3.3 6.

Article

The Impact of Eco-Friendly

Practices on Generation Z’s Green
Image, Brand Attachment, Brand
Advocacy, and Brand Loyalty in
Coffee Shop

Ju-Hee Ko and Hyeon-Mo Jeon

Special Issue
Sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) in Hospitality and Tourism Sector
Edited by
Prof. Dr. Hyeon-Mo Jeon and Dr. Hyung-Min Choi

https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083126
 sustainability

Article
The Impact of Eco-Friendly Practices on Generation Z’s Green
Image, Brand Attachment, Brand Advocacy, and Brand Loyalty
in Coffee Shop
Ju-Hee Ko 1 and Hyeon-Mo Jeon 2, *

1 Department of Leisure and Recreation, Sangji University-Wonju, Wonju 26339, Republic of Korea;
[email protected]
2 Department of Hotel, Tourism, and Foodservice Management, Dongguk University-Gyeongju,
Gyeongju 38066, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-10-6275-4010

Abstract: This study examined eco-friendly practices (EFPs), green image, and brand attachment to
identify antecedents that affect coffee shop consumers’ brand advocacy and brand loyalty, targeting
Generation Z, who are emerging as the primary agents of eco-friendly consumption. In particular, we
applied only the tangible EFPs that consumers can observe to identify a clear relationship between
perceptions of EFPs and consumer behavior. This is the most significant difference from previous
studies. In this study, 287 people who responded that they had visited Starbucks, which was selected
as the coffee shop brand to be investigated through a pilot test, were used as a sample. As a result of
the verification, EFPs demonstrated a positive influence on green image and brand attachment, and
green image appeared to have a positive effect on brand attachment. Brand attachment was confirmed
to be an antecedent that strengthens brand advocacy and brand loyalty. This study contributes to
the literature on environmental friendliness in the hospitality industry and can be used to establish
sustainable, eco-friendly marketing strategies in the food service business.

Keywords: Generation Z; eco-friendly practices; green image; brand attachment; brand advocacy;
brand loyalty; coffee shop
Citation: Ko, J.-H.; Jeon, H.-M. The
Impact of Eco-Friendly Practices on
Generation Z’s Green Image, Brand
Attachment, Brand Advocacy, and
1. Introduction
Brand Loyalty in Coffee Shop.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126. As consumers recognize the importance of environmental sustainability, environmen-
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083126 tal protection has become an essential issue [1]. Accordingly, eco-friendliness is gradually
being emphasized as an important component of the core branding strategy of many com-
Academic Editor: Mónica
panies pursuing environmental sustainability [2]. The restaurant industry is a major waste
Gómez-Suárez
producer of food and other resources, resulting in significant resource waste, greenhouse
Received: 21 February 2024 gas (GHG) emissions, and business costs [3]. In particular, due to COVID-19, demand for
Revised: 8 April 2024 plastic containers has also increased explosively as online delivery and take-out services
Accepted: 8 April 2024 for restaurants and coffee shops have increased [4]. Additionally, the global growth of
Published: 9 April 2024 coffee shop brands has accelerated the increase in waste generation, including packaging
materials and coffee grounds [5]. Environmental sustainability issues in the coffee shop
industry related to single-use waste, focusing on coffee cups and grounds [1]. In total,
80% of the weight of extracted coffee beans remains as coffee grounds and becomes waste,
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
which is usually incinerated or landfilled, causing environmental problems [6]. Regarding
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
environmental pollution, plastics (especially single-use plastics) are a major concern due to
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
their ubiquity and harmful environmental effects [4].
conditions of the Creative Commons
However, as corporate and consumer awareness of eco-friendly practices (EFPs) and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// sustainability increases, the restaurant industry is following a trend toward becoming
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ more environmentally friendly [7]. EFPs include pollution prevention, recycling programs,
4.0/). water conservation, energy efficiency, green materials, green purchasing, green design, and

Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083126 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 2 of 15

green food programs [8,9]. Starbucks, one of the most representative eco-friendly coffee
shop companies, practice EFPs by using recycled take-out cups, organic food, and reusable
mugs [10]. Additionally, by recycling and regenerating waste materials generated in stores,
including coffee grounds and plastic, McDonald’s has reduced carbon dioxide emissions
by approximately 150,000 kg (330,700 pounds) [11].
Customers are also concerned about the true motivations behind the environmental
initiatives communicated by tourism and hospitality service providers [12]. This concern
arises from the deceptive practice of using eco-friendly promotions or marketing tactics to
create the perception that a company’s products, goals, and/or policies are ecofriendly [13].
This practice, known as “greenwashing”, involves the dissemination of disinformation
by organizations to portray an environmentally responsible public image [14]. Green-
washing tactics ma include renaming or re-labeling harmful products to evoke the natural
environment and spending considerable amounts of money on advertising to portray
polluting companies as eco-friendly [13]. Rahman et al. [15] showed that customers who
perceive that a hotel’s environmental claims have ulterior motives are less likely to engage
in environmental conservation efforts and are less likely to return. However, recent EFPs
in the tourism and hospitality sectors have been welcomed by customers because they
are less likely to be perceived as green washing [12]. Many companies are implementing
environmental certification programs to reduce environmental damage and encourage
the participation of consumers interested in green issues [16]. These certifications are an
attempt to encourage companies’ commitment to the environment and differentiate truly
eco-friendly companies from greenwashed companies [17].
Restaurants’ EFPs are considered important to environmentally conscious consumers [18].
Therefore, restaurants that adopt EFPs not only contribute to environmental conservation
but also gain benefits that help them gain a competitive advantage [9]. Despite the interest
in environmentally friendly practices among consumers and restaurants, understanding
sustainable restaurant practices has not been adequately examined in the context of coffee
shops. Indeed, an essential question for coffee shop brands seeking to generate economic
and environmental benefits by adopting sustainable EFP is how such practices affect
customers’ loyalty toward coffee shops.
Through marketing and corporate social responsibility research, EFPs have long been
considered an essential element of corporate reputation and a key element of corporate
image [19]. A green image is even more critical for companies, such as those in the tourism
and hospitality industry, at a time when environmental awareness is increasing, and interna-
tional regulations on environmental protection are advancing [20]. A restaurant’s tangible
green attributes (e.g., in-store recycling bins, recyclable take-out containers, green menu op-
tions) can influence customers’ green image of a particular restaurant [21]. Likewise, coffee
shop operators are highly interested in EFPs that enhance the brand’s green image [22].
Customers have emotional attachments to brands, places, and companies they find
meaningful [23]. Consumers who care about the environment are more likely to identify
with environmentally friendly stores representing their self-image or values and form
greater emotional attachment by experiencing higher congruence [5]. Additionally, the
brand attachment for eco-friendly consumers will be stronger if they believe the eco-friendly
brand image matches their self-value [24].
Loyal customers are a prerequisite for securing higher market share for a business [25].
One of the best ways to create loyal customers is to turn them into assets through brand
attachment [26]. Consumers with high emotional brand attachment engage in activities
such as promoting the brand, participating in the brand community, and spreading positive
word of mouth [27]. Consumers with strong emotional attachment become brand advocates
who defend and preserve the brand [28]. Therefore, an in-depth investigation is needed
into the factors that lead to EFPs, green image, brand attachment, brand advocacy, and
brand loyalty.
Meanwhile, Generation Z (Gen Z) accounts for approximately 32% of the global
population [29] and is the youngest generational group of active consumers, making
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 3 of 15

it one of the fastest growing segments and an important target market for the tourism
industry [30]. Gen Z, known as the “Facebook Generation” or “Internet Generation” are
people born between 1995 and 2010 [31,32]. Gen Z tends to be eco-friendly, prioritize
health when making food choices, and desire a higher quality of life compared to other
generations [33]. A recent report confirmed that 35% of Gen Z care about the environment
and consider sustainability a priority, and there is a growing tendency to embrace healthy
daily life and adopt more ethical choices [34]. Compared to other generations, Gen Z
tourists are also more likely to fall into the “environmental” or “mixed environmental”
sectors, which makes them more likely to engage in sustainable practices related to resource
conservation and purchasing local food [35]. In particular, Gen Z represents a sustainable
food service market segment with much potential, so understanding this consumer group
is essential for tailoring effective approaches to sustainability marketing [36]. Therefore,
this study considers Gen Z to understand consumer behavior toward EFPs [31].
Previous studies of EFPs in hospitality mainly focus on hotels [36–38] and restau-
rants [3,9,39–41]. Research on EFPs in coffee shops [5,21] is still limited. Therefore, this
study targets coffee shops in line with the growing consumer interest in environmental
responsibility and the growing need for eco-friendly marketing within coffee shops [10]. In
addition, consumer behavior regarding EFPs in coffee shops was confirmed, targeting Gen
Z, which is emerging as the primary agent of eco-friendly consumption. The importance of
Gen Z was overlooked in previous studies of EFPs in the hospitality industry mentioned
above. Therefore, this selection of research subjects is the most significant difference from
previous studies.
Many of the restaurant’s product and process activities, including those with eco-
friendly characteristics, occur at the back of the house. Therefore, many practices are
invisible to customers [22]. Nevertheless, previous studies [3,7,9,19,24,41,42] verified con-
sumer behavior by constructing a single dimension of intangible EFPs that are difficult
to observe when customers eat at eco-friendly restaurants and tangible EFPs that can
be observed. However, the results may be less clear than when only tangible EFPs are
applied [19]. Therefore, we applied only the tangible EFPs that consumers can observe to
identify a clear relationship between perceptions of EFPs and consumer behavior.
Additionally, no research to date has examined the relationship between EFPs and
green image, brand attachment, brand advocacy, and brand loyalty in the context of
restaurants and coffee shops. Therefore, this study integrated each variable and identified
the relationships between variables. The design of this study is different from previous
studies [3,5,7,9,19,24,41] that applied EFPs to restaurants and coffee shops. The analysis
results presented important factors and how their roles can predict consumer behavior
toward coffee shops in an eco-friendly context. Our study also provided strong practical
implications for coffee shop brand managers to guide them in developing sustainable
business strategies.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Eco-Friendly Practice
Eco-friendly marketing has become one of the most important marketing concepts [42],
and encouraging the application of EFPs on the part of companies and regulating them
on behalf of consumers is an important marketing strategy that can gain a competitive
advantage [43]. EFPs refer to activities that provide environmentally friendly products and
services or provide products and services to consumers through systems and processes
that can improve and protect the environment [44].
Recently, the restaurant industry has begun eco-friendly management to fulfill social
responsibilities through environmental protection, resource conservation, and removal
of environmental pollution [10]. The Green Restaurant Association (GRA), a non-profit
organization, has promoted the implementation of EFPs in restaurants since 1990 [45]. In
a coffee shop context, EFPs have a tangible dimension, such as products or activities that
occur front-of-the-house and can be observed by customers. For example, using recyclable
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 4 of 15

take-out containers, recycling bins for cups and sleeves in stores, serving drinks in reusable
glasses or mugs, or serving organic foods [5].
Waste reduction is currently a key focus for governments and the restaurant sector due
to concerns about the waste of edible food, the link between waste and carbon emissions,
and the impact of plastics on the environment [3]. Previous studies on EFPs include various
sub-items, but rather than a commonly used factor, various eco-friendly practice factors
have been presented depending on the business and field being investigated. Looking at
research in the restaurant field, Baloglu et al. [9] presented energy, waste, water, and food
as factors for EFPs in casual restaurants, and Kim and Hall [3] classified food sustainability
practices and waste reduction practices as restaurants’ EFPs. Wang [41] suggested recycling
and composting, eco-friendly cleaning products and packaging, energy and water-efficient
equipment, and menu sustainability as factors for coffee shops’ EFPs. Jang et al. [5] and
Jeong et al. [19] structured the eco-friendly practice factors of coffee shops into a single
dimension, which was based on tangible products and activities that customers could
observe. In this study, considering the coffee shop situation, we focused on EFPs at the
tangible level proposed in the studies of Jang et al. [5].
Some benefits of restaurants going green include promoting a positive brand image,
providing a competitive advantage over other restaurants, and reducing costs [7]. Ac-
cording to corporate image research, especially in the field of marketing, EFPs can be a
component of corporate image development [22]. EFPs are an effective tool to support
corporate image because they portray a positive image of the company and demonstrate
the organization’s commitment to society [46,47]. Several hospitality studies have con-
firmed that EFPs are a prerequisite for a green image. According to a study by Namkung
and Jang [22], both types of EFPs in upscale casual and casual dining restaurants signif-
icantly improved consumer awareness of green brand image and behavioral intention.
Jeong et al. [19] provided practical guidelines for effective green marketing and build-
ing a green image for coffee shops. Of the four green practices tested in their study, the
three that significantly impacted forming customers’ green image were recyclable take-out
containers, energy-efficient lighting, and recycling waste. A study by Martinez Garcia
de Leaniz et al. [20] demonstrates that customer awareness of EFPs of environmentally
certified hotels positively affected the company’s green image and customers’ behavioral
intentions. Therefore, this study proposes EFPs as an essential predictor of strengthening
green image in coffee shop situations. Thus, the following set of hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Eco-friendly practice positively influences green image.

A company’s EFPs or social responsibility actions can be important in forming con-

sumers’ emotional attachment to a company or store [5]. According to Jang et al. [5], coffee
shops’ EFPs positively affected the formation of consumers’ emotional attachment to the
store. This result confirms that EFPs are important for building a lasting relationship
between coffee shops and consumers. Khan et al. [48] confirmed the positive relationship
between EFPs and green brand attachment in fast food restaurants. They also identified re-
cyclable take-out containers, recycling waste, and energy-saving lighting as important EFPs
that significantly contribute to customers’ emotional brand attachment. Bekar et al. [43]
confirmed that EFPs implemented in coffee shop stores have a positive effect on customers’
emotional attachment and a positive effect on eco-friendly loyalty to stores and products.
Thus, the following set of hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Eco-friendly practice positively influences brand attachment.

2.2. Green Image

In the hospitality research field, corporate image is one of the most common concepts
because it influences customer responses [17]. Corporate image is very important because it
reflects how one organization differentiates itself from others, and helps maintain friendly
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 5 of 15

relationships with customers [19]. When an organization invests in EFPs, it can improve
not only productivity but also corporate image [47,49]. Green image is defined as a set of
perceptions about a company/brand in the minds of consumers, linked to its commitment
to and concern for the environment [50]. Wang et al. [51] defined green image as percep-
tions related to environmental commitments and concerns resulting from the company’s
associations in consumers’ memories. Therefore, a company’s green image includes the
company’s environmental or eco-friendly attributes as perceived by stakeholders [20,52]. A
restaurant’s tangible green attributes can influence customers’ green image of a particu-
lar restaurant [22]. As consumer demand for environmentally responsible products and
services increases in the hospitality industry, green images are beginning to replace the im-
portance of overall image [53]. Additionally, a positive green image serves as a clear signal
of a company’s environmental commitment to key stakeholders and represents an effective
means of improving environmental differentiation and profitability [20]. Therefore, for a
company to build a successful green brand image, it must induce consumers to perceive
that the brand is eco-friendly [24].
The concept of corporate and brand image has shown great interest among tourism
industry scholars due to its impact on customer behavioral decisions [20]. In a study
by Kim et al. [54], festival brand image was positively and strongly related to festival
attachment and brand loyalty. Researchers emphasized the importance of a positive
image of the festival. According to Manyiwa et al. [55], the brand image of a city was
confirmed to be an essential factor that strengthens tourists’ emotional attachment to the
city. Jawahar et al. [56] identified event image as an important antecedent in creating city
attachment and brand equity. They said that if visitors develop a positive attachment to the
event host city, their favorable attitude toward the city as a whole improves. Chen et al. [24]
confirmed that in an eco-friendly context, the stronger the green brand image of a product
perceived by consumers, the stronger their attachment to the brand. Thus, the following
set of hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Green image positively influences brand attachment.

2.3. Brand Attachment

Attachment is a relationship-based concept that reflects the emotional bond that
links an individual to a specific object [57], brand attachment results from a long-term
relationship between oneself and the brand [24]. While previous psychological research
has emphasized individuals’ attachment to other people (e.g., romantic partners, mothers,
infants), marketing literature has demonstrated that customers become attached to specific
brands [57]. Therefore, marketing literature defines brand attachment as a consumer’s long-
term, emotional disposition toward a brand [58]. Greenwald and Pratkanis [59] argued
that customers can become attached to a brand in such a way that it becomes an extension
of the self by giving strong emotions, such as when the brand becomes a part of the
customer’s daily life. Brand attachment is, therefore, characterized by a strong connection
or connectedness between the brand and the self [60]. Thomson et al. [61] first developed the
emotional brand attachment scale to measure attachment, conceptualizing it as an emotional
bond, degree of affection, passion, and connection. Subsequent research demonstrated that
brand attachment, which reflects brand and self-connection, includes both emotional and
cognitive bonds [58,62,63].
Previous research has demonstrated that brand attachment positively affects consumer
behaviors such as brand loyalty. In particular, consumers with strong brand attachment are
more resilient to negative brand information, ignore the brand’s shortcomings, and defend
the brand [28,62]. A study by Ahmadi and Ataei [28] identified that the more experiences
an individual has with a brand, the greater the positive relationship between emotional
attachment and brand advocacy. Laophon and Khamwon [64] identified that emotional
brand attachment, directly and indirectly, affects brand advocacy. In a study by Natarajan
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 6 of 15

and Veera Raghavan [65], shoppers’ store attachment was found to positively affect various
online brand advocacy behaviors. Thus, the following set of hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Brand attachment positively influences brand advocacy.

Additionally, Jang et al. [1] found that consumers’ attachment to green stores positively
affected green store loyalty and green product loyalty. When consumers experience an
emotional attachment to a green store, they will become loyal to a specific green store [5].
Bahri-Ammari et al. [58] identified that brand attachment to luxury restaurants is an
antecedent in forming consumer loyalty because it contributes to maintaining relationships
in terms of repeat purchase behavior. Kim and Stepchenkova [57] confirmed the positive
role of brand attachment in strengthening brand loyalty among Korean family restaurant
customers. According to a study by Jang [23], it was confirmed that customers form a
strong emotional attachment to the green service environment of coffee shops and that this
attachment significantly increases loyalty. Thus, the following set of hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Brand attachment positively influences brand loyalty.

2.4. Brand Advocacy

Brand advocacy is one of the important variables in consumer-brand relationships [66].
Brand advocacy is defined as the promotion or defense of an organization, product or
brand by one consumer to another consumer [28]. Brand advocacy is a core component
of brand equity and differs from loyalty, which refers to repeat purchases, because it
involves peer-to-peer communication. Advocacy is a unique combination of attitude,
loyalty, and engagement. Loyalty focuses on the intention to revisit and can influence
brand choice, whereas advocacy involves actively promoting the brand to others [67].
Additionally, it differs from positive word of mouth in that it is based on a consumer-brand
relationship [68]. These advocacy behaviors include spreading positive word of mouth
and defending the brand against criticism [69]. Some scholars argue that this goes beyond
simply recommending a brand and disseminating information about the brand through
word of mouth and goes to the level of customers forgiving suppliers for poor service
situations and providing service opportunities [70]. In other words, brand advocacy means
that there is a high level of trust and affection between the consumer and a brand [71]. From
a business perspective, brand advocacy can undoubtedly serve as an influential source
of corporate value creation because favorable recommendations or communication can
promote the adoption of a product or service [72,73].

2.5. Brand Loyalty

A strong brand is important in creating brand loyalty, especially in competitive busi-
ness environments [74]. Aaker [25] argued that brand loyalty, a key element of brand
equity, is considered one of the important measures for the success of business marketing
strategies [75]. Brand loyalty is a behavioral response to preferred products or services,
which involves preferring, recommending, and repurchasing the products and services of
that brand [76]. Loyal customers will repeatedly purchase the same brand or set of brands
despite situational influences that drive switching behavior and the potential influence of
other brands’ marketing efforts [57].
Common ways to measure brand loyalty are willingness to pay more, word of mouth,
and repurchase intention [77]. Specifically, willingness to pay more and word of mouth are
classified as attitudinal loyalty, and revisit intention is classified as behavioral loyalty [75].
Companies with more loyal customers enjoy more revenue and market share and get a
higher return on investment [63]. In particular, consumers who form a strong sense of
connection, belonging, and emotional attachment to the brand in a service environment
have higher levels of loyalty [23].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 7 of 15
tt

Figure 1 depicts the research model, which involves a total of 5 hypotheses regarding
the causal relationships among the five latent constructs.

Figure 1. A Conceptual Research Model.

3. Methods
3.1. Measures
This study consisted of five factors: EFPs, green image, brand tt attachment, brand
advocacy, and brand loyalty. All factor items were adopted from existing literature and
modified to suit the ff coffee shop context. The five questions regarding tangible EFPs
that were judged to be directly observable by customers in stores were adopted from
Jang et al. [5], Kim and Hall [3], and Kwok and Huang [40]. The four questions about
tt
green image were quoted from Jeong et al. [19], Mahasuweerachai and Suttikun [53], and
tt
Martinez Garcia de Leaniz et al. [20], and the four questions about brand attachment were
quoted by Jang et al. [5] and Khan et al. [48]. The four questions on brand advocacy were
quoted from Aljarah et al. [70], and the three questions on brand loyalty were quoted from
Jang et al. [5]. The measured items used a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

3.2. Data Collection Procedure

The survey subjects for sampling were selected as Gen Z customers who had experi-
ff
ence using chain coffee shop brands within the past month. We conducted a pilot test using
online convenience sampling through social network services to determine the awareness
ff ff
level of Gen Z coffee consumers regarding the EFPs of coffee shop brands. The respondents
who participated in the pilot test were provided with the concept of EFPs and examples of
ff
coffee shop brands. We also asked respondents to answer screening ff questions regarding
whether they were aware offfthe EFPs of these coffee shops, and which brand among the
Korean coffee shop brands they believed to be practicing the best EFPs. A total of 112 re-
spondents met the requirements of the screening questions and provided responses that
could be ffi used for analysis. The sample size for the pilot study was considered sufficient
following the suggestion of a minimum sample size of 100 or a 5:1 subject ratio for the
items provided by Gorsuch [78]. In the pilot test, 98 (87.5%) of the 112 respondents selected
Starbucks as the coffee shop brand that best practices EFPs. The remaining brands account
for less than 10% of the total. Therefore, we judged that Starbucks was representative of
coffee shop brands that practice EFPs and ultimately selected it as the coffee shop brand to
be investigated.
Data collection was conducted from 25 January to 9 February 2024, and was conducted
through online research company. Respondents were administered three screening ques-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 8 of 15

tions before being invited for an interview. “Is your year of birth after 1995?” “Have you
visited Starbucks within the past month?” “Are you aware of Starbucks’ EFPs?” If any of the
three answers were no, the survey was closed. Of the 5000 people who responded to the sur-
vey, 321 answered ‘yes’ to the three questions. The research institute explained the purpose
of this study to 321 respondents, and the survey was conducted after obtaining informed
consent. Among the 321 collected questionnaires, 34 with extreme outliers were removed,
and 287 valid questionnaires were used for analysis. A demographic characteristic of
participants is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants.

Demographic Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 136 47.4
Female 151 52.6
Marital status Single 226 78.7
Married 61 21.3
Educational level High school 49 17.1
2-year university 45 15.7
4-year university 148 51.6
Graduate school 45 15.7
Monthly income Below 2000 76 26.5
USD 2000–2999 71 24.7
USD 3000–3999 44 15.3
USD 4000–4999 37 12.9
USD 5000–5999 16 5.6
Above USD 6000 43 15.0
Occupation Student 69 24.0
Office workers 80 27.9
Sales and Service 42 14.6
Technician 7 2.4
Professional job 57 19.9
Self-employed 16 5.6
Others 16 5.6

3.3. Statistical Analysis

We applied Anderson and Gerbing’s [79] two-step approach to data analysis using
AMOS 25.0. In the first step, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the
suitability of the measurement model and estimate reliability and validity. In the second
step, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine the relationships between
the five latent constructs proposed in this study.

4. Data Analysis and Results

4.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A measurement model consisting of all construct items and five latent variables
was created through the CFA using the maximum urethral estimation method. Table 2
indicates the results of the CFA after removing one item (i.e., “Visiting this coffee shop
says a lot about who I am”) related to brand attachment, which reduces the goodness
of fit of the model based on the squared multiple correlations (SMC > 0.4) value. The
results of the CFA demonstrated that the measurement model was an adequate fit to
the data (χ2 = 260.933, df = 135, χ2 /df = 1.933, RMR = 0.047, GFI = 0.913, NFI = 0.924,
IFI = 0.962, CFI = 0.961, RMSEA = 0.057). We additionally examined the measurement
model to verify construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. First,
standardized loading estimates are above the minimum requirement of 0.5 [80]. Construct
validity was achieved because the standardized loading estimates of all items were greater
than 0.5, and each item loaded significantly (p < 0.01) on its associated latent construct.
Second, the AVE of the structure ranged from 0.616 to 0.788, which is larger than the
minimum threshold of 0.50 suggested by Hair et al. [80]. Additionally, the composite
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 9 of 15

reliabilities of constructs were above 0.70, indicating that all constructs in the model had
acceptable internal consistency. Therefore, convergent validity for each construct was
achieved [80] (See Table 2). Third, to evaluate discriminant validity, the AVE square root of
each latent variable was compared with the corresponding correlation coefficient between
latent variables [81]. Table 3 indicates adequate discriminant validity in that the AVE square
root of each latent variable is greater than the corresponding correlation coefficient.

Table 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.

Construct and Scale Item Loading CR AVE

Eco-friendly practice (EFP) (α = 0.863)
This coffee shop offers responsibly grown/eco-friendly products
0.681 0.887 0.616
(e.g., fair trade/organic coffee, teas, local/organic foods).
This coffee shop uses eco-friendly materials (e.g., recycled
0.945
napkins, paper straws).
This coffee shop uses recyclable take-out containers. 0.647
This coffee shop uses reusable cups rather than disposable
0.767
plastic cups in the store.
This coffee shop recommends using your own cup to minimize
0.701
harmful waste.
Green image (GIM) (α = 0.875)
I think that this coffee shop is responsible regarding
0.792 0.914 0.726
environmental issues.
I believe that this coffee shop is concerned about
0.810
environmental conservation.
I think that this coffee shop is not only care about generating
0.774
profits but also about the environment and consumers.
This coffee shop behaves in a socially responsible way. 0.804
Brand attachment (BAT) (α = 0.831)
I feel this coffee shop is a part of me. 0.682 0.917 0.788
I identify strongly with this coffee shop. 0.869
This coffee shop means a lot to me. 0.832
Brand advocacy (BAD) (α = 0.864)
I will try to get my friends and family to buy this coffee shop’s
0.869 0.910 0.717
products and services.
I will tell others about the good things about this coffee shop. 0.764
I will defend this coffee shop to others if I hear someone
0.795
speaking poorly about this coffee shop.
I will bring friends/family with me to this coffee shop because I
0.800
think they would like it here.
Brand loyalty (BLO) (α = 0.920)
I will say positive things about this coffee shop to others. 0.891 0.914 0.780
I will use this coffee shop more often. 0.961
I will choose this coffee shop first among several coffee shop. 0.825

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of variables.

Construct 1 2 3 4 5
1. EFP 0.785
2. GIM 0.284 0.852
3. BAT 0.253 0.336 0.888
4. BAD 0.260 0.438 0.268 0.847
5. BLO 0.266 0.327 0.226 0.610 0.883
Mean 3.682 3.839 4.303 3.642 3.035
S.D. 0.741 0.693 0.601 0.726 1.000
Note: The diagonal values represent the square roots of AVE for each construct.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 10 of 15

4.2. Common Method Bias

According to Podsakoff et al. [82], data collected from the same source may raise
potential concerns that common method variance (CMV) is due to the method of measure-
ment rather than the construct it represents. Therefore, we applied Harman’s single factor
test [83] to examine whether CMV biased the data. To this end, we loaded all items of the
variable into a single factor without rotation and performed an exploratory factor analysis
(EFA). EFA was conducted by injecting 19 measurement items of EFPs, green image, brand
attachment, brand advocacy, and brand loyalty. As a result of the analysis, it was confirmed
that there was no common method bias problem because the variance of the single factor
was explained at 34.5%, satisfying the criterion of less than 50% [82].

4.3. Structural Model and Hypothesis Tests

A SEM analysis was conducted in order to identify the 5 hypotheses, which are
presented in Table 4. The results of the SEM indicated an adequate fit of the model to the
data (χ² = 298.358, df = 138, p = 0.000, χ2 /df = 2.162, RMR = 0.070, GFI = 0.905, NFI = 0.913,
IFI = 0.951, CFI = 0.951, RMSEA = 0.064). H1 was supported because EFPs positively
affects green image (β = 0.277 and t = 4.000). H2 was supported because EFPs positively
affects brand attachment (β = 0.186 and t = 2.838). H3 was supported because green image
positively affects brand attachment (β = 0.309 and t = 4.292). H4 was supported because
brand attachment positively affecrts brand advocacy (β = 0.183 and t = 2.751). Lastly,
H5 was supported because brand attachment positively affects brand loyalty (β = 0.231
and t = 3.519).

Table 4. Results of structural model.

Hypotheses β t-Value p-Value Decision

H1 EFP → GIM 0.277 4.333 ** 0.000 supported
H2 EFP → BAT 0.186 2.838 ** 0.005 supported
H3 GIM → BAT 0.309 4.292 ** 0.000 supported
H4 BAT → BAD 0.183 2.751 ** 0.006 supported
H5 BAT → BLO 0.231 3.519 ** 0.000 supported
Note: ** p < 0.01.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

As a result of the study, it was confirmed that coffee shops’ EFPs had a positive
effect on green image and brand attachment. This is a result that supports previous
studies that investigated the relationship between EFPs and green image [19] and the
relationship between EFPs and brand attachment [5] targeting coffee shops. In particular,
EFPs demonstrated a stronger influence on green image than brand attachment. These
results mean that encouraging eco-friendly products, the use of eco-friendly materials,
recyclable take-out containers, reusable cups in stores, and personal cups are very important
in increasing Gen Z consumers’ perception of green image and emotional brand attachment.
Additionally, the green image formed by EFPs was found to have a positive effect on
consumers’ brand attachment. This is a result that supports Chen et al.’s [24] study on
eco-friendly foods. This means that consumers’ emotional attachment to the coffee shop
brand is further strengthened when the coffee shop brand cares about environmental
preservation and responds to environmental problems in a responsible manner.
Brand attachment was found to have a positive effect on brand advocacy. This result
supports previous studies [28,64,65,69] that identified the relationship between brand
attachment and brand advocacy. Additionally, brand attachment was found to have a
positive effect on brand loyalty. This supported previous studies targeting restaurants
and coffee shops [5,23,57,58]. Consumers who have a strong emotional attachment to a
brand formed by EFPs and a green image not only have positive word-of-mouth and revisit
intentions but also demonstrate resilience to negative information about the brand and
take action to defend the brand [28,62].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 11 of 15

5.1. Theoretical Implications

EFPs have been applied to restaurant situations and identified consumer behavior in
a number of studies. However, previous studies [3,7,9,19,40,41,48] confirmed customers’
intentions and relationships by applying intangible EFPs (e.g., efficient lighting and water
use, use of renewable power, composting program, recycling waste in the back of the
store, use of eco-friendly detergents, in-store temperature control system, leftover food
donation, employee training) that customers could not actually perceive when eating at
eco-friendly restaurants. Previous studies [3,7,9,19,40,41,48] examined consumer behavior
using tangible and intangible EFPs as a single dimension. As our results may not be as clear
as tangible practices [19], we applied only the tangible EFPs that consumers could observe
to identify a clear relationship between perceptions of EFPs and consumer behavior. The
composition of this eco-friendly practice scale is consistent with some studies [5]. However,
this study [5] has limitations in that it does not reflect consumers’ heightened environmental
awareness due to the COVID-19 pandemic and does not reflect the awareness of Gen Z,
who are growing into the mainstream of food service consumption. To overcome these
limitations, this study identified Gen Z’s perception and consumer behavior by applying
an eco-friendly practice scale that can be observed in coffee shops.
This study is the first to investigate the relationship between Gen Z consumers’ aware-
ness of EFPs in the hospitality industry and green image, brand attachment, brand advocacy,
and brand loyalty. As a result of the study, it was identified that the role of EFPs is impor-
tant in improving Gen Z consumers’ green image and brand attachment to coffee shops.
In addition, the relationship between the green image positively formed among Gen Z
consumers and brand attachment, which is the emotional response of consumers, was
confirmed. The relationship between these two variables has theoretical significance in
that it has rarely been addressed in the eco-friendly restaurant context. Lastly, it was con-
firmed that this brand attachment is an important antecedent to increasing brand advocacy
and brand loyalty. The design and results of this study contribute significantly to the
hospitality literature.

5.2. Practical Implications

Coffee shop brands have been adopting EFPs in response to consumers’ concerns
about protecting the environment. Through this, we expect to improve the company’s
green image, increase brand attachment, and build long-term relationships with Gen Z
customers who value eco-friendliness. We offer the following suggestions for EFPs in coffee
shops. From a practical standpoint, coffee shops will need to reinforce tangible EFPs that
customers can observe. As demonstrated in the research results, tangible EFPs (e.g., organic
products, recycled napkins, paper straws, recyclable take-out containers, use of reusable
cups in store, use of personal cups encouraged) are a useful way to strengthen the green
image and brand attachment toward coffee shops. These practices send a direct message to
customers that the coffee shop is engaging in EFPs. We also suggest creating an eco-friendly
environment within stores to strengthen tangible EFPs. Coffee shop brand managers or
marketers must provide environmentally friendly clues that customers can recognize, such
as eco-friendly interiors, colors, scents, and lighting, to convey an eco-friendly image
to customers.
We assessed the EFPs of coffee shops by applying a simple tangible practice tool.
However, we also recommend more proactive measures, namely the implementation of
intangible green practices (e.g., efficient energy use, coffee grounds composting program)
that customers say are difficult to observe. These practices must be accompanied by
advertising and promotions so that consumers are aware of them even outside the store.
In fact, Starbucks has pledged to achieve carbon-neutral green coffee and conserve water
use in green coffee processing by 50% by 2030 for a resource-friendly future [84]. However,
these EFPs may not be well known to consumers. In particular, Gen Z consumers have been
living in a digital environment since birth. You can improve your company’s green image by
actively promoting the tangible and intangible EFPs of coffee shops through social network
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 12 of 15

services familiar to Gen Z. This kind of promotion will have the effect of awakening the
importance of the environment to Gen Z consumers who are somewhat indifferent to eco-
friendliness. These active environmental campaigns will improve consumers’ attachment
to the brand, advocacy against negative information, and loyalty.

5.3. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

As with any study, the current study has some limitations that suggest directions for
further research. First, because it only targeted coffee shops, there are some limitations in
applying the results of this study to other restaurant sectors, such as fine dining restaurants,
casual dining restaurants, and quick service restaurants. Second, to clearly identify the
influence of brand attachment on coffee shops, brand loyalty must be divided into loyalty
to eco-friendly stores and products. However, as this study sets brand loyalty as a single
dimension, a more detailed relationship could not be determined. Lastly, in terms of
practical implications, the service environment was suggested as a tangible eco-friendly
practice, but it was not actually measured in this study. Therefore, it would be an interesting
extension of the research if future research were conducted by adding measures of the
service environment.

Author Contributions: H.-M.J. conceived and designed the experiments; H.-M.J. performed the
experiments and analyzed the data; J.-H.K. and H.-M.J. 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: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Yun, S.; Kim, T. What do coffee shop entrepreneurs need to do to raise pro-environmental customer behavioral intentions?
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2666. [CrossRef]
2. Chen, Q.; Hu, M.; He, Y.; Lin, I.; Mattila, A.S. Understanding guests’ evaluation of green hotels: The interplay between willingness
to sacrifice for the environment and intent vs. quality-based market signals. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 104, 103229.
3. Kim, M.J.; Hall, C.M. Can sustainable restaurant practices enhance customer loyalty? The roles of value theory and environmental
concerns. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 43, 127–138. [CrossRef]
4. Nicolau, J.L.; Stadlthanner, K.A.; Andreu, L.; Font, X. Explaining the willingness of consumers to bring their own reusable coffee
cups under the condition of monetary incentives. J. Retail. Cons. Serv. 2022, 66, 102908. [CrossRef]
5. Jang, Y.J.; Kim, W.G.; Lee, H.Y. Coffee shop consumers’ emotional attachment and loyalty to green stores: The moderating role of
green consciousness. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 44, 146–156. [CrossRef]
6. Nguyen, V.Q.; Choi, Y.S.; Choi, S.K.; Jeong, Y.W.; Han, S.Y. Co-pyrolysis of coffee grounds and waste polystyrene foam: Synergistic
effect and product characteristics analysis. Fuel 2021, 292, 120375. [CrossRef]
7. DiPietro, R.B.; Cao, Y.; Partlow, C. Green practices in upscale foodservice operations customer perceptions and purchase intentions.
Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 25, 779–796. [CrossRef]
8. Green Restaurant Association (GRA). Green Restaurant Certification Standards. Available online: http://dinegreen.com/
restaurants/standards.asp (accessed on 7 February 2024).
9. Baloglu, S.; Raab, C.; Malek, K. Organizational motivations for green practices in casual restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Admin.
2022, 23, 269–288. [CrossRef]
10. Kim, T.; Yun, S. How will changes toward pro-environmental behavior play in customers’ perceived value of environmental
concerns at coffee shops? Sustainability 2019, 11, 3816. [CrossRef]
11. Korea JoongAng Daily. McDonald’s Recognized by Minister of Environment for Green Practices. Available online: https:
//koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/04/21/business/industry/Korea-McDonalds-award/20230421165151345.html (accessed
on 7 February 2024).
12. Papagiannakis, G.E.; Vlachos, P.A.; Koritos, C.D.; Kassinis, G.I. Are publicly traded tourism and hospitality providers greenwash-
ing? Tour. Manag. 2024, 103, 104893. [CrossRef]
13. Du, X. How the market values greenwashing? Evidence from China. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 128, 547–574. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 13 of 15

14. Seele, P.; Gatti, L. Greenwashing revisited: In search of a typology and accusation-based definition incorporating legitimacy
strategies. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2017, 26, 239–252. [CrossRef]
15. Rahman, I.; Park, J.; Chi, C.G. Consequences of “greenwashing”: Consumers’ reactions to hotels’ green initiatives. Int. J. Contemp.
Hosp. Manag. 2015, 27, 1054–1081. [CrossRef]
16. Lee, S.M.; Noh, Y.; Choi, D.; Rha, J.S. Environmental policy performances or sustainable development: From the perspective of
ISO 14001 certification. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2017, 24, 108–120. [CrossRef]
17. Martínez, P.; Herrero, Á.; Gómez-López, R. Corporate images and customer behavioral intentions in an environmentally certified
context: Promoting environmental sustainability in the hospitality industry. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 1382–1391.
[CrossRef]
18. Kim, M.J.; Hall, C.M.; Kim, D.K. Predicting environmentally friendly eating out behavior by value-attitude-behavior theory: Does
being vegetarian reduce food waste? J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 797–815. [CrossRef]
19. Jeong, E.H.; Jang, S.C.S.; Day, J.; Ha, S. The impact of eco-friendly practices on green image and customer attitudes: An
investigation in a café setting. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 41, 10–20. [CrossRef]
20. Martinez Garcia de Leaniz, P.; Herrero-Crespo, Á.; Gómez-López, R. Customer responses to environmentally-certified hotels: The
moderating effect of environmental consciousness on the formation of behavioral intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1160–1177.
[CrossRef]
21. Jeong, E.H.; Jang, S.C. Effects of Restaurant Green Practices: Which Practices Are Important and Effective? In Proceedings
of the Caesars Hospitality Research Summit, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 8–10 June 2011; Volume 13. Available online: https://
digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/hhrc/2010/june2010/13/ (accessed on 7 February 2024).
22. Namkung, Y.; Jang, S. Effects of restaurant green practices on brand equity formation. Do green practices really matter? Int. J.
Hosp. Manag. 2013, 33, 85–95. [CrossRef]
23. Jang, Y.J. The role of customer familiarity in evaluating green servicescape: An investigation in the coffee shop context. Int. J.
Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 693–716. [CrossRef]
24. Chen, Y.S.; Hung, S.T.; Wang, T.Y.; Huang, A.F.; Liao, Y.W. The influence of excessive product packaging on green brand
attachment: The mediation roles of green brand attitude and green brand image. Sustainability 2017, 9, 654. [CrossRef]
25. Aaker, D.A. Building a Strong Brand; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
26. Shugan, S.M. Brand loyalty programs: Are they shams? Mark. Sci. 2005, 24, 185–193. [CrossRef]
27. Chelminski, P.; Coulter, R.A. An examination of consumer advocacy and complaining behavior in the context of service failure.
J. Serv. Mark. 2011, 25, 361–370. [CrossRef]
28. Ahmadi, A.; Ataei, A. Emotional attachment: A bridge between brand reputation and brand advocacy. Asia-Pacific J. Bus. Admin.
2024, 16, 1–20. [CrossRef]
29. World Economic Forum. Generation Z Will Outnumber Millennials This Year. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2018/08/generation-z-will-outnumber-millennials-by-2019/ (accessed on 7 February 2024).
30. Ribeiro, M.A.; Seyfi, S.; Elhoushy, S.; Woosnam, K.M.; Patwardhan, V. Determinants of generation Z pro-environmental travel
behaviour: The moderating role of green consumption values. J. Sustain. Tour. 2023. [CrossRef]
31. Abrar, M.; Sibtain, M.M.; Shabbir, R. Understanding purchase intention towards eco-friendly clothing for generation Y & Z.
Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1997247.
32. Chaturvedi, P.; Kulshreshtha, K.; Tripathi, V. Investigating the determinants of behavioral intentions of generation Z for recycled
clothing: An evidence from a developing economy. Young Cons. 2020, 21, 403–417. [CrossRef]
33. Su, C.H.; Tsai, C.H.; Chen, M.H.; Lv, W.Q. U.S. sustainable food market generation Z consumer segments. Sustainability 2019,
11, 3607. [CrossRef]
34. Nikolić, T.M.; Paunović, I.; Milovanović, M.; Lozović, N.; Ðurović, M. Examining generation Z’s attitudes, behavior and awareness
regarding eco-products: A Bayesian approach to confirmatory factor analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2727. [CrossRef]
35. Prayag, G.; Aquino, R.S.; Hall, C.M.; Chen, N.; Fieger, P. Is Gen Z really that different? Environmental attitudes, travel behaviours
and sustainability practices of international tourists to Canterbury, New Zealand. J. Sus. Tour. 2022, 1–22. [CrossRef]
36. Gupta, A.; Dash, S.; Mishra, A. All that glitters is not green: Creating trustworthy ecofriendly services at green hotels. Tour.
Manag. 2019, 70, 155–169. [CrossRef]
37. Han, H.; Hsu, L.T.J.; Sheu, C. Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of
environmental friendly activities. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 325–334. [CrossRef]
38. Kularatne, T.; Wilson, C.; Mansson, J.; Hoang, V.; Lee, B. Do environmentally sustainable practices make hotels more efficient? A
study of major hotels in Sri Lanka. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 213–225. [CrossRef]
39. Chou, C.J.; Chen, K.S.; Wang, Y.Y. Green practices in the restaurant industry from an innovation adoption perspective: Evidence
from Taiwan. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 703–711. [CrossRef]
40. Kwok, L.; Huang, Y.K. Green attributes of restaurants: Do consumers, owners, and managers think alike? Int. J. Hosp. Manag.
2019, 83, 28–32. [CrossRef]
41. Wang, R. Investigations of important and effective effects of green practices in restaurants. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 40, 94–98.
[CrossRef]
42. Chan, S.W. Gap analysis of green hotel marketing. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 25, 1017–1048. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 14 of 15

43. Bekar, A.; Durmaz, S.; Yozukmaz, N. The effect of green practices on emotional attachment and green loyalty of coffee shop
consumers (Turkey). Turizam 2020, 24, 33–45. [CrossRef]
44. Yin, C.Y.; Du, F.; Chen, Y. Types of green practices, hotel price image and consumers’ attitudes in China: The mediating role of
consumer skepticism. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2020, 29, 329–357. [CrossRef]
45. Business and the Environment. Serving Up a Green Menu; The Green Restaurant Association: Boston, MA, USA, 2008; Volume 19,
pp. 1–4.
46. Ko, E.; Hwang, Y.K.; Kim, E.Y. Green marketing’ functions in building corporate image in the retail setting. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66,
1709–1715. [CrossRef]
47. Yadav, R.; Kumar Dokania, A.; Swaroop Pathak, G. The influence of green marketing functions in building corporate image:
Evidence from hospitality industry in a developing nation. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 2178–2196. [CrossRef]
48. Khan, S.A.R.; Sheikh, A.A.; Ashraf, M.; Yu, Z. Improving consumer-based green brand equity: The role of healthy green practices,
green brand attachment, and green skepticism. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11829. [CrossRef]
49. Chen, Y.S.; Lai, S.B.; Wen, C.T. The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics
2006, 67, 331–339. [CrossRef]
50. Kim, H.M.; Joo, K.; Hwang, J. Are customers willing to pay more for eco-friendly Edible insect restaurants? Focusing on the
internal environmental locus of control. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10075. [CrossRef]
51. Wang, J.; Wang, S.; Xue, H.; Wang, Y.; Li, J. Green image and consumers’ word-of-mouth intention in the green hotel industry:
The moderating effect of Millennials. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 426–436. [CrossRef]
52. Castro, G.M.; Amores-Salvado, J.; Navas-Lopez, J.E. Environmental management systems and firm performance: Improving firm
environmental policy through stakeholder engagement. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2016, 23, 243–256. [CrossRef]
53. Mahasuweerachai, P.; Suttikun, C. The effect of green self-identity on perceived image, warm glow and willingness to purchase:
A new generation’s perspective towards eco-friendly restaurants. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10539. [CrossRef]
54. Kim, S.S.; Choe, J.Y.J.; Petrickc, J.F. The effect of celebrity on brand awareness, perceived quality, brand image, brand loyalty, and
destination attachment to a literary festival. J. Dest. Mark. Manag. 2018, 9, 320–329. [CrossRef]
55. Manyiwa, S.; Priporas, C.V.; Wang, X.L. Influence of perceived city brand image on emotional attachment to the city. J. Place
Manag. Dev. 2018, 11, 60–77. [CrossRef]
56. Jawahar, D.; Vincent, V.Z.; Philip, A.V. Art-event image in city brand equity: Mediating role of city brand attachment. Int. J. Tour.
Cities 2020, 6, 491–509. [CrossRef]
57. Kim, M.S.; Stepchenkova, S. Examining the impact of experiential value on emotions, self-connective attachment, and brand
loyalty in Korean family restaurants. J. Qual. Assu. Hosp. Tour. 2018, 19, 298–321. [CrossRef]
58. Bahri-Ammari, N.; Van Niekerk, M.; Ben Khelil, H.; Chtioui, J. The effects of brand attachment on behavioral loyalty in the luxury
restaurant sector. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 559–585. [CrossRef]
59. Greenwald, A.G.; Pratkanis, A.R. The self. In Handbook of Social Cognition; Wyer, R.S., Srull, T.K., Eds.; Hillsdale College: Hillsdale,
MI, USA, 1984; pp. 129–178.
60. Loureiro, S.M.C.; Sarmento, E.M.; Le Bellego, G. The effect of corporate brand reputation on brand attachment and brand loyalty:
Automobile sector. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2017, 4, 1360031. [CrossRef]
61. Thomson, M.; MacInnis, D.J.; Park, C.W. The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of consumer’s emotional attachments to
brands. J. Cons. Psychol. 2005, 15, 77–91. [CrossRef]
62. Japutra, A.; Ekinci, Y.; Simkin, L. Exploring brand attachment, its determinants and outcomes. J. Strateg. Mark. 2014, 22, 616–630.
[CrossRef]
63. Hwang, J.; Choe, J.Y.J.; Kim, H.M.; Kim, J.J. Human baristas and robot baristas: How does brand experience affect brand
satisfaction, brand attitude, brand attachment, and brand loyalty? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 99, 103050. [CrossRef]
64. Laophon, N.; Khamwon, A. Self-congruence, emotional brand attachment, brand love, and brand advocacy: A case of fashion
brands. Int. J. Manag. Appl. Sci. 2018, 4, 12–16.
65. Natarajan, T.; Veera Raghavan, D.R. Does integrated store service quality explain omnichannel shoppers’ online brand advocacy
behaviors? Role of memorable shopping experiences, store attachment, and relationship strength. TQM J. 2023. [CrossRef]
66. Kumar, V.; Kaushik, A.K. Achieving destination advocacy and destination loyalty through destination brand identification.
J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 34, 1247–1260. [CrossRef]
67. Lever, M.W.; Elliot, S.; Joppe, M. Pride and promotion: Exploring relationships between national identification, destination
advocacy, tourism ethnocentrism and destination image. J. Vacation Mark. 2023, 29, 537–554. [CrossRef]
68. Fournier, S.; Breazeale, M.; Fetscherin, M. Consumer–Brand Relationships: Theory and Practice; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
69. Shimul, A.S.; Phau, I. The role of brand self-congruence, brand love and brand attachment on brand advocacy: A serial mediation
model. Mark. Intel. Plan. 2023, 41, 649–666. [CrossRef]
70. Aljarah, A.; Dalal, B.; Ibrahim, B.; Lahuerta-Otero, E. The attribution effects of CSR motivations on brand advocacy: Psychological
distance matters! Serv. Ind. J. 2022, 42, 583–605. [CrossRef]
71. Coelho, A.; Bairrada, C.; Peres, F. Brand communities’ relational outcomes, through brand love. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2019, 28,
154–165. [CrossRef]
72. Keller, K.L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 1–22. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3126 15 of 15

73. Kumar, V.; Kaushik, A.K. Does experience affect engagement? Role of destination brand engagement in developing brand
advocacy and revisit intentions. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2020, 37, 332–346. [CrossRef]
74. Trivedi, J.; Sama, R. Determinants of consumer loyalty towards celebrity-owned restaurants: The mediating role of brand love.
J. Cons. Behav. 2021, 20, 748–761. [CrossRef]
75. Ong, C.H.; Lee, H.W.; Ramayah, T. Impact of brand experience on loyalty. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2018, 27, 755–774. [CrossRef]
76. Sohaib, M.; Han, H. Building value co-creation with social media marketing, brand trust, and brand loyalty. J. Retail. Cons. Serv.
2023, 74, 103442. [CrossRef]
77. Zhang, J.; Bloemer, J.M.M. The impact of value congruence on consumer-service brand relationships. J. Serv. Res. 2008, 11,
161–178. [CrossRef]
78. Gorsuch, R.L. Factor Analysis, 2nd ed.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1983.
79. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol.
Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [CrossRef]
80. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM); SAGE: Los
Angeles, CA, USA, 2016.
81. Fornell, C.R.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark.
Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
82. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1976.
84. Starbucks Story and News. Starbucks Announces Coffee-Specific Environmental Goals. Available online: https://stories.
starbucks.com/stories/2021/starbucks-announces-coffee-specific-environmental-goals/ (accessed on 9 February 2024).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.