zero-waste products.
In addition, the relationship between the barriers and zero-waste product purchase inten-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16858 tions was analyzed with regard to the role of PER as a moderator. To this end, a research7 of 20
model, as shown in Figure 2, is presented.
Figure 2. Research model.

Figure 2. Research model.
3.2. Measures
The barriers for zero-waste products were measured on a 7-point Likert scale
3.2. Measures
(1 = strongly disagree
The barriers to 7 = strongly
for zero-waste agree)were
products by modifying
measured the on ameasurement items
7-point Likert scaleof(1ex-
=
isting research using the IRT model [128–130] to fit this research (see Appendix
strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) by modifying the measurement items of existing A for
details). The
research usingtendency
the IRT to purchase
model zero-waste
[128–130] products
to fit this was(see
research measured by referring
Appendix to the
A for details).
research of Lee [120] for the PER as well as to the studies by Mackenzie and Lutz [131] and
The tendency to purchase zero-waste products was measured by referring to the research
Hsu et al. [132] for the purchase intention.
of Lee [120] for the PER as well as to the studies by Mackenzie and Lutz [131] and Hsu et
al. [132] for the purchase intention.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4. Results
In this work, frequency verification was performed to confirm that there were no
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
missing values in the collected data. The results verified this, and we used Cook’s distance
In for
to test thisthe
work,
datafrequency
outliers. verification was performed
Finally, by confirming to confirmofthat
the normality thethere
data were no
through
missing
skewness values
and in the collected
kurtosis data.
tests, the Thewere
data results verified
shown this,
to be and to
close weaused Cook’s
normal distance
distribution
to test for+3
between theand
data−outliers.
3. Finally, by confirming the normality of the data through skew-
ness and kurtosis tests, the data were shown to be close to a normal distribution between
4.2.and
+3 Confirmatory
−3. Factorial Analysis (CFA)
We conducted CFA on the constituent elements to secure the convergent validity,
4.2. Confirmatory
construct validity Factorial Analysis (CFA)
and discriminant validity of the research model. Construct reliability
(CR)We indicates
conducted CFA on the constituentbetween
the degree of consistency elements thetomeasured
secure thevariables
convergent andvalidity,
can be
calculated from the values of factor loading and error variance; in general,
construct validity and discriminant validity of the research model. Construct reliability these values
should
(CR) be 0.7 or
indicates thehigher.
degreeIn ofaddition,
consistencyit isbetween
determined that the construct
the measured variablesvalidity
and canexists
be cal-if
the average
culated fromvariation
the values extracted (AVE)
of factor is greater
loading and than
errororvariance;
equal to in
0.5general,
[133]. The AVEvalues
these of the
should be 0.7 or higher. In addition, it is determined that the construct validity existsall
corresponding latent variable must be greater than the square of the correlation with if
other
the factors;
average if this isextracted
variation satisfied, (AVE)
discriminant validity
is greater is secured
than or equal to[134].
0.5 [133]. The AVE of the
The CFA result was χ2 = 103.124 (df = 44, χ2 /df = 2.344, p = 0.000). The statistics of
2
χ , which is a goodness-of-fit test in the structural equation model, are sensitive to the
sample size. In general, when the number of samples is large (more than 200), p < 0.05 is
indicated, and the chi-square goodness-of-fit test rejects the null hypothesis that the “model
is appropriate.” However, if there are a sufficient number of samples, the p-value is 0.000
in the chi-square test result, so even if the null hypothesis is rejected [135], it is judged
that “the goodness of fit of the model is not acceptable.” Rather, it is considered that there
is a significant difference and that it is necessary to check whether other goodness-of-fit
criteria are met. To determine the goodness of fit, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI),
goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), which
are absolute indices of fit, and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and comparative fit index
(CFI), which are incremental fit indices, were evaluated and found to meet the criteria and
acceptable overall goodness of fit (Table 1).
Table 1. Goodness of fit for confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA).
Classification χ2 /df RMSEA AGFI GFI TLI CFI

Criterion <3 <0.08 >0.80 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90
Structural model 2.344 0.058 0.907 0.959 0.939 0.959
Note: Absolute fit indices: RMSEA, AGFI, GFI; incremental fit indices: TLI, CFI.
Next, the CR and AVE were calculated, through which the convergent validity and
discriminant validity were verified. As shown in Table 2, the CR and AVE for the constituent
elements of the research model of this study are: usage barrier (CR: 0.8, AVE: 0.6); value
barrier (CR: 0.8, AVE: 0.6); risk barrier (CR: 0.5, AVE: 0.4); tradition barrier (CR: 0.4, AVE:
0.2); and image barrier (CR: 0.5, AVE: 0.4).
Table 2. Confirmatory factorial analysis.
Standardized
Variables Estimate SE CR AVE CR
Estimate
→ Q1 1.000 0.454
Usage barrier → Q2 2.054 0.9 0.238 8.646 0.6 0.8
→ Q3 1.814 0.836 0.206 8.813
→ Q4 1.000 0.776
Value barrier → Q5 0.804 0.675 0.064 12.527 0.6 0.8
→ Q6 0.999 0.800 0.070 14.315
→ Q7 1.000 0.567
Risk barrier 0.4 0.5
→ Q8 1.031 0.637 0.125 8.26
→ Q9 1.000 0.388
Tradition barrier 0.2 0.4
→ Q10 1.504 0.577 0.19 7.913
→ Q11 1.000 0.763
Image barrier 0.4 0.5
→ Q12 0.586 0.466 0.076 7.679
To verify the discriminant validity among the constituent elements of the barrier
measurement items, the root AVE, coefficient of correlation and squared coefficient of
correlation were derived. As shown in Table 3, the squared coefficient of the correlation
value excluding risk barrier was 0.000–0.29, which was lower than the root AVE.
Table 3. Test of discriminant validity.
UB VB RB TB IB
UB 0.76 0.00 0.25 0.05 0.15
VB 0.01 0.75 0.11 0.00 0.29
RB 0.50 0.33 0.60 0.79 0.76
TB 0.22 0.04 0.89 0.49 0.00
IB 0.39 0.54 0.87 0.06 0.62
Note: Bold text: root AVE; diagonal bottom: coefficient of correlation; diagonal top: squared coefficient of
correlation. UB: usage barrier; VB: value barrier; RB: risk barrier; TB: tradition barrier.
4.3. Structural Model

Structural equation modeling was used to verify the proposed hypothesis. Similar to the
measurement model, we assessed that the structural model has a good fit (CMIN/df = 2.603,
TLI = 0.913, GFI = 0.945, AGFI = 0.907, CFI = 0.941, RMSEA = 0.063). From the results of the
hypothesis verification (Table 4), it was found that usage barrier (β = −0.11, p < 0.05), value
barrier (β = −0.35, p < 0.001), risk barrier (β = −0.14, p < 0.05) and tradition barrier (β = −0.36,
p < 0.001), with the exception of image barrier, were negatively related to the intention to
purchase zero-waste products. Among all the barriers, tradition barrier had the strongest
influence on the intention to purchase zero-waste products.
Table 4. Hypothesis results.
Hypothesis Path β p Support

Usage barrier →
Zero-waste
H1 product –0.11 <0.05 * Yes
purchase
intention
Value barrier →
Zero-waste
H2 product –0.35 <0.001 *** Yes
purchase
intention
Risk barrier →
Zero-waste
H3 product –0.14 <0.05 * Yes
purchase
intention
Tradition
barrier→
Zero-waste
H4 –0.36 <0.001 *** Yes
product
purchase
intention
Image barrier →
Zero-waste
H5 product 0.43 <0.001 *** No
purchase
intention
* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
4.4. Moderation Analysis

We used the Process Macro (Model 1) in SPSS to test the moderating effects of PER
(high versus mid versus low). From the analysis, we found that PER moderates the
relationships between the remaining barriers (usage, value, risk, tradition) and zero-waste
product purchase intention, except for the image barrier. The image barrier showed a
positive (+) effect in structural equation modeling and was excluded from the analysis
because the corresponding hypothesis was rejected. The moderating effects include an
enhancing interaction effect, a buffering interaction effect and an antagonistic interaction
effect. When the coefficient of the independent and moderator variables in Table 5 is
positive (+), the coefficient of the interaction term is negative (−); conversely, when the
coefficient of the independent and moderator variables is negative (−), the coefficient of
the interaction term that is positive (+) is interpreted to have an antagonistic interaction
effect. Therefore, PER represents the antagonistic interaction effect between all barriers and
zero-waste product purchase intention in the proposed research model.
Table 5. Results of moderation analysis.
Moderator Variable: Perceived Environmental Responsibility

Hypothesis Moderation Classification Coeff. S.E. t p LLCI ULCI
Constant 0.161 0.348 0.463 0.643 −0.523 0.846
Independent variable 0.279 0.201 1.389 0.165 −0.116 0.674
UB → ZPPI
Support Moderator variable 0.213 0.049 4.332 0.000 *** 0.116 0.309
(H6a)
Interaction term −0.081 0.039 −2.059 0.040 * −0.158 −0.004
F = 31.993 ***, R2 = 0.603, 4R2 = 0.007 *
Constant −0.917 0.717 −1.279 0.202 −2.327 0.493
VB → ZPPI
(H6b)
F = 29.579 ***, R2 = 0.346, 4R2 = 0.008 *
Constant 0.152 0.339 0.447 0.655 −0.516 0.819
Independent variable 0.971 0.260 3.735 0.000 *** 0.460 1.482
RB → ZPPI
(H6c)
Interaction term −0.215 0.048 −4.456 0.000 *** −0.309 −0.120
F = 35.46 2 ***, R2 = 0.388, 4R2 = 0.031 ***
Constant −1.832 0.879 −2.084 0.038 * −3.560 −0.103
TB → ZPPI
(H6d)
F = 32.288 ***, R2 = 0.366, 4R2 = 0.009 *
* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001; UB: usage barrier; VB: value barrier; RB: risk barrier; TB: tradition barrier; ZPPI: zero-waste
product purchase intention.
To determine how the influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable
is specifically moderated by the level of the moderator variable, the moderator variable
is divided into three groups, namely the mean and ±1 standard deviation (SD), and the
regression equation is calculated to verify the significance of the simple slope. These results
are shown in Table 6. To better understand the moderating role of PER in the antagonistic
interaction effect of the barriers on zero-waste product purchase intention, see Figure 3.
Table 6. Moderating effect of influence relationship between independent and dependent variables
according to the level of the moderator variable.
Moderator Classification Classification Effect S.E. t LLCI ULCI

M − 1SD −0.059 0.058 −1.021 −0.172 0.055
UB → ZPPI (H6a) Mean −0.131 0.049 −2.672 −0.227 −0.035
M + 1SD −0.203 0.063 −3.238 −0.327 −0.080
M − 1SD −0.059 0.056 −1.056 −0.168 0.051
Perceived VB → ZPPI (H6b) Mean −0.136 0.050 −2.715 −0.235 −0.038
environmental M + 1SD −0.214 0.067 −3.177 −0.346 −0.082
responsibility M − 1SD 0.073 0.082 0.890 −0.088 0.234
RB → ZPPI (H6b) Mean −0.118 0.065 −1.815 −0.247 0.010
M + 1SD −0.310 0.074 −4.188 −0.456 −0.164
M − 1SD −0.218 0.065 −3.372 −0.345 −0.091
TB → ZPPI (H6d) Mean −0.302 0.051 −5.971 −0.401 −0.202
M + 1SD −0.386 0.059 −6.554 −0.501 −0.270
UB: usage barrier; VB: value barrier; RB: risk barrier; TB: tradition barrier; ZPPI: zero-waste product purchase
intention.
Sustainability2022,
Sustainability 14, 16858
2022, 14, 16858 1111ofof20
20
Figure 3. Moderating effect of perceived environmental responsibility on the link between the bar-
Figure 3. Moderating effect of perceived environmental responsibility on the link between the barriers
riers (usage, value, risk, tradition) and zero-waste product purchase intention.
(usage, value, risk, tradition) and zero-waste product purchase intention.
5. Discussion
In order to address some ecological issues and to develop a circular economy, this
paper examines consumer resistance to waste reuse/zero-waste products with the aim of
identifying the role of IRT in addressing the causes of consumer reluctance to purchase zero-
waste products. Innovation resistance is an emerging area of marketing research [136], and
applications of IRT to date have been almost exclusively related to the measurement of the
causes of resistance to electronic products [65,105,137–140]. However, it is clear that there
is subconscious consumer resistance to zero-waste products as an innovative approach to
waste management, so this study makes a practical contribution to the enrichment and
expansion of IRT by identifying the barriers to zero-waste product adoption.
In this study, three functional barriers and two psychological barriers were considered
in analyzing zero-waste product purchase intention. First, we verified H1, that usage
barriers negatively affect the intention to purchase zero-waste products. Unlike usage
barriers for electronic products, barriers to the use of zero-waste products are mainly
focused on factors related to purchase difficulty, such as “limited choice of zero-waste
products,” “narrow product types and range of zero-waste products,” and “limited choice
of zero-waste products.” Zero-waste products are not yet common in the market due to
their technical requirements and production difficulties [141]. Reducing the barriers to
consumer use necessitates providing them with the opportunity to choose from a wide
range of products as well as expanding the product categories, not only concentrating on
the household goods category.
Second, H2 is consistent with previous studies verifying that value barriers negatively
affect zero-waste product purchase intention [77,84,89,95]. Where the value of the zero-
waste products lies in their positive impact on environmental protection, one study showed
that plastic waste exposed to sunlight and degraded in the environment emits a variety
of greenhouse gases, including methane and ethylene [142]; therefore, when measuring
value barriers such as “I see no advantage of zero-waste products compared to existing
products” and “zero-waste products do not contribute much to environmental protection”
can influence consumers’ expectations of zero-waste products. If there is no advantage
in terms of environmental protection and product quality, the value barrier will affect
the intention to purchase zero-waste products; therefore, companies should focus on the
environmental value to guide consumer behavior when promoting zero-waste products.
Third, H3 verifies that risk barriers negatively affect zero-waste product purchase
intention. Risk barriers are measured by factors such as “I am concerned that all zero-
waste products that claim to be environmentally friendly are not actually zero-waste
products” and “I am concerned that I will pay more for zero-waste products than existing
products.” As can be seen, the risks perceived by consumers are mainly related to zero-waste
ingredients and value for money, and there is often a lack of data on zero-waste products
because the market share is still small. Sadiq et al. [77] examined consumer barriers to eco-
friendly cosmetics, similar to zero-waste products, and concluded that misinformation and
exaggerated claims in advertising exacerbate the lack of trust among consumers, leading to
a lower adoption of eco-friendly products. Therefore, the most important way to reduce
consumer risk barriers for zero-waste products is to have comparative advantages and
reliability with existing products, while avoiding excessive or false advertising.
Fourth, H4 verifies that tradition barriers negatively affect the intention to purchase
zero-waste products. As the concept of tradition is deeply embedded in the consumer
consciousness, any conflict with tradition can lead to strong consumer opposition in the
form of poor word-of-mouth, bad publicity and boycotts [143]. Measures of the traditional
barriers to zero-waste products are related to reliability and the comparison between
existing products and zero-waste products. For example, items such as “I don’t think I
need a zero-waste product because I am satisfied with the existing product” and “I don’t
believe in zero-waste products” are measured. When comparing zero-waste products
with existing products, for example, the reality that zero-waste supermarket customers
now need to provide their own bottles actually causes inconvenience to consumers, and
may raise questions about packaging compared with the existence of general products.
Therefore, when faced with innovations that go against tradition, zero-waste products
should enhance their comparability with ordinary products.
However, among the five barriers, image barrier, which is a psychological barrier,
does not have a negative effect on the willingness to purchase zero-waste products. Similar
results were reported by Kaur et al. [76]. There are few negative reports on the image of
zero-waste products, so items such as “I have questions about the labeling of zero-waste
products” in the questionnaire did not become a barrier to consumers purchasing zero-
waste products. It can be seen that Korean consumers have fewer doubts about the labels
of products certified by certification bodies and generally trust them.
Finally, PER shows an opposing interaction between use, value, risk and traditional
barriers and the willingness to purchase zero-waste products. This indicates that the higher
the consumer PER, the greater the impact of the barriers (use, value, risk and tradition) on
the willingness to purchase zero-waste products. As shown in Figure 2, respondents with a
high PER have a greater willingness to purchase zero-waste products than respondents
with a low PER. However, as the barriers (use, value, risk, tradition) increase, it can be seen
that the slope of purchase intention is significantly lower for the high PER group than for
the low PER group. These results suggest the need for strategic consideration of consumer
PER when encouraging governments and the consumption of zero-waste products, or when
motivating companies to produce zero-waste products. With this in mind, identifying
consumer altruism with respect to environmental protection can help strengthen waste
management operations, such as spontaneous collection, disposal, recovery and recycling.
Globally, there are an increasing number of national regulations and policies related to
environmental protection, and consumers are often exposed to discussions about the
importance of environmental protection activities through the media and social media. As
a result, it is expected that consumer PER levels will naturally increase over time.
Theoretical and Practical Implications

The important theoretical implications of our study are as follows: First, it adds to
the literature on consumer boycotts of environmentally innovative products. In the past,
scholars have shown a growing interest in better understanding consumer boycotts. Thus,
the findings of this paper will contribute to the emerging, but limited, area of research on
zero-waste products.
Second, the current study contributes to an understanding of the causes of resistance
to environmentally friendly product innovation by testing the applicability of IRT in the
emerging market of zero-waste products in Korea while explaining the relationship between
the different barriers to purchase intention and IRT, as well as extending PER within IRT.
In terms of practical contributions, firstly, although the sustainable consumption
practices of the brand in the past were mainly focused on distribution and sustainable
production of product packaging, the research results of this paper for Zero waste will
contribute to the solution of waste management and the innovation of related technology
as well as promoting the development of sustainable practices in the product production
chain Zero waste has become one of the major trends today. If the associated technologies
develop further, they will exert a strong influence enough to change the form of human
life significantly by reducing the carbon footprint. The opening of Zero waste offline
concept stores and flash stores will help to better understand real-life consumer choices in
terms of sustainable consumption and will deepen understanding of brands’ green choices,
sustainable decision-making and pro-social behavior, while continuously improving the
image of brand services.
Second, current research findings suggest that, to increase the purchase intention,
Zero waste should focus on expanding the type and range of zero-waste products while
improving the convenience and cost-effectiveness of purchases. At the same time, brands
should create more channels to push Zero waste-related information and continuously
update and optimize Zero waste products to after-sales. Brand marketers should be
aware that there is little negative publicity about Zero waste, and maintaining brand
trustworthiness is the best approach at this time. This study recommends integrating
Zero waste into more product lines and programs, which allows them to be maximized in
real-world settings, such as brands offering multiple incentives to develop membership
economies to change sustainable consumption habits. Service providers should also focus
on reducing user perceptions of barriers to using and value, using advertising to promote
the value of Zero waste, and reinforcing environmental responsibility, thereby increasing
consumer willingness to consume Zero waste products, and maximizing the ease of use
and purchase flexibility of Zero waste.
6. Limitations and Future Research

In this study, the effects of functional barriers (usage, value and risk) and psychological
barriers (tradition and image) on zero-waste product purchase intention were verified by
applying IRT. Furthermore, we explored the moderating effect of consumer PER. This
research provides the following conclusions.
First, in situations where the importance of environmental protection activities, such
as ESG, CSR and zero waste, are emphasized and academic discussions are active, this
study contributes to the literature regarding consumer resistance to ecofriendly products.
In addition, IRT, which has mainly been used in reference to the latest technologies, mobile
phones and applications, was extended to consumer product consumption pattern analysis.
Second, through the results of this study, it can be seen that barriers to zero-waste
products significantly reduce purchase intention, and high levels of PER are associated with
stronger negative impacts of barriers. Accordingly, governments and organizations should
systematically establish strategies for managing these barriers to encourage consumers
toward the zero-waste philosophy and products, in addition to considering consumer PER
through products and product marketing.
The present study, however, has the following limitations and future research di-
rections. First, as each barrier set as an independent variable comprises two or three
measurement items, the question of whether reliability and validity have been secured
may arise. Therefore, in the future, efforts to increase the reliability are needed through the
development of various measurement variables via the Delphi technique. Second, it will be
necessary in the future to explore the relationships between different variables in addition
to purchase intention. Hence, it may be possible to establish a foundation for sustainable
consumption and to use behaviors by identifying the roles of the consumer barriers and
reducing user resistance.
This study did not sufficiently secure the CR and AVE of the measured items in the
CFA. As the previous studies in which IRT was applied mainly focused on technological
innovations, many items were removed without securing reliability in the process of
modifying the items to fit the subject of this research. Based on the results of this work, it is
expected that empirical studies securing higher validity could be conducted in follow-up
research by adding new measurement items along with an expansion of the research topic.
Third, this study was conducted as a sample survey of Asian people. The functional and
psychological barriers, as well as PER, may vary by country and by culture. Future studies are
therefore expected to yield significant results if the model can be validated using consumer
data from different age groups across different geographical and cultural boundaries.
Author Contributions: Y.S., H.Y. and E.H. conceived and designed the initial research idea; Y.S., H.Y.
and E.H. performed the literature review and analyzed the data; Y.S, H.Y. and E.H. wrote the paper.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Due to the nature of this study, no formal approval of the
institutional review board of the local ethics committee was required. Nonetheless, all subjects were
informed about the study, and participation was fully on a voluntary basis. Participants were ensured
of the confidentiality and anonymity of the information associated with the surveys. This study was
conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Barrier Measurement Questions.
Variable Name Item Code Items

UB1 I think zero-waste products have a narrow range of choices.
Usage barriers I think zero-waste products have a narrow range of types
UB2
(Sadiq et al., [77]; Nandi et al., [129]) and products.
The reason I don’t buy zero-waste products is that they’re not
UB3
readily available in stores.
I don’t think zero-waste products have any advantages compared
VB1
to existing products.
I think the quality of zero-waste products is lower than that of
Value barriers VB2
existing products.
(Sadiq et al., [77]; Kushwaha et al., [89]) I don’t think zero-waste products are very helpful for
VB3
environmental protection.
I think zero-waste products also contain pesticides and other
VB4
harmful chemicals.
I am afraid that zero-waste products that claim to be
RB1
Risk barriers environmentally friendly are not actually zero-waste products.
(Sadiq et al., [77]; Kushwaha et al., [89]) I am afraid to pay more for zero-waste products than for
RB2
existing products.
Even if it’s not a zero-waste product, the existing product
Traditional barriers TB1
is enough.
(Sadiq et al., [77]; Torres-Ruiz et al., [130])
TB2 I don’t trust zero-waste products.
I have doubts about the labels of zero-waste products (e.g.,
IB1
eco-friendly certification marks on product packaging).
Image barriers I don’t think the zero-waste products currently on the market are
(Sadiq et al., [77]; Kushwaha et al., [89]) IB2
actually zero-waste.
IB3 I have an image of a high barrier to use zero-waste products.
References
1. Islam, K.M. Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Generation in Bangladesh: Possible Scenarios to Generate Renewable Electricity in
Dhaka and Chittagong City. J. Renew. Energy 2016, 2016, 1712370. [CrossRef]
2. Gautam, M.; Agrawal, M. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Review of Global Scenario. In
Carbon Footprint Case Studies; Muthu, S.S., Ed.; Environmental Footprints and Eco-Design of Products and Processes; Springer:
Singapore, 2021; pp. 123–160. [CrossRef]
3. Lehmann, S.; Zaman, A.U.; Devlin, J.; Holyoak, N. Supporting Urban Planning of Low-Carbon Precincts: Integrated Demand
Forecasting. Sustainability 2013, 5, 5289–5318. [CrossRef]
4. Zaman, A.; Lehmann, S. The zero waste index: A performance measurement tool for waste management systems in a ‘zero waste
city’. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 50, 123–132. [CrossRef]
5. Ibikunle, R.; Titiladunayo, I.; Akinnuli, B.; Dahunsi, S.; Olayanju, T. Estimation of power generation from municipal solid wastes:
A case Study of Ilorin metropolis, Nigeria. Energy Rep. 2019, 5, 126–135. [CrossRef]
6. Connor, R. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015: Water for a Sustainable World; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015;
Volume 1.
7. Romano, G.; Rapposelli, A.; Marrucci, L. Improving waste production and recycling through zero-waste strategy and privatization:
An empirical investigation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 256–263. [CrossRef]
8. Yu, Z.; Khan, S.A.R.; Ponce, P.; Zia-Ul-Haq, H.M.; Ponce, K. Exploring essential factors to improve waste-to-resource recovery: A
roadmap towards sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 350, 131305. [CrossRef]
9. Palmer, P. Getting to Zero Waste; Purple Sky Press: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2004.
10. Fudala-Ksiazek, S.; Pierpaoli, M.; Kulbat, E.; Luczkiewicz, A. A modern solid waste management strategy—The generation of
new by-products. Waste Manag. 2016, 49, 516–529. [CrossRef]
11. Bressanelli, G.; Adrodegari, F.; Pigosso, D.C.A.; Parida, V. Towards the Smart Circular Economy Paradigm: A Definition,
Conceptualization, and Research Agenda. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4960. [CrossRef]
12. Lehmann, S. Optimizing Urban Material Flows and Waste Streams in Urban Development through Principles of Zero Waste and
Sustainable Consumption. Sustainability 2011, 3, 155–183. [CrossRef]
13. Ali, S.; Akter, S.; Ymeri, P.; Fogarassy, C. How the Use of Biomass for Green Energy and Waste Incineration Practice Will Affect
GDP Growth in the Less Developed Countries of the EU (A Case Study with Visegrad and Balkan Countries). Energies 2022, 15,
2308. [CrossRef]
14. Ali, S.; Akter, S.; Fogarassy, C. Analysis of Circular Thinking in Consumer Purchase Intention to Buy Sustainable Waste-To-Value
(WTV) Foods. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5390. [CrossRef]
15. Castigliego, J.R.; Pollack, A.; Cleveland, C.J.; Walsh, M.J. Evaluating emissions reductions from zero waste strategies under
dynamic conditions: A case study from Boston. J. Waste Manag. 2021, 126, 170–179. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Jeng, S.Y.; Lin, C.W.; Tseng, M.L.; Jantarakolica, K.; Tan, R. Resource efficiency improvement: Zero waste discharge planning in a
pulp-and-paper firm under uncertainties. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2021, 32, 646–664. [CrossRef]
17. ElShishtawy, N.; Sinha, P.; Bennell, J.A. A comparative review of zero-waste fashion design thinking and operational research on
cutting and packing optimisation. Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2022, 15, 187–199. [CrossRef]
18. Khaw-ngern, K.; Peuchthonglang, P.; Klomkul, L.; Khaw-ngern, C. The 9Rs strategies for the circular economy 3.0. Psychol. Educ.
J. 2021, 58, 1440–1446.
19. Madjidan, N.L.; Sulistyowati, R. Pengaruh Green Marketing dan Green Product terhadap Green Purchase Intention pada Alang
Alang Zero Waste Shop. J. Ecogen. 2022, 5, 294–305. [CrossRef]
20. Adedeji, A.A. Agri-food waste reduction and utilization: A sustainability perspective. J. ASABE 2022, 65, 471–479. [CrossRef]
21. Haan, T.Y.; Takriff, M.S. Tecnologías de residuos cero para el desarrollo sostenible en las plantas de beneficio de aceite de palma.
Palmas 2022, 43, 40–55.
22. Chen, M.; Ogunseitan, O.A. Zero E-waste: Regulatory impediments and blockchain imperatives. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2021,
15, 114. [CrossRef]
23. Stanescu, M.D. State of the art of post-consumer textile waste upcycling to reach the zero waste milestone. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 2021, 28, 14253–14270. [CrossRef]
24. Awasthi, A.K.; Tan, Q.; Li, J. Biotechnological potential for microplastic waste. Trends Biotechnol. 2020, 38, 1196–1199. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
25. Gu, B.; Tang, X.; Liu, L.; Li, Y.; Fujiwara, T.; Sun, H.; Gu, A.; Yao, Y.; Duan, R.; Song, J.; et al. The recyclable waste recycling
potential towards zero waste cities-A comparison of three cities in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126358. [CrossRef]
26. Kantaros, A.; Laskaris, N.; Piromalis, D.; Ganetsos, T. Manufacturing zero-waste COVID-19 personal protection equipment: A
case study of utilizing 3D printing while employing waste material recycling. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2021, 1, 851–869. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
27. Gu, B.; Zhang, L.; Van Dingenen, R.; Vieno, M.; Van Grinsven, H.J.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Chen, Y.; Wang, S.; Ren, C.; et al. Abating
ammonia is more cost-effective than nitrogen oxides for mitigating PM2.5 air pollution. Science 2021, 374, 758–762. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
28. Wahyudi, S.; Efendi, F.N.; Faizal, A. The effects of adsorbent mass using red brick powder on the results of biogas purification. J.
Appl. Sci. Eng. 2021, 19, 17–23. [CrossRef]
29. Lee, R.P.; Tschoepe, M.; Voss, R. Perception of chemical recycling and its role in the transition towards a circular carbon economy:
A case study in Germany. J. Waste Manag. 2021, 125, 280–292. [CrossRef]
30. Grossman, A.D.; Belete, Y.Z.; Boussiba, S.; Yogev, U.; Posten, C.; Tena, F.O.; Thomsen, L.; Wang, S.; Gross, A.; Leu, S.; et al.
Advanced near-zero waste treatment of food processing wastewater with water, carbon, and nutrient recovery. Sci. Total Environ.
2021, 779, 146373. [CrossRef]
31. Ibharim, M.S.R.; Mohd Tajuddin, R. A zero-waste concept of multifunctional clothing design. ESTEEM J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2021,
5, 76–87.
32. Wan, M.C.; Qin, W.; Lei, C.; Li, Q.H.; Meng, M.; Fang, M.; Song, W.; Chen, J.H.; Tay, F.; Niu, L.N. Biomaterials from the sea: Future
building blocks for biomedical applications. Bioact. Mater. 2021, 6, 4255–4285. [CrossRef]
33. Umor, N.A.; Ismail, S.; Abdullah, S.; Huzaifah, M.H.R.; Huzir, N.M.; Mahmood, N.A.N.; Zahrim, A.Y. Zero waste management of
spent mushroom compost. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2021, 23, 1726–1736. [CrossRef]
34. Muliarta, I.N.; Darmawan, I.K. Processing Household Organic Waste into Eco-Enzyme as an Effort to Realize Zero Waste. Agriwar
J. 2021, 1, 6–11.
35. Arevalo-Gallegos, A.; Ahmad, Z.; Asgher, M.; Parra-Saldivar, R.; Iqbal, H.M. Lignocellulose: A sustainable material to produce
value-added products with a zero waste approach—A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 99, 308–318. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2017, 127, 221–232. [CrossRef]
37. AAli, S.; Akter, S.; Fogarassy, C. The role of the key components of renewable energy (combustible renewables and waste) in the
context of CO2 emissions and economic growth of selected countries in Europe. Energies 2021, 14, 2034. [CrossRef]
38. Chalfan, L. Zero Waste Key to Our Future; Zero Waste Alliance: Portland, OR, USA, 2001.
39. Zaman, A.; Newman, P. Plastics: Are they part of the zero-waste agenda or the toxic-waste agenda? Sustain. Earth 2021, 4, 4.
[CrossRef]
40. Zaman, A. Zero-Waste: A New Sustainability Paradigm for Addressing the Global Waste Problem. In The Vision Zero Handbook:
Theory, Technology and Management for a Zero Casualty Policy; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 1–24.
41. Singh, S.; Ramakrishna, S.; Gupta, M.K. Towards zero waste manufacturing: A multidisciplinary review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168,
1230–1243. [CrossRef]
42. Bartl, A. Barriers towards achieving a zero waste society. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 2369–2370. [CrossRef]
43. Fujita, K.; Hill, R.C. The zero waste city: Tokyo’s quest for a sustainable environment. J. Comp. Policy Anal. 2007, 9, 405–425.
[CrossRef]
44. Lehmann, S. Urban metabolism and the zero-waste city: Transforming cities through sustainable design and behavior change.
Green Cities 2012, 2012, 108–135.
45. Premalatha, M.; Tauseef, S.M.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. The promise and the performance of the world’s first two zero carbon
eco-cities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 25, 660–669.
46. Zaman, A.U.; Lehmann, S. Urban growth and waste management optimization towards ‘zero waste city’. City Cult. Soc. 2011, 2,
177–187. [CrossRef]
47. Connett, P. The Zero Waste Solution: Untrashing the Planet One Community at a Time; Chelsea Green Publishing: White River
Junction, VT, USA, 2013.
48. Dileep, M.R. Tourism and waste management: A review of implementation of “zero waste” at Kovalam. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res.
2007, 12, 377–392. [CrossRef]
49. Khan, M.M.; Rafiqul Islam, M. Zero Waste Engineering: A New Era of Sustainable Technology Development; John Wiley & Sons:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016.
50. Kelly, T.; Mason, I.; Leiss, M.; Ganesh, S. University community responses to on-campus resource recycling. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2006, 47, 42–55. [CrossRef]
51. Mason, I.; Brooking, A.; Oberender, A.; Harford, J.; Horsley, P. Implementation of a zero waste program at a university campus.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2003, 38, 257–269. [CrossRef]
52. Cole, C.; Osmani, M.; Quddus, M.; Wheatley, A.; Kay, K. Towards a Zero Waste Strategy for an English Local Authority. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 89, 64–75. [CrossRef]
53. Connett, P.; Sheehan, B. A citizen’s Agenda for Zero Waste; GrassRoots Recycling Network: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2001.
54. Young, C.-Y.; Ni, S.-P.; Fan, K.-S. Working towards a zero waste environment in Taiwan. Waste Manag. Res. J. A Sustain. Circ. Econ.
2009, 28, 236–244. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Greyson, J. An economic instrument for zero waste, economic growth and sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1382–1390.
[CrossRef]
56. Song, Q.; Li, J.; Zeng, X. Minimizing the increasing solid waste through zero waste strategy. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 104, 199–210.
[CrossRef]
57. Matete, N.; Trois, C. Towards zero waste in emerging countries—A South African experience. J. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 1480–1492.
[CrossRef]
58. Bagui, B.E.; Arellano, L.R.A.C. Zero Waste Store: A Way to Promote Environment-friendly Living. Int. J. Qual. Res. 2021, 1,
59. Paço, A. Gouveia Rodrigues R. Environmental activism and consumers’ perceived responsibility. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2016, 40,
60. Johri, L.M.; Sahasakmontri, K. Green marketing of cosmetics and toiletries in Thailand. J. Consum. Mark. 1998, 15, 265–281.
[CrossRef]
61. Piligrimienė, Ž.; Žukauskaitė, A.; Korzilius, H.; Banytė, J.; Dovalienė, A. Internal and External Determinants of Consumer
Engagement in Sustainable Consumption. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1349. [CrossRef]
62. Ma, L.; Lee, C.S. Understanding the Barriers to the Use of MOOCs in a Developing Country: An Innovation Resistance Perspective.
J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2018, 57, 571–590. [CrossRef]
63. Seth, H.; Talwar, S.; Bhatia, A.; Saxena, A.; Dhir, A. Consumer resistance and inertia of retail investors: Development of the
resistance adoption inertia continuance (RAIC) framework. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 55, 102071. [CrossRef]
64. Kaur, P.; Dhir, A.; Singh, N.; Sahu, G.; Almotairi, M. An innovation resistance theory perspective on mobile payment solutions. J.
Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 55, 102059. [CrossRef]
65. Talwar, S.; Talwar, M.; Kaur, P.; Dhir, A. Consumers’ resistance to digital innovations: A systematic review and framework
development. Australas. Mark. J. 2020, 28, 286–299. [CrossRef]
66. Ram, S. A model of innovation resistance. ACR N. Am. Adv. 1987, 14, 208–212.
67. Ram, S.; Sheth, J.N. Consumer resistance to innovations: The marketing problem and its solutions. J. Consum. Mark. 1989, 6, 5–14.
[CrossRef]
68. Szmigin, I.; Foxall, G. Three forms of innovation resistance: The case of retail payment methods. Technovation 1998, 18, 459–468.
[CrossRef]
69. Lian, J.W.; Yen, D.C. To buy or not to buy experience goods online: Perspective of innovation adoption barriers. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 2013, 29, 665–672. [CrossRef]
70. Chaouali, W.; Souiden, N. The role of cognitive age in explaining mobile banking resistance among elderly people. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 342–350. [CrossRef]
71. Talwar, S.; Dhir, A.; Singh, D.; Virk, G.S.; Salo, J. Sharing of fake news on social media: Application of the honeycomb framework
and the third-person effect hypothesis. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 57, 102197. [CrossRef]
72. Talwar, S.; Dhir, A.; Kaur, P.; Mäntymäki, M. Barriers toward purchasing from online travel agencies. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 89,
102593. [CrossRef]
73. Jansukpum, K.; Kettem, S. Applying innovation resistance theory to understand consumer resistance of using online travel in
Thailand. In Proceedings of the 2015 14th International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications for Business
Engineering and Science (DCABES), Guiyang, China, 18–24 August 2015; pp. 139–142.
74. Molesworth, M.; Suortti, J.P. Buying cars online: The adoption of the web for high-involvement, high-cost purchases. J. Consum.
Behav. Int. Res. Rev. 2002, 2, 155–168. [CrossRef]
75. Juric, J.; Lindenmeier, J. An empirical analysis of consumer resistance to smart-lighting products. Light. Res. Technol. 2019, 51,
76. Kaur, P.; Dhir, A.; Ray, A.; Bala, P.K.; Khalil, A. Innovation resistance theory perspective on the use of food delivery applications.
J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 34, 1746–1768. [CrossRef]
77. Sadiq, M.; Adil, M.; Paul, J. An innovation resistance theory perspective on purchase of eco-friendly cosmetics. J. Retail. Consum.
Serv. 2021, 59, 102369. [CrossRef]
78. Heidenreich, S.; Handrich, M. What about passive innovation resistance? Investigating adoption-related behavior from a
resistance perspective. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2015, 32, 878–903. [CrossRef]
79. Laukkanen, P.; Sinkkonen, S.; Laukkanen, T. Consumer resistance to internet banking: Postponers, opponents and rejectors. Int. J.
Bank Mark. 2008, 26, 440–455. [CrossRef]
80. Nabih, M.I.; Poiesz, T.B. Conceptual issues in the study of innovation adoption behavior. ACR N. Am. Adv. 1997, 24, 190–196.
81. Bagozzi, R.P.; Lee, K.H. Consumer resistance to, and acceptance of, innovations. Adv. Consum. Res. 1999, 26, 218–225.
82. Sheth, J.N. An Integrative Theory of Patronage Preference and Behavior; College of Commerce and Business Administration, Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, University of Illinois: Urbana, IL, USA, 1981.
83. Heidenreich, S.; Kraemer, T. Innovations-Doomed to Fail? Investigating Strategies to Overcome Passive Innovation Resistance. J.
Prod. Innov. Manag. 2015, 33, 277–297. [CrossRef]
84. Yu, C.S.; Chantatub, W. Consumersâ€™ resistance to using mobile banking: Evidence from Thailand and Taiwan. Int. J. Electron.
Commer. Stud. 2015, 7, 21–38. [CrossRef]
85. Lee, C.; Coughlin, J.F. PERSPECTIVE: Older adults’ adoption of technology: An integrated approach to identifying determinants
and barriers. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2015, 32, 747–759. [CrossRef]
86. Kuisma, T.; Laukkanen, T.; Hiltunen, M. Mapping the reasons for resistance to Internet banking: A means-end approach. Int. J.
Inf. Manag. 2007, 27, 75–85. [CrossRef]
87. Bruner, G.C., II; Kumar, A. Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet devices. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 553–558. [CrossRef]
88. Phillips, P.S.; Tudor, T.; Bird, H.; Bates, M. A critical review of a key waste strategy initiative in England: Zero waste places
projects 2008–2009. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 335–343. [CrossRef]
89. Kushwah, S.; Dhir, A.; Sagar, M.; Gupta, B. Determinants of organic food consumption. A systematic literature review on motives
and barriers. Appetite 2019, 143, 104402. [CrossRef]
90. Tandon, A.; Dhir, A.; Kaur, P.; Kushwah, S.; Salo, J. Why do people buy organic food? The moderating role of environmental
concerns and trust. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 57, 102247. [CrossRef]
91. Mani, Z.; Chouk, I. Consumer resistance to innovation in services: Challenges and barriers in the internet of things era. J. Prod.
Innov. Manag. 2018, 35, 780–807. [CrossRef]
92. Vafaei-Zadeh, A.; Wong, T.K.; Hanifah, H.; Teoh, A.P.; Nawaser, K. Modelling electric vehicle purchase intention among generation
Y consumers in Malaysia. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2022, 43, 100784. [CrossRef]
93. Samudro, A.; Sumarwan, U.; Simanjuntak, M.; Yusuf, E. Assessing the effects of perceived quality and perceived value on
customer satisfaction. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2020, 10, 1077–1084. [CrossRef]
94. Laukkanen, T.; Lauronen, J. Consumer value creation in mobile banking services. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 2005, 3, 325–338.
[CrossRef]
95. Lian, J.W.; Yen, D.C. Online shopping drivers and barriers for older adults: Age and gender differences. Comput. Hum. Behav.
2014, 37, 133–143. [CrossRef]
96. Kuo, C.M.; Chen, L.C.; Tseng, C.Y. Investigating an innovative service with hospitality robots. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017,
29, 1305–1321. [CrossRef]
97. Poon, W.C. Users’ adoption of e-banking services: The Malaysian perspective. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2008, 23, 59–69. [CrossRef]
98. Yiu, C.S.; Grant, K.; Edgar, D. Factors affecting the adoption of Internet Banking in Hong Kong—Implications for the banking
sector. J. Inf. Manag. 2007, 27, 336–351. [CrossRef]
99. Laukkanen, T. Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar service innovations: The case of the Internet
and mobile banking. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2432–2439. [CrossRef]
100. Fain, D.; Roberts, M.L. Technology vs. consumer behavior: The battle for the financial services customer. J. Direct Mark. 1997, 11,
44–54. [CrossRef]
101. Marr, N.E.; Prendergast, G.P. Consumer adoption of self-service technologies in retail banking: Is expert opinion supported by
consumer research? Int. J. Bank Mark. 1993, 11, 3–10. [CrossRef]
102. Bryła, P. Organic food consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers. Appetite 2016, 105, 737–746. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
103. Deselnicu, D.C.; Militāru, G.; Deselnicu, V.; Zăinescu, G.; Albu, L. Towards a circular economy—A zero waste programme for
Europe. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Materials and Systems (ICAMS), Bucharest, Romania,
18–20 October 201; The National Research & Development Institute for Textiles and Leather-INCDTP: Bucharest, Romania, 2018;
pp. 563–568.
104. Pratiwi, N.; Saputri, M.; Okwisan, S.; Atifah, Y. Pup Pump: Processing of Human Feces as a Alternative Bioenergy Power Plant
Zero Waste. Int. J. Ethnosci. Bio-Inform. Trans. Innov. Sci. Technol. 2022, 1, v1i1.4. [CrossRef]
105. Laukkanen, T.; Sinkkonen, S.; Laukkanen, P. Communication strategies to overcome functional and psychological resistance to
Internet banking. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2009, 29, 111–118. [CrossRef]
106. Misra, R.; Singh, D. An analysis of factors affecting growth of organic food: Perception of consumers in Delhi-NCR (India). Br.
Food J. 2016, 118, 2308–2325. [CrossRef]
107. Yu, E.P.; Van Luu, B.; Chen, C.H. Greenwashing in environmental, social and governance disclosures. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2020,
52, 101192. [CrossRef]
108. Szewczyk, M. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Textile and Apparel Industry: Barriers and Challenges. J. Corp. Responsib.
Leadersh. 2016, 3, 67–81. [CrossRef]
109. Pham, L.; Williamson, S.; Lane, P.; Limbu, Y.; Nguyen, P.T.H.; Coomer, T. Technology readiness and purchase intention: Role of
perceived value and online sat-isfaction in the context of luxury hotels. Int. J. Manag. Decis. Mak. 2020, 19, 91–117. [CrossRef]
110. Wang, C.L.; Li, D.; Barnes, B.R.; Ahn, J. Country image, product image and consumer purchase intention: Evidence from an
emerging economy. Int. Bus. Rev. 2012, 21, 1041–1051. [CrossRef]
111. Psarommatis, F.; Prouvost, S.; May, G.; Kiritsis, D. Product Quality Improvement Policies in Industry 4.0: Characteristics, Enabling
Factors, Barriers, and Evolution Toward Zero Defect Manufacturing. Front. Comput. Sci. 2020, 2, 26. [CrossRef]
112. Kerdlap, P.; Low JS, C.; Ramakrishna, S. Zero waste manufacturing: A framework and review of technology, research, and
implementation barriers for enabling a circular economy transition in Singapore. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104438.
[CrossRef]
113. Habel, C.; Schöttle, M.; Daab, M.; Eichstaedt, N.J.; Wagner, D.; Bakhshi, H.; Agarwal, S.; Horn, M.A.; Breu, J. High-Barrier,
Biodegradable Food Packaging. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2018, 303, 1800333. [CrossRef]
114. Wu, F.; Misra, M.; Mohanty, A.K. Challenges and new opportunities on barrier performance of biodegradable polymers for
sustainable packaging. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2021, 117, 101395. [CrossRef]
115. Bodenheimer, M.; Schuler, J.; Wilkening, T. Drivers and barriers to fashion rental for everyday garments: An empirical analysis of
a former fashion-rental company. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2022, 18, 344–356. [CrossRef]
116. Chao, S.L.; Tsao, C.F. Influence of Brand Reputation and Switching Barrier on Customer Loyalty for International Express Carriers.
In Proceedings of the International Forum on Shipping, Ports and Airports (IFSPA) 2015: Empowering Excellence in Maritime
and Air Logistics: Innovation Management and Technology, Hong Kong, China, 29 November–2 December 2015; Hong Kong
Polytechnic University: Hong Kong, China, 2016.
117. Ricci, E.C.; Banterle, A.; Stranieri, S. Trust to go green: An exploration of consumer intentions for eco-friendly convenience food.
Ecol. Econ. 2018, 148, 54–65. [CrossRef]
118. Bamberg, S. Changing environmentally harmful behaviors: A stage model of self-regulated behavioral change. J. Environ. Psychol.
2013, 34, 151–159. [CrossRef]
119. Kaplan, H.S.; Hooper, P.L.; Gurven, M. The evolutionary and ecological roots of human social organization. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 3289–3299. [CrossRef]
120. Lee, K. Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior. J. Consum. Mark. 2009, 26, 87–96.
[CrossRef]
121. Lai, O.K. Greening of Hong Kong? Forms of manifestation of environmental movements. In The Dynamics of Social Movements in
Hong Kong; Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong, China, 2000; pp. 259–295.
122. Tang, Y.; Hinsch, C. Going green to be morally clean: An examination of environmental behavior among materialistic consumers.
Psychol. Mark. 2018, 35, 845–862. [CrossRef]
123. Ernst, J.; Blood, N.; Beery, T. Environmental action and student environmental leaders: Exploring the influence of environmental
attitudes, locus of control, and sense of personal responsibility. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 23, 149–175. [CrossRef]
124. Patwary, A.K.; Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Rabiul, M.K.; Aziz, R.C.; Hanafiah, M.H. Linking environmental knowledge, environmental
responsibility, altruism, and intention toward green hotels through ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manag. 2022, 34, 4653–4673. [CrossRef]
125. Afzaal, M.; Gohar, M.A.; Zahid, Z. Green Marketing Effect on Consumer’s Purchasing Behavior/intention and Brand Equity. Int.
J. Bus. Econ. Aff. 2021, 6, 106–117.
126. Billig, M.; Badwan, A.; Ankona, E.; Anker, Y. Charcoal Production in Palestinian villages-The Paradox of resistance to innovation
driving rural development. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 89, 25–34. [CrossRef]
127. Prakash, A.V.; Das, S. Explaining citizens’ resistance to use digital contact tracing apps: A mixed-methods study. Int. J. Inf. Manag.
2022, 63, 102468. [CrossRef]
128. Kushwah, S.; Dhir, A.; Sagar, M. Understanding consumer resistance to the consumption of organic food. A study of ethical
consumption, purchasing, and choice behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 77, 1–14. [CrossRef]
129. Nandi, R.; Bokelmann, W.; Gowdru, N.V.; Dias, G. Factors Influencing Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic Fruits and
Vegetables: Empirical Evidence from a Consumer Survey in India. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2016, 23, 430–451. [CrossRef]
130. Torres-Ruiz, F.J.; Vega-Zamora, M.; Parras-Rosa, M. False barriers in the purchase of organic foods. The case of extra virgin olive
oil in Spain. Sustainability 2018, 10, 461. [CrossRef]
131. MacKenzie, S.B.; Lutz, R.J. An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising
pretesting context. J. Mark. 1989, 53, 48–65. [CrossRef]
132. Hsu, C.-L.; Chang, C.-Y.; Yansritakul, C. Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory of planned
behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 34, 145–152.
[CrossRef]
133. Netemeyer, R.G.; Bearden, W.O.; Sharma, S. Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 2003.
134. Yu, H.; Han, E. Developing a Measure for Online Shopping Mall Reputation (OSMR). Sustainability 2021, 13, 3818. [CrossRef]
135. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [CrossRef]
136. Huang, D.; Jin, X.; Coghlan, A. Advances in consumer innovation resistance research: A review and research agenda. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 166, 120594. [CrossRef]
137. Roy, S.K.; Shekhar, V.; Lassar, W.M.; Chen, T. Customer engagement behaviors: The role of service convenience, fairness and
quality. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 44, 293–304. [CrossRef]
138. Claudy, M.C.; Garcia, R.; O’Driscoll, A. Consumer resistance to innovation—A behavioral reasoning perspective. J. Acad. Mark.
Sci. 2015, 43, 528–544. [CrossRef]
139. Mainardes, E.W.; de Souza, I.M.; Correia, R.D. Antecedents and consequents of consumers not adopting ecommerce. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv. 2020, 55, 102138. [CrossRef]
140. Nel, J.; Boshoff, C. Status quo bias and shoppers’ mobile website purchasing resistance. Eur. J. Mark. 2020, 54, 1433–1466.
[CrossRef]
141. Ullah, H.I.; Dickson, R.; Mancini, E.; Malanca, A.A.; Pinelo, M.; Mansouri, S.S. An integrated sustainable biorefinery concept
towards achieving zero-waste production. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 336, 130317. [CrossRef]
142. Royer, S.-J.; Ferrón, S.; Wilson, S.T.; Karl, D.M. Production of methane and ethylene from plastic in the environment. PLoS ONE
2018, 13, e0200574. [CrossRef]
143. Kleijnen, M.; Lee, N.; Wetzels, M. An exploration of consumer resistance to innovation and its antecedents. J. Econ. Psychol. 2009,
30, 344–357. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 14 16858 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 14 16858 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 14 16858 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Academic Editors: Ohbyung Kwon,

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16858. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416858 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16858 2 of 20

Figure 1. The 3Rs of zero waste [15–34].

functionality) aspects, we argue that consumer resistance may be spontaneous or reactive

2.2. Usage Barriers and Purchase Intention

2.3. Value Barriers and Purchase Intention

2.4. Risk Barriers and Purchase Intention

2.5. Tradition Barriers and Purchase Intention

2.6. Image Barriers and Purchase Intention

2.7. Perceived Environmental Responsibility as a Moderator

Hypothesis 6 (H6a–e). Perceived environmental responsibility moderates the relationship between

3.1. Research Model

Figure 2. Research model.

Table 1. Goodness of fit for confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA).

Classification χ2 /df RMSEA AGFI GFI TLI CFI

Table 2. Confirmatory factorial analysis.

Table 3. Test of discriminant validity.

4.3. Structural Model

Table 4. Hypothesis results.

Hypothesis Path β p Support

4.4. Moderation Analysis

Table 5. Results of moderation analysis.

Moderator Variable: Perceived Environmental Responsibility

Moderator Classification Classification Effect S.E. t LLCI ULCI

Theoretical and Practical Implications

6. Limitations and Future Research

Variable Name Item Code Items

You might also like