How to earn a premium price: the effect of green marketing and brand coolness

Abstract

Purpose

The current paper aims to explore how brand coolness can mediate the relationship between tactical green marketing orientation (GMO) and willingness to pay (WTP), by exploring the differences between two global brands with opposite green marketing perceptions.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on the stimuli-organism-response (S-O-R) framework, the relation between tactical GMO, brand coolness and consumer's WTP is examined through a survey with 272 participants, who gave their perceptions about two different brands regarding their green orientations: British Petroleum (BP) and L'Oréal. The variable set was adapted and validated through focus group sessions.

Findings

Brand coolness is found to mediate the impact GMO on WTP and, for both brands, green marketing does affect the extent to which brands are perceived as cool by consumers. More importantly, evidence shows that only in the case of the “green brand” (e.g. L'Oréal), the impact on WTP is significant, which offers new implications regarding the outcomes of companies' pro-environmental policies.

Originality/value

This study is the first to investigate the outcomes of GMO over consumer's intentions (WTP) and the role of brand perceptions (coolness). The effects are compared between two global brands, with significantly different perceptions on their environmental sustainability.

Citation

Guerreiro, J., Loureiro, S.M.C., Nascimento, J. and Duarte, M. (2023), "How to earn a premium price: the effect of green marketing and brand coolness", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 35-63. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-05-2022-0062

1. Introduction

Climate change is a top concern worldwide, attributed to unsustainable industrialization, over-exploitation of natural resources and consumption lifestyles (Barbarossa and de Pelsmacker, 2016; IPCC, 2018; Rausch and Kopplin, 2021). Accordingly to latest reports, there is now only a fifty/fifty chance of preventing global temperature from reaching the +1.5 °C threshold until 2027 (UN, 2022). As consumers become more aware of the environmental crisis, they are embracing new habits, with important economic impacts for global business (Han and Hyun, 2017; Olson, 2013) and media attention (McAllister et al., 2021).

In fact, 50% of the United Kingdom (UK) consumers claim they are willing to pay more for sustainable brands (Deloitte, 2021), and a large portion of Europeans and Americans are already adopting a more healthy and environmentally sustainable lifestyle, and/or refraining from buying certain products due to ethical or environmental reasons (businesswire.com, 2021; EIB, 2021). As the environmental motives are predicted to be the top choice criteria for 55% of consumers in the next five years (betterRetailing.com, 2021), companies across multiple sectors are exploring the opportunity to resonate with their customers' environmental consciousness (Zhang et al., 2018a, b), with corporate commitment toward green policies signaled through bold climate pledges (Watchwire.com, 2020) and green marketing policies (Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017; Papadas et al., 2017).

However, green products are often more expensive than their conventional alternatives (Akturan, 2020; Papista and Krystallis, 2013) and consumer's unwillingness to pay (WTP) a premium price is a major barrier to green purchasing decisions (Basha and Lal, 2019; Hansmann et al., 2020; Liobikienė et al., 2017; Singh and Verma, 2017). Surprisingly, despite the increasing focus of scholars in environmental-related topics (Groening et al., 2018; Loureiro and Nascimento, 2021; Ogbeibu et al., 2021), only a scarce number of empirical studies examine the impacts of firms' green marketing orientations on improving brand perceptions and value creation (González-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Lanzini et al., 2016; Zerfass and Viertmann, 2017), or the role of corporate communications associated with environmental issues and consumer attitudes (Dash and Dash, 2021; Dharmasena et al., 2020).

Empirical findings point toward the attractiveness of green brands combined with their utilitarian and environmental values (Ahmad and Zhang, 2020; Lin et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2020) among others, as key predictors associated with the intention to buy and/or pay a premium price. For example, brand-related factors, such as self-expressiveness (Ng et al., 2018; Park and Lin, 2020) and innovativeness (Biswas and Roy, 2015b) have been observed to influence consumer intentions significantly in the green consumption context.

The concept of coolness inspires marketeers to try to create more engaging products and advertisements that help brand perceptions to evolve (Loureiro et al., 2020b). But despite evidence of how the perception on green brands can influence the intention to pay, no study – to the best of our knowledge – has explored the effect of cool brands on the WTP for green products. To address such gap, the current investigation explores how brand coolness mediates the relationship between tactical green marketing orientation (GMO) and WTP for two brands with contrasting levels of environmentally sustainable reputation: British Petroleum (BP) and L’Oréal.

This research contributions are threefold. First, this research presents the first empirical evidences that show how tactical GMO determines brand coolness. Second, we demonstrate how the combined effects of tactical GMO and brand coolness influence customers' WTP. Third, our results suggest how such outcome depends on the type of company involved (e.g. perceived as green or nongreen), from which important implications are derived for both academics and managers.

The present research theoretical framework is based on Stimuli-Organism-Response (S-O-R) theory, introduced by Meharabian and Russel in 1974, which is deemed appropriate for exploring how consumers react to stimuli (Alanadoly and Salem, 2022; Loureiro et al., 2020a; Rivas et al., 2022). The S-O-R chain of effects was empirically tested on two globally recognizable brands with opposing perceptions of tactical GMO.

2. Literature review

2.1 S-O-R framework

According to the S-O-R framework, stimulus is defined as any factor that can affect internal states of the individual and is conceptualized as a stimulating influence able to trigger an individual's response (Changa et al., 2011; Rivas et al., 2022). Stimulus can be of either a subjective (e.g. sociopsychological) or objective nature (Alanadoly and Salem, 2022) and are often manipulated by marketers in their efforts to achieve more favorable consumer’ responses. The effect occurs through the mediation of the organism; term referring to the internal intervening structures affecting the relationship between external stimuli and individual's response (Alanadoly and Salem, 2022; Rivas et al., 2022).

The S-O-R framework is employed to assess how customer responses, frequently expressed by purchase intentions or WTP, are determined by the mediated effect of marketing stimuli – (e.g. Loureiro et al., 2020a; Rivas et al., 2022) – which can consist of perceptual, physiological, cognitive or affective processes (Changa et al., 2011). The framework is widely adopted in retail and marketing studies (e.g. Alanadoly and Salem, 2022; Loureiro et al., 2022). In this research, the S-O-R framework is the theoretical foundation to support our conceptual model (see Figure 1), which analyzes if brands GMO (stimuli) can positively affect consumers WTP (response), through brand coolness perception (organism).

2.2 Green marketing orientations as stimulus

As marketing practitioners strive to balance business goals with customer needs, social and environmental concerns, green marketing became more commonly used, with focus on the long-term outcomes. The demand for products that minimize the environmental impacts grew overtime, with green marketing being adopted progressively as a competitive strategy, capturing the attention of a rapidly increasing number of academic contributors (Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017), who defined the concept which earned the acceptance of current industry (Oyewole, 2001).

The green marketing concept – defined as “marketing activities which attempt to reduce the negative social and environmental impacts of existing products and production systems, and which promote fewer damaging products and services” (Peattie, 2004, p. 129) – was created in 1970's, associated initially with the “hippie” movement, and later evolving through three distinct phases. The first phase (ecological marketing) resulted mainly from air pollution issues and oil spills disasters, leading to the appearance of environmental regulation. In late 1980's, the second era took place (environmental marketing), triggered by the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer (Solomon et al., 2020), and consequences in terms of climate change, with increasing public protests and product boycotts. At that time, companies began to realize that a superior environmental performance can lead to a competitive advantage (Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017). The third and present era is the age of sustainability, more focused on environmental costs at every step of the value chain (Peattie, 2004), which constitutes a breakthrough opportunity for innovation-driven competitive advantages in the industry.

Deriving from sustainable marketing literature, GMO is a multidimensional concept which represents the extent to which an organization “engages in strategic, tactical and internal processes and activities which holistically aim at creating, communicating and delivering products and/or services with the minimal environmental impact” (Papadas et al., 2017, p. 240), and encompasses three dimensions: strategic, tactical and internal. Strategic GMO is about how firms integrate the environmental imperative in strategic marketing decisions, while the tactical orientation expresses the extent to which organizations embody biospheric-related values in their marketing policies. If the former reflects the corporate agenda and can mainly be assessed by the internal audience, the latter captures the outcomes of actions to endorse a green marketing-mix. Tactical GMO aims to reinforce credibility, identification with the brand, and trust from internal and external stakeholders (Papadas et al., 2017; Vilkaite-Vaitone and Skackauskiene, 2019). A third dimension is considered for addressing the internal-oriented green marketing activities, which is outside the scope of this research. Considering these definitions, the effects of tactical GMO will be examined, since this is the dimension recognized by consumers, as confirmed in our exploratory focus group sessions (see on section 3).

Prior studies elaborate on the positive impacts of green marketing – mainly at organizational level – in terms of increasing profits, achieving organizational goals and/or reinforcing competitive advantages (Vilkaite-Vaitone and Skackauskiene, 2019). From a consumer behavior perspective, it would be expected that the perception of a company positive environmental performance adds intrinsic value to its products/services, leading to a favorable consumer response, whenever the firm's green orientations are effectively signaled to the external audiences (Waites et al., 2020). Supporting this view, empirical evidence confirms higher consideration for products marketed by environmentally-oriented companies (Chung, 2020), and points out the moderating effects on consumer attitudes and beliefs (Susanty et al., 2021).

However, conflicting views exist in management literature about the outcomes of GMO (Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017; Papadas et al., 2017), particularly in terms of consumer buying intentions. While some researchers argue on the general tendency of consumers to accept green premium prices (Biswas and Roy, 2015b; Legere and Kang, 2020; Zhang et al., 2020), others describe the low price elasticity of certain market segments, when evaluating products from green-oriented businesses (Lanzini et al., 2016; Shahsavar et al., 2020). Firms face difficulties to assess if their GMO can actually drive tangible competitive advantages due to several challenges on predicting customer response (Trivedi et al., 2015), including: (1) low applicability of findings from a geographic region in others; (2) contradictory results on the attempts to profile “green customers”; and (3) limited success in determining the influencing factors of green purchasing; (4) conditions for a specific segment to be willing to pay a green premium price not fully demonstrated (e.g. González-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Waites et al., 2020). For those reasons, a lack of consistent evidence is observed on if (and how) a firm's green marketing orientations can influence the response of external audiences. Hence, our study looks at the immediate effects of GMO, if it is associated to brand's attractiveness and the impact on the WTP customer response.

2.3 Brand coolness perception as organism

Brand perceptions are fundamental for influencing customer behavior and drive customer-brand relationships (e.g. Ahuvia et al., 2020; Tiwari et al., 2021). Perceived brand status – such as either niche or mainstream – affects retail sales performance (Hoskins and Griffin, 2020) and brand love, since a meaningful set of perceptions influences how consumers relate to brands and inspires what they desire to own (Ahuvia et al., 2020). In consumption settings – such as observed with the choice of touristic destination – high technology and socially visible categories, brand love and attitudinal outcomes are related to a sense of coolness (Apaolaza et al., 2021; Kock, 2021; Loureiro and Blanco, 2021; Tiwari et al., 2021), which means a socially constructed concept which constitutes a favorable feature by itself (Warren and Campbell, 2014).

The coolness concept traces back to the 1920's and the “Beat Generation” (Bagozzi and Khoshnevis, 2022), when it was first coined by the legendary jazz saxophonist Lester Young. The word disseminated through society during times of segregation and the Vietnam War, being associated with many landmarks of African American culture such as Hip-Hop, Blues, Jazz or Basketball for decades (Loureiro and Lopes, 2013).

Over 70 different ways to define the term coolness are available (Warren and Campbell, 2014). Conceptually, the definition of coolness refers to a dynamic and positive trait, attributed to autonomous cultural objects (Warren et al., 2019), which diverge from (illegitimate) norms. When applied to brands, coolness is defined by a set of characteristics used to assess a brand's attractiveness, encompassing four essential features: assuming a positive valence, being subjective, autonomous and dynamic (Warren and Campbell, 2014). Often employed as an indicator of success of a brand (Swaminathan et al., 2020), the cool factor is frequently associated with product/brand adoption, as described in literature dedicated to consumer-brands relationships (e.g. Li et al., 2022; Warren et al., 2019). Empirical studies confirmed that brand coolness is significantly associated with the popularity of luxury fashion goods (Loureiro et al., 2020b), city destinations (Kock, 2021) and museums (Loureiro and Blanco, 2021), suggesting that the downstream consequences can shape the WTP and intention to visit/buy of customers (Warren et al., 2019).

In the era of hyperconnectedness, cool features are widely expressed in social media platforms where brands try to engage their addressable market (Loureiro and Lopes, 2019; Steenkamp, 2020), find new ways to resonate with a broad audience – across diverse sociocultural segments – and improve their brands' appealingness. Although demographic profiles were suggested to discriminate among subgroups for some coolness dimensions (e.g. women value more (over men), esthetic appealingness, authenticity and popularity), empirical tests confirmed the generalizability and measurement invariance across major sociodemographic characteristics: gender, age, education, income level and marital status (Bagozzi and Khoshnevis, 2022; Kock, 2021).

With regards to the multidimensional conceptual structure of brand coolness, aspects such as style, innovativeness, functionality, status or rebelliousness were found to be often attributed to brands considered to have the cool factor (Warren and Campbell, 2014; Warren et al., 2019; Swaminathan et al., 2020). These are examples of dimensions particularly associated with environmentally sustainable perceptions, propensity to pay for green products/services, and other customer responses. Table 1 shows the dimensions of brand coolness and the main studies addressing each dimension.

In the pro-environmental context, empirical findings indicate how factors such as green marketing can enhance the brand perceptions of consumers, making them more willing to consider products marketed by green-oriented companies (e.g. Lu et al., 2021). Thus, following the S-O-R framework, we argue that Tactical GMO is the stimuli associated to the organism's mental processes, as captured through increased brand coolness perceptions across the dimensions.

H1.

Firm's tactical GMO is positively related to brand coolness.

2.4 Willingness to pay as response

Price is regarded as an important barrier to the adoption of green products (Barbarossa and de Pelsmacker, 2016; Park and Lin, 2020), with diverse brands unable to justify their green premium prices in emerging categories, such as organic foods (Magnusson et al., 2001; Roddy et al., 1996; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002), luxury green hotels (Peng and Chen, 2019) or to mitigate the financial risk involved in switching to hybrid cars (McLeay et al., 2018). Price is a type of cost supported by customers (Papista and Krystallis, 2013), usually exerting a negative effect over perceived value-for-money. The WTP such cost is closely linked to the perceived quality of products or services (Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017).

Inspired by the concept of willingness to sacrifice develop by social psychology academics in the 1990s (van Lange et al., 1997), empirical findings demonstrate that WTP is a dimension of purchase intentions (Zeithaml et al., 1996), with important implications for companies to determine if quality improvements may (or not) pay off. WTP is a signal of approval (or disapproval) of a company's ethical and sustainable activities, affecting its market performance (Auger et al., 2003; Creyer and Ross, 1997), such as the role played by green marketing certifications in the context of sustainable wood furniture (Vlosky et al., 1999). Green brands are often priced higher than nongreen competitors due to factors such as limited access to resources, production costs and expensive raw materials (Akturan, 2020; Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017; Papista and Krystallis, 2013). The green premium price refers to the additional cost that customers must pay compared to the traditional alternative, when choosing products with a superior environmental performance.

Literature reveals a gap about how to drive WTP for green brands and suggests that the success of green-oriented businesses depends on the ability to offset consumers' price sensitivity and foster the market's WTP (Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017; Papista and Krystallis, 2013; Trivedi et al., 2015). WTP is defined as the dependent variable in our study, in order to achieve the proposed objectives.

Taking into account evidence from previous studies (Table 1), brand coolness is expected to predict WTP. The rationale based on S-O-R theory supports that brand coolness can act as the “organism” perception, mediating the effect from green marketing stimuli on customer response. We argue that brand coolness can determine WTP and mediate the effect of tactical GMO on WTP.

H2.

Brand coolness is positively related to WTP.

H3.

Brand coolness significantly mediates the impact of tactical GMO on WTP.

2.5 Green and nongreen brands

The perceived “greenness” of firms can improve customers' value perceptions across all dimensions, impacting their future intentions (Koller et al., 2011). So, in the presence of companies considered more environmentally-oriented, one could expect the outcomes of tactical GMO (via brand coolness) to differ significantly from ‘nongreen’ firms.

A differential advantage deriving from green marketing perceptions (Borin et al., 2013) is demonstrated in literature, unaffected by the type of green orientation. In a cross-country choice experimentation study, Dinh et al. (2021) claim that companies should not enhance the popularity of brands based only on advertising their “greenness”. Dinh et al. (2021) call for other image or attitudinal factors to be considered – for instance the cool factor – what further support the hypothesis of mediation by brand coolness. Indeed, academics who compared customer responses to green marketing stimuli in Asian countries, found that companies with strong environmental claims are significantly more likely to benefit from higher purchase intentions and/or customer WTP (Ghazali et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018a, b, 2020), with the impact mediated by brand-related attitudes and perceptions.

Conversely, being perceived as “green” may not be enough, and green brands can be rejected by consumers when compared to nongreen (even if not consciously), which suggests that it may be attributed to being more unfamiliar (Wheeler et al., 2013), as many green brands are typically small, local or otherwise not possessing global brand awareness. In order to overcome the higher price perceptions, firms should therefore improve their brands' relevance, influencing relevant areas of the consumer memory structure, including green perceptions. Following these arguments, we hypothesize that.

H4.

In the case of brands perceived as “green”, tactical GMO causes a higher WTP, via brand coolness, when compared to “nongreen” brands.

2.6 Control variables

Observing the impact of demographic variables in consumer intentions is a frequent recommendation by marketing scholars (Jansson et al., 2017; Odou and Schill, 2020; Prendergast and Tsang, 2019; Yin et al., 2018). Gender, income, education and age were all tested empirically with regards to predicting the WTP for energy-saving appliances (Zhang et al., 2020), but only the former was confirmed as a significant factor. The role of “generation differences” is also shown to moderate the attitude formation toward green traveling (Shin and Kang, 2021). In the present study, gender, age and education are controlled for, as exhibited in our conceptual model (Figure 1).

3. Methodology

3.1 Choice of brands

We needed to select two global brands, easily recognizable across nations and sociodemographic groups, which could represent opposing poles of perceived pro-environmental orientations. L’Oréal and BP were selected for that purpose, as they are two popular, yet with contrasting perceptions concerning sustainability topics, both benefitting from a globally high level of brand awareness. L’Oréal was one of the 100 most sustainable companies in 2020, appears frequently associated with corporate responsibility topics and has a wide track record of marketing communications addressing environmental issues (CorporateKnights.com, 2017; Forbes, 2020). On the contrary, BP is often referred as a company that contributes to world pollution, accountable for over 2% of global carbon emissions (Kenner and Heede, 2021). Thus, it is expected that BP's brand image is affected by general perceptions about the fossil fuel industry. An independent t-test was conducted to evaluate if both companies had significantly different levels of green marketing perception. The mean of BP was 3.25, compared to 4.30 average score of L’Oréal, which is considered a high performer in green marketing. The t-test showed a sig of <0.001 confirming a significant difference between both GMO of the companies.

3.2 Pre-study: validation of the variable set

A pre-study was conducted with the following objectives: (1) to validate if tactical GMO is the most easily recognized dimension by external audiences (Papadas et al., 2017); (2) to explore the main attributes associated with (spontaneously mentioned) cool brands, and if they are related or not to their green reputation; (3) to explore the relations between GMO, brand perceptions and WTP and (4) to examine how the dimensions of coolness – and GMO differences – are observed in the case of BP and L’Oréal.

Four exploratory focus group interviews were conducted with adult consumers from diverse nationalities (e.g. Asian, European and American countries). The method allows for ideas to be screened and sorted as discussion evolves, which is particular suitable for exploring consumer opinions and attitudes on new phenomena (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan and Attalla, 2001), giving the moderator flexibility to guide conversations with respect to the research goals.

Sixteen participants were recruited, which exhibited some level of awareness for environmental and green marketing topics, recognizing both selected brands. The sample was balanced in terms of age (e.g. the sessions were divided by age group: 20–30 and above 30 years old), gender (eight male, eight female), education level, occupation and household composition or marital status (e.g. living or not with kids, and/or spouse). The small and homogeneous group composition (agewise) allows meaningful peer-to-peer interactions to develop beyond that of independent contributions, while still exploring individual views (Tynan and Drayton, 1988).

The protocol started with a brief discussion on GMO dimensions and respective items, and how they are perceived when evaluating some high-profile brands. Then, examples of cool brands (and the reasons for such perception) were captured, to observe a possible relation with GMO. Finally, stimuli green marketing materials were shown, in the form of corporate communications from BP and L'Oréal related to their environmental sustainability policies (available in their websites), to trigger the discussion on the participants' WTP, coolness dimensions and green marketing perceptions applied to the two selected brands. Two senior researchers coded the transcripts independently using MaxQDA software, applying an inductive approach to identify the codes and categories of concepts, which were then grouped into higher-order dimensions. The level of observer agreement for the data coding solution obtained was 88.7% (corresponding to a Cohen's kappa of 0.776), which is considered substantial (Landis and Koch, 1977).

The following major aspects were revealed through the focus group interviews. First, although in some cases participants are able to comment on brands’ strategic GMO, they were only able to elaborate on a few of the items. Moreover, mixed feelings and ambivalent opinions were registered between (self-stated) strategy of companies and the actual impact of their business activities. With regards to the internal GMO, participants were unable to assess “what's going on inside the company” without a proper audit of its internal processes. It was confirmed that tactical GMO is the only dimension for which opinions were easily expressed about the way brands adopt eco-friendly practices, and try to demonstrate it to their audiences.

Second, many of the examples of cool brands spontaneously mentioned by participants showed a direct relation with GMO, such as the BMW i3 car (one of the first fully electric vehicle in Europe), categorized as high status, innovative and of extraordinary performance, seen as the most iconic outcome of the company's strategic orientation toward green product innovations. Multiple brand coolness dimensions were observed in the descriptions provided for such products.

Third, even though some level of GMO was observed for BP and L'Oréal, several comments confirmed that brands need to be seen as authentic, innovative and highly useful (among other coolness dimensions) to earn their consideration as consumers. Per example, although many of the participants recognize some level of environmental consciousness in L'Oréal corporate policies, recent accusations of animal testing compromised their authenticity (and their coolness, as a consequence) in the eyes of some participants. Finally, brand perceptions show some “halo” effects: while the reputation of BP showed clear signs of a negative group effect from the industry where it operates (energy sector and carbon fuels), in the case of L'Oréal, brand perceptions were highly influenced by evaluative beliefs on its wide product range and distribution channels.

In sum and based on the pretest findings, we concluded that: (1) the tactical GMO dimension is the most suitable to be included in the variable set (as antecedent/stimuli); (2) a relationship could be observed between tactical GMO and coolness dimensions; (3) brands may need to be deemed as cool – at least to possess a favorable perception across some main dimensions – in order to influence the buying consideration of customers; (4) the green/nongreen image of BP and L'Oréal appears to be a differentiating element and relates to key components of their brand image.

3.3 Main study

A survey was conducted to access the perceived level of tactical GMO, brand coolness and WTP for each company. Both questionnaires exhibited a small explanation about the company, a group of questions related to each construct and a final section to collect demographic data. GMO items were adapted from (Papadas et al., 2017) and only the tactical dimension of the scale was used, as informed by our prestudy. The original scale also includes a strategic and an internal dimension, as previously explained, which are difficult to be measured by customers, since they require a deep inside knowledge about a company's decisions and policies. Brand coolness was measured using a scale adapted from (Warren et al., 2019) in a Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Finally, WTP was adapted from (Wei et al., 2018) in a Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Data on gender, age and education were also collected, to control for any possible effects.

The respondents were recruited using a purposive non-probability sampling technique (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005), so they could represent the external audience of the selected brands' green marketing communications. The online survey was administered in the leading social media platforms (Statista, 2022), in terms of audience reach and user numbers, Facebook and Instagram, where BP and L'Oréal have a regular activity with green marketing contents. The questionnaire link was shared in the social media pages of both brands.

This convenience sampling method is commonly employed in the context of green marketing and pro-environmental consumer behaviors (Felix and Braunsberger, 2016; Haj-Salem and Al-Hawari, 2021; Odou and Schill, 2020; Paswan et al., 2017; Taufique and Vaithianathan, 2018; Zhang et al., 2020), and social media is deemed appropriate for reaching external audiences impacted by green marketing stimuli (Chou et al., 2020; Gonçalves et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2020).

After obtaining explicit consent and providing information on data confidentiality, the survey was initiated with a screening question to confirm that all respondents were free participating adults, aware of the respective brand and were not current (or former) employees of the company or any market research agency.

A total of 309 participants answered the survey anonymously. After a careful analysis of the responses, some were excluded due to invalid or missing values. The final dataset has a total of 272 valid answers (which represents around 88% of successful participation), respectively, 137 from the BP sample, and 135 from the L’Oréal sample. Among the valid answers, 72.6% are female, 42.7% are in 26–35 age group. Table 2 shows the sample characteristics.

With regards to the sample size, based on the number of latent and observed variables, and given that all constructs have three observed items or more and high communalities (e.g. ≥ 0.6) a size of 100 is suggested (Hair et al., 2014). Even considering a more conservative approach, defining a R² = 0.10 at significance level of 5%, a minimum size of 110 is recommendable for a power level of 80% (Cohen, 1992). The threshold levels were confirmed using the recommended sample size online calculator and G*Power software tools (Faul et al., 2007; Gana and Broc, 2019). We therefore consider acceptable the obtained sample size of 272.

4. Results

4.1 Measurement model results

A reflective partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) was used to test the study hypotheses. To determine the adequacy of first-order constructs, item reliability was assessed by examining the items' loadings. An item loading above 0.7 should be attained to guarantee that over 50% of the variance of the item is explained by the construct (Hair et al., 2010; Wetzels et al., 2009). In the current study, all items have loadings above 0.7 except for the last item of the construct WTP, where consumers were asked to answer: “I believe it is acceptable to spend extra money for products that are made using environmentally friendly material”. Therefore, to ensure a reliable construct, the item was removed from further analysis. Cronbach alpha and composite reliability (CR) were also found to be above the 0.7 minimum levels (Hair et al., 2010), which shows the model has internal reliability. Although the construct WTP has a Cronbach Alpha close to the minimum threshold, its CR measure is above the minimum level and therefore accepted as reliable (Hair et al., 2010). All the constructs present an average variance extracted (AVE) above 0.5, which ensures convergent validity. Table 3 presents the outer model results.

Two approaches are used to establish discriminant validity: the Fornell-Larcker criteria (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio criterion (Henseler et al., 2015). The first requires that the square root of the AVE of all the constructs must be larger than the coefficient of correlation with any other construct. The square root of the AVE of all the constructs is greater than the association with any other construct in this study, indicating discriminant validity. The second method requires that the ratios must be lower than 0.90. All ratios in the current study are lower than the minimum threshold; therefore the model has discriminant validity. Table 4 shows the results from the Fornell-Larcker criterion and Table 5 shows the results from the HTMT ratio test for discriminant validity.

Given the second-order construct of brand coolness, a three-step approach was used to create a single latent construct (van Riel et al., 2017). Brand coolness was represented by the 10 first-order constructs: high status, iconic, popular, rebellious, subcultural, appealing, authentic, energetic, original and useful. Multicollinearity was accessed using the variance inflation factor (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982). Results show that all the factors are below the minimum threshold of five (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, data presents no multicollinearity issues. Table 6 shows the collinearity assessment results for the structural model.

4.2 Structural model results

To investigate the relationship between the constructs and test the hypothesis, a bootstrapping resampling procedure with 500 resamples was used to calculate the PLS estimates and significance values (Chin, 1998; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). A multigroup analysis was used to split the overall model into two models, one for BP brand and another for L’Oréal brand. Both models have a SRMR (standardized root mean square residual) very close to the acceptable minimum levels (Henseler et al., 2015). Whereas in the BP model SRMR is 0.081, L’Oréal model has an SRMR of 0.089. Table 7 shows the results from the structural model.

In the case of BP, results show that tactical GMO has a strong and positive effect on brand coolness (β = 0.823, p < 0.01, f² = 2.092). However, in this case, there are no significant effects between the direct relationships of tactical GMO and WTP (β = 0.108, p > 0.05) and between brand coolness and WTP more (β = −0.323, p > 0.05). Results also show that none of the control variables has an effect on WTP more. In the case of BP, although the brand efforts to invest in green marketing leads to higher brand coolness perception, such effect does not translate into a WTP more for the products of the brand. The model explains a 67.7% variance in brand coolness and a 5.9% variance in WTP. All the dependent constructs' Stone–Geisser's Q2 are larger than zero, which confirm the model's predictive validity (Henseler et al., 2015).

Regarding L’Oréal, results also show there is a significant effect between tactical GMO and brand coolness (β = 0.842, p < 0.01, f² = 2.429). However, contrary to BP, in the case of L’Oréal, there is also a positive and significant relationship between brand coolness and WTP (β = 0.377, p < 0.05), although no direct relationship between tactical GMO and WTP exists (β = −0.293, p > 0.05). The specific indirect effect between tactical GMO, brand coolness and WTP is also significant (β = 0.318, p < 0.05). Therefore, in the case of L’Oréal, the green marketing investment has a direct effect in the way consumers perceive it as cool, and coolness fully mediates the relationship between green marketing investments and WTP more. The model explains a 70.8% variance in brand coolness and a 4.2% variance in WTP more. Q² is also larger than zero for all the dependent variables; therefore, the model has predictive validity (Henseler et al., 2015). Regarding the effect of control variables, this study found that none of the examined demographic factors – age, gender and education level – were significant at the 0.05 level.

In sum, with regards to H1, the influence of tactical GMO on brand coolness is statistically significant and positive for both brands (BP: β = 0.823, p < 0.001; L'Oréal: β = 0.842, p < 0.001), so H1 is supported. H2 tested the impact of brand coolness on WTP. Results indicated that for L'Oréal – the green brand – (β = 0.377, p < 0.05) the hypothesis is supported, but not for BP – the nongreen brand (β = −0.323, p > 0.05). Hence, H2 is partially supported. H3 examined the possibility of a mediated effect of tactical GMO on WTP via brand coolness, which is supported in the case of L'Oréal (β = 0.318, p < 0.05), but not for BP (β = −0.266, p > 0.05). So, H3 is partially supported. Lastly, H4 is supported, as our data suggests that the type of brand influences the relations proposed in the research model.

5. Discussion

This study was motivated by the premise that green marketing orientations of firms should enhance their brand image and trigger favorable responses from external audiences (in other words, from their addressable market). However, the mechanisms of how such response occurs were not fully understood.

In the pro-environmental behavioral field, corporate and governmental green marketing communication activities have been found to drive an attitudinal response from the audience, in the form of increased environmental awareness (Dash and Dash, 2021), which is a central piece of sustainable companies’ business strategies (Akturan, 2020). Another example is related with the role of green marketing activities for building local communities” resilience to natural disasters (Dharmasena et al., 2020), as often occurs to mitigate the impacts of severe climate change events.

In response to the research problem, the study's purpose was to determine if brand coolness mediates the relationship between tactical GMO and WTP, which was accomplished by comparing results from two globally recognizable brands, with significantly different GMO perceptions, as observed during both the qualitative and quantitative phases of our investigation. For both brands, results confirm that brand coolness is a key variable for marketing practitioners to consider when it comes to driving consumer responses to green marketing efforts, with statistically significant, strong and positive impacts. Regardless of companies being perceived as more or less environmentally sustainable (e.g. BP has a statistically significant lower level of perceived GMO than L’Oréal), the companies' green marketing efforts affects how cool they are perceived by consumers.

Nevertheless, the positive and significant relationship between brand coolness and WTP found in the case of L’Oréal, was not confirmed in the BP sample. These results appear to suggest that, although a positive relationship between brand coolness and WTP occurs, as mentioned in literature (Warren et al., 2019), such effect may depend on how green each company is perceived by their customers. If green marketing perceptions are not rooted in the mind of consumers, a cool image can be achieved, but it will not likely to translate into more favorable buying considerations. Conclusively, findings from both our exploratory and confirmatory approaches point out the fundamental role of achieving a cool brand image across its dimensions, in order to be more appealing and trigger customer choice. GMO is one way of influencing such outcomes, as long as the green perception is developed in a consistent, authentic and substantive manner.

5.1 Theoretical contributions

Our study has key implications for theory and future research. First, we expand the application field of the S-O-R framework in the consumer behavior domain, by (1) examining the effects of brand perceptions on customer response and (2) proposing the role of marketing communications as external stimuli, whereas atmospheric cues (Changa et al., 2011) and cognitive image (Loureiro et al., 2022) prevailed until now.

Second, a large body of literature examines the impacts of green brand image (Han et al., 2020) or trust (Choi et al., 2015; Yadav et al., 2019) and outcomes in the hospitality and tourism industry, in particular the WTP for green hotels (González-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Kim and Han, 2010). Yet, the relationship between green marketing stimuli and buying intentions across other green product categories is largely unexplored (Rivas et al., 2022).

Third, given the current attention to brand coolness in academic literature (e.g. Kock, 2021; Li et al., 2022; Loureiro et al., 2020b; Loureiro and Blanco, 2021; Tiwari et al., 2021), it is critical to understand its role in shaping the individuals' response to specific marketing stimuli. To that end, one of the core aspects uncovered in our study lies in the fact that brand coolness fully mediates the impact from GMO in WTP. Conceptually, these results support the importance of brand identity or reputation, previously examined in literature as a predictor of consumer intentions (Cerri et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2017; You and Hon, 2021).

Finally, our study is one of the few in the consumer behavior field to uncover a new work stream for the future, related to examining the precise nature of the influence by type of brand or company, as the different results between green and nongreen brands suggest.

5.2 Managerial implications

As “tripple bottom-line” approaches become part of the business strategy of many organizations, addressing climate change, social inequalities and low availability of raw materials, marketers are challenged to embrace environmental sustainability as a core topic in brand communications (Papadas et al., 2017; Waites et al., 2020). We summarize them next the main implications for green-oriented marketing managers and business executives.

First, green marketing orientations can, in fact, have an overall positive impact on improving brand perceptions and, by consequence, customer intentions. However, corporate reputation must be coherent across touchpoints, and consistent throughout the multiple stakeholders which may influence (positively or negatively) the firm's external image. For communication managers, special attention should be given to the role played by the multiple agents involved in the firm's communication exposure. Particularly in the case of large multinational companies – where more easily brand perceptions can be inconsistent across geographies and markets – but also with regards to highly-exposed industries, attracting regular media coverage (e.g. fast-moving consumer goods, banking, utilities and telecoms), executives involved in public relations’ activities are advised to focus their efforts on proactively influencing the media storyline and ensure that the green message reaches the audience. Social media channels, in particular, should be carefully managed, as nowadays the interventions of individuals can contradict or reinforce corporate messages in almost real-time, interfering with the public's perception of companies” green orientations.

Second, employee engagement with pro-environmental practices should not be neglected, and will assist in shaping green brand perceptions. This is especially important with regards to frontline employees, in retail and service sectors, such as hospitality and tourism. Communicating the green message may not work if it is not perceived as an authentic orientation by companies, “true to its roots”, as captured in brand coolness items. Customers dealing with contradictory incidents are susceptible to skepticism and greenwashing concerns, as observed in both our qualitative and quantitative studies.

Third, our results suggest that being green is not enough. Companies would benefit from realizing that, rather than merely providing company-centered (vague) information about corporate values, a strategic communication plan is required to reinforce brand attractiveness in a broader sense. Ultimately, brand and product managers are advised to work on a wider set of attributes, such as captured by the coolness concept, which would resonate with consumers’ evaluation of usefulness, high-status, appealingness, authenticity or any other which fits the specific market context. A holistic strategy can benefit even those marketing products/services consumed in publicly-visible settings, such as high-involvement, status-enhancing or innovative categories (e.g. automotive and luxury brands), where a wider range of cool dimensions can resonate with individuals' ideal self-image.

Although the question to what extent different GMO approaches should be employed across different industries or segments is not yet fully answered, it is clear at the moment that the effects of improved audience perceptions – resulting from green marketing stimuli – and its response in the form of customer intentions, are a major topic for communication and brand managers (Pérez et al., 2020; Zerfass and Viertmann, 2017). Our conclusions contribute to the ongoing conversation related to firms' contribution toward environmental issues (Thaker, 2020).

6. Limitations and suggestions for future research

This study has some limitations which may offer fruitful opportunities for future research. First, the generalizability of results is limited. Future studies should verify these hypotheses across other brands, product or service categories and geographies. The level of involvement with the category, and nature of the consumption context can influence the proposed relationships. Some studies on customer value proposition suggest that the outcome may differ if it involves either a trade-off of hedonic or utilitarian nature (Luchs and Kumar, 2017), and that the product type can moderate the impacts of stimuli on intentions (Amatulli et al., 2019). Therefore, category and product type (utilitarian, hedonic) can play a relevant role deserving the attention of researchers.

Second, access to samples was achieved using social media channels, with no indication on the degree of respondents' involvement with either the designated brands, or with environmental issues. Data were collected with a slightly skewed sample (more female, well-educated and younger than average European population), which could introduce some bias in the results. Nevertheless, tests on control variables (age, gender, education) revealed no significant effects.

Third, we only considered WTP as outcome. Yet, other dependent variables can be regarded in the future, such as purchase intention, willingness to recommend or actual purchase.

Finally, considering that the present investigation focused only on brand-related factors (e.g. GMO and brand coolness), the amount of WTP variance explained is low, which suggests that other elements may influence the designated effects and outcomes. The inclusion of additional intervening factors (mediating or moderating), such as contextual enablers and barriers, social influence and internal psychological or psychographic factors can also be suggested to future researchers. In particular, considering how social media became a core element in the marketing-mix, the effect of green marketing messages using such platforms, on customer engagement or intentions is worthwhile to explore.

Moreover, cognitions about green products and their expected outcomes (Sreen et al., 2021), the perceived trade-offs between product environmental value and functional performance (Biswas and Roy, 2015a; Ghazali et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2020), and consumer involvement with environmental issues (Cheng et al., 2020; Goh and Balaji, 2016) are all significant determinants of consumer intentions, which could be examined for capturing additional WTP variance.

Figures

Figure 1

Conceptual model

Table 1

Dimensions of brand coolness and reference studies

Dimensions	Findings	Studies
Authenticity	Perceived virtues of green products lead to affective motivation to buy The related concept of truthfulness in CSR communications mediates the effect of green marketing and consumer attitudes Increased buying intentions found in response to prosocial marketing stimuli	Pérez et al. (2020), Spielmann (2021)
Usefulness	The utilitarian/functional quality of green products is a key WTP predictor, also related to the intention to use green services (e.g. revisit green museums)	Ahmad and Zhang (2020), Lin et al. (2017), Loureiro and Blanco (2021), Zhang et al. (2020)
(Aesthetically) appealing	Style and sensorial appeal are confirmed determinants of the adoption of electric cars, recycled/upcycled fashion products, and response to environmental protection claims of green companies	Lee et al. (2015), Ng et al. (2018), Park and Lin (2020)
Originality	Innovativeness as a value perception drives sustainable consumption through WTP green premium prices	Biswas and Roy (2015b)
Energetic	The vibrant/high energy trait is related to the city coolness dimension	Kock (2021)
Popular	Global brand acceptance and popularity are suggested in a systematic review of brand-related literature	Liu et al. (2020)
Iconic	Characterized in same review study (see “Popular”), related to the perceived localness (e.g. local cultural or iconic symbol) of brands	Liu et al. (2020)
High status	Self-expressive benefits, related to signaling a certain status to others by one's materialistic possessions, is significantly related to the purchase of green products and brands	Ng et al. (2018)
Subcultural	Captured by people's desire to stand-out from their expected social class paradigm	Bellezza and Berger (2020)
Rebellious	Part of the city coolness concept, a significant predictor of customer responses	Kock (2021)

Table 2

Sample characteristics (N = 272)

Demographic profile of respondents	% (value)	BP	L'Oréal
Gender
Male	27.4 (84)	33.6 (46)	28.1 (38)
Female	72.6 (188)	66.4 (91)	71.9 (97)
Age
15–17	0	0	0
18–25	40.8 (111)	42.3 (58)	39.3 (53)
26–35	42.7 (116)	40.1 (55)	45.2 (61)
36–50	13.6 (37)	15.3 (21)	11.9 (16)
50+	2.9 (8)	2.2 (3)	3.7 (5)
Education
High School	1.5 (4)	2.2 (3)	0.7 (1)
Bachelor's degree	45.6 (124)	43.8 (60)	47.4 (64)
Post-graduate or higher	53.3 (144)	54.0 (74)	51.8 (70)

Table 3

Outer model validity measures

Construct	Items	BP					L'Oréal
		FL	α	rho_A	CR	AVE	FL	α	rho_A	CR	AVE
GM tactical	The company encourages the use of e-commerce because it is more eco-friendly	0.873	0.876	0.909	0.911	0.678	0.887	0.888	0.891	0.918	0.691
	The company prefers digital communication methods for promoting their products/services because it is more eco-friendly	0.758					0.830
	The company applies a paperless policy in their procurement where possible	0.893					0.815
	The company uses recycled or reusable materials in their products/services	0.869					0.827
	The company absorbs the extra cost of an environmental product/service	0.874					0.795
High Status	Is Chic	0.781	0.795	0.796	0.867	0.620	0.843	0.866	0.869	0.909	0.714
	Is glamorous	0.791					0.843
	Is sophisticated	0.774					0.876
	Is ritzy	0.802					0.815
Iconic	Is a cultural symbol	0.856	0.704	0.716	0.870	0.770	0.915	0.774	0.781	0.898	0.815
	Is Iconic	0.899					0.890
Popular	Is liked by most people	0.811	0.848	0.860	0.898	0.690	0.812	0.757	0.791	0.840	0.571
	Is in style	0.797					0.789
	Is popular	0.744					0.780
	Is widely accepted	0.820					0.812
Rebellious	Is rebellious	0.843	0.820	0.825	0.882	0.651	0.923	0.931	0.932	0.951	0.828
	Is Defiant	0.847					0.922
	Is not afraid to break the rules	0.780					0.876
	Is nonconformist	0.754					0.918
Subcultural	Makes people who use it different from other people	0.811	0.804	0.808	0.872	0.630	0.910	0.951	0.952	0.964	0.872
	If I were to use it, it would make me stand apart from others	0.797					0.948
	Helps people who use it stand apart from the crowd	0.744					0.952
	People who use this brand are unique	0.820					0.923
Appealing	Looks good	0.809	0.865	0.869	0.909	0.713	0.827	0.872	0.873	0.912	0.722
	Is aesthetically appealing	0.815					0.848
	Is attractive	0.893					0.871
	Has a really nice appearance	0.858					0.852
Authentic	Is authentic	0.812	0.858	0.859	0.904	0.702	0.854	0.888	0.889	0.923	0.749
	Is true to its root	0.833					0.888
	Doesn't seem artificial	0.861					0.860
	Is authentic	0.843					0.859
	Does not try to be something it is not	0.812					0.854
Energetic	Is energetic	0.608	0.748	0.772	0.840	0.570	0.869	0.869	0.871	0.911	0.719
	Is Outgoing	0.775					0.860
	Is Lively	0.818					0.806
	Is Vigorous	0.801					0.855
Original	Is innovative	0.808	0.807	0.813	0.886	0.722	0.842	0.851	0.857	0.910	0.771
	Is original	0.882					0.914
	Does its own thing	0.857					0.876
Useful	Is useful	0.802	0.754	0.756	0.859	0.670	0.864	0.855	0.860	0.911	0.774
	Helps people	0.831					0.806
	Is valuable	0.822					0.887
Willingness to pay more	I would pay more for a custom product that is made from environmentally friendly materials	0.714	0.686	0.691	0.740	0.528	0.868	0.809	0.889	0.885	0.720
	I am willing to spend more money to buy custom products that are environmentally friendly	0.804					0.911
	I believe it is acceptable to pay up to 25% more for custom products that are made using environmentally friendly materials	0.712					0.759
	I believe it is acceptable to spend extra money for products that are made using environmentally friendly material	a					a

Note(s): a-Item eliminated, AVE-Average Variance Extracted, CR- Composite Reliability, α- Cronbach's Alpha, FL- Factor Loading

Table 4

Fornell-Larcker criterion results

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
BP
1. High Status	0.787
2. Iconic	0.698	0.878
3. Popular	0.750	0.745	0.830
4. Rebellious	0.719	0.714	0.772	0.807
5. Subcultural	0.710	0.716	0.720	0.725	0.794
6. GM tactical	0.733	0.690	0.765	0.733	0.660	0.824
7. Appealing	0.719	0.643	0.705	0.779	0.602	0.669	0.845
8. Authentic	0.771	0.778	0.779	0.807	0.710	0.797	0.709	0.838
9. Energetic	0.685	0.711	0.782	0.719	0.639	0.715	0.751	0.748	0.755
10. Original	0.674	0.681	0.786	0.734	0.680	0.715	0.765	0.767	0.626	0.850
11. Useful	0.544	0.537	0.629	0.506	0.481	0.561	0.520	0.616	0.636	0.508	0.819
12. Willingness to pay more	−0.067	−0.160	−0.257	−0.140	−0.218	−0.158	−0.248	−0.206	−0.275	−0.245	−0.158	0.726
L'Oréal
1. High Status	0.845
2. Iconic	0.629	0.903
3. Popular	0.684	0.571	0.755
4. Rebellious	0.620	0.717	0.584	0.910
5. Subcultural	0.696	0.756	0.584	0.776	0.934
6. GM tactical	0.718	0.676	0.662	0.765	0.757	0.831
7. Appealing	0.655	0.557	0.673	0.481	0.565	0.632	0.850
8. Authentic	0.734	0.726	0.667	0.700	0.708	0.718	0.647	0.865
9. Energetic	0.673	0.677	0.558	0.747	0.751	0.651	0.611	0.682	0.848
10. Original	0.703	0.703	0.639	0.774	0.794	0.735	0.663	0.772	0.770	0.878
11. Useful	0.687	0.673	0.671	0.673	0.715	0.687	0.672	0.745	0.693	0.767	0.880
12. Willingness to pay more	0.008	0.172	0.043	0.158	0.147	0.025	0.026	0.071	0.254	0.065	0.135	0.848

Table 5

Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT) results

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
BP
1. High Status
2. Iconic	0.827
3. Popular	0.811	0.853
4. Rebellious	0.812	0.832	0.823
5. Subcultural	0.887	0.846	0.870	0.889
6. GM tactical	0.858	0.847	0.864	0.848	0.757
7. Appealing	0.864	0.809	0.836	0.821	0.716	0.765
8. Authentic	0.832	0.894	0.826	0.859	0.852	0.801	0.838
9. Energetic	0.867	0.850	0.859	0.892	0.802	0.859	0.807	8.367
10. Original	0.837	0.801	0.838	0.896	0.836	0.831	0.812	0.822	0.813
11. Useful	0.699	0.730	0.784	0.636	0.609	0.673	0.645	0.764	0.870	0.649
12. Willingness to pay more	0.176	0.209	0.324	0.183	0.273	0.212	0.294	0.276	0.385	0.321	0.217
L'Oréal
1. High Status
2. Iconic	0.759
3. Popular	0.796	0.689
4. Rebellious	0.680	0.840	0.639
5. Subcultural	0.758	0.874	0.633	0.831
6. GM tactical	0.809	0.804	0.766	0.835	0.819
7. Appealing	0.752	0.675	0.796	0.530	0.616	0.715
8. Authentic	0.832	0.874	0.772	0.879	0.877	0.815	0.731
9. Energetic	0.771	0.823	0.628	0.827	0.824	0.735	0.697	0.775
10. Original	0.812	0.862	0.750	0.867	0.881	0.838	0.769	0.885	0.893
11. Useful	0.791	0.822	0.798	0.748	0.788	0.780	0.776	0.850	0.798	0.893
12. Willingness to pay more	0.107	0.205	0.149	0.176	0.165	0.071	0.068	0.104	0.293	0.077	0.158

Table 6

Collinearity assessment for structural model

	BP	L’Oréal
	Willingness to pay more	Willingness to pay more
GM tactical	3.166	3.447
Brand coolness	3.192	3.539

Note(s): VIF (Variance Inflation Factor) < 5

Table 7

PLS-SEM results

Relationship	Beta	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p values	Bias corrected bootstrap 95% confidence level		f2
					Lower	Upper
BP
Direct effect
B. coolness → Willingness to pay more	−0.323 ns	0.172	1.882	0.060	−0.629	0.048	0.036
GM tactical → B. coolness	0.823***	0.038	21.894	0.000	0.732	0.880	2.092
GM tactical → Willingness to pay more	0.108 ns	0.166	0.649	0.517	−0.264	0.396	0.004
Specific indirect effect
GM tactical → B. coolness → Willingness to pay more	−0.266 ns	0.140	1.902	0.058	−0.502	0.038
Total effect
GM tactical → Willingness to pay more	−0.158 ns	0.100	1.585	0.114	−0.351	0.034

Relationship (second order)	Weight	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p values	Bias corrected bootstrap 95% confidence		VIF
					Lower	Upper
High Status → B. coolness	0.116***	0.011	10.261	0.000	0.091	0.135	3.831
Iconic → B. coolness	0.069***	0.006	11.916	0.000	0.059	0.081	3.104
Popular → B. coolness	0.143***	0.009	15.763	0.000	0.129	0.163	3.003
Rebellious → B. coolness	0.127***	0.008	15.010	0.000	0.106	0.140	3.681
Subcultural → B. coolness	0.115***	0.010	10.989	0.000	0.092	0.132	2.885
Appealing → B. coolness	0.141***	0.010	14.759	0.000	0.125	0.161	3.200
Authentic → B. coolness	0.147***	0.008	17.510	0.000	0.133	0.166	3.877
Energetic → B. coolness	0.113***	0.008	14.339	0.000	0.101	0.130	3.161
Original → B. coolness	0.106***	0.009	12.273	0.000	0.091	0.127	3.481
Useful → B. coolness	0.076***	0.007	10.387	0.000	0.064	0.093	1.874

	R2	Q2
B. coolness	0.677	0.484
Willingness to pay more	0.059	0.012

Control variables	Beta	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p values	Bias corrected bootstrap 95% confidence
					Lower	Upper
Age → Willingness to pay more	−0.193 ns	0.106	1.817	0.070	−0.385	0.019
Education → Willingness to pay more	0.193 ns	0.168	1.149	0.251	−0.185	0.444
Gender → Willingness to pay more	0.151 ns	0.093	1.616	0.107	−0.026	0.321

Relationship	Beta	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p values	Bias corrected bootstrap 95% confidence		f2
					Lower	Upper
L’Oréal
B. coolness → Willingness to pay more	0.377*	0.165	2.289	0.022	0.004	0.671	0.043
GM tactical → B. coolness	0.842***	0.025	33.119	0.000	0.786	0.885	2.429
GM tactical → Willingness to pay more	−0.293 ns	0.155	1.883	0.060	−0.580	0.053	0.026
Specific indirect effect
GM tactical → B. coolness → Willingness to pay more	0.318*	0.138	2.299	0.022	0.004	0.570
Total efffect
GM tactical → Willingness to pay more	0.025 ns	0.065	0.384	0.701	−0.095	0.150

Relationship (second order)	Weight	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p values	Bias corrected bootstrap 95% confidence		VIF
					Lower	Upper
High Status → B. coolness	0.120***	0.008	15.382	0.000	0.104	0.133	3.141
Iconic → B. coolness	0.069***	0.003	20.314	0.000	0.063	0.076	2.765
Popular → B. coolness	0.085***	0.008	10.501	0.000	0.071	0.102	2.590
Rebellious → B. coolness	0.151***	0.008	19.347	0.000	0.135	0.165	3.326
Subcultural → B. coolness	0.164***	0.007	25.107	0.000	0.152	0.176	3.042
Appealing → B. coolness	0.111***	0.009	11.919	0.000	0.091	0.127	2.751
Authentic → B. coolness	0.138***	0.006	24.774	0.000	0.127	0.150	3.040
Energetic → B. coolness	0.129***	0.007	18.099	0.000	0.114	0.141	3.361
Original → B. coolness	0.105***	0.004	26.885	0.000	−0.200	0.152	3.344
Useful → B. coolness	0.102***	0.004	22.879	0.000	0.097	0.113	3.299

	R2	Q2
B. coolness	0.708	0.530
Willingness to pay more	0.042	0.004

Control variables	Beta	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p values	Bias corrected bootstrap 95% confidence
					Lower	Upper
Age → Willingness to pay more	−0.048 ns	0.120	0.403	0.687	−0.278	0.194
Education → Willingness to pay more	0.075 ns	0.108	0.698	0.486	−0.139	0.279
Gender → Willingness to pay more	−0.009 ns	0.091	0.094	0.925	−0.200	0.152

Note(s): ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ns Not Significant