Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Futures
journal homepage: [Link]/journal/sustainable-futures

The licensing effect of green luxury: Investigating the influence of green

marketing on consumer purchase intentions for luxury products
Zhijun Li a,c , Jiuling Xiao b, Xu Zhang b, Chunqu Xiao a,d,* , Qingyi Li c
a
School of Business, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, China
b
School of Business, Nanjing Aduit University, Nanjing, China
c
School of business, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093, China
d
Shaoxing Institute of Yue Business Research, Shaoxing, 312000, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Luxury brands increasingly adopt sustainability messages to enhance ethical legitimacy, yet such initiatives often
Luxury products serve symbolic rather than transformational purposes. This research examines how green marketing in luxury
Brand image branding paradoxically increases consumers’ willingness to purchase non-sustainable luxury products. Across
Green marketing
four experiments, Study 1 confirmed the main effect of green marketing on non-sustainable purchase intention.
Moral licensing effect
Study 2 showed that this effect is mediated by brand moral image. Study 3 and Study 4 identified two boundary
conditions: the effect occurs only for luxury brands and is strengthened when consumers trust the brand’s mo­
tives but reversed under high green skepticism. These findings extend moral licensing effect to the luxury
context, revealing how symbolic sustainability cues can legitimize indulgent, non-sustainable consumption. The
study contributes to research on moral licensing, luxury consumption, and CSR communication, emphasizing
that green marketing can strengthen brand legitimacy but may also backfire ethically if perceived as insincere.

1. Introduction sustainable offerings [5,6]. Whether a brand’s green initiatives inad­

vertently increase consumers’ acceptance of these non-green luxury
In recent years, the global diffusion of sustainability ideals has products remains an underexplored yet consequential issue.
prompted a growing number of luxury brands to introduce eco-friendly Moral licensing effect offers a potential psychological explanation.
materials, circular production processes, and philanthropic initiatives The theory posits that when individuals, or entities associated with
[1]. These green actions are often intended to signal corporate re­ them, are perceived as morally positive, people may subsequently feel
sponsibility and environmental commitment. Yet, scholarly evaluations more justified in making choices that are potentially less ethical [7,8].
of luxury brands’ sustainability efforts remain divided. On the one hand, Although prior work has documented moral licensing across various
prior studies suggest that green communication can enhance a brand’s domains, including pro-environmental actions [9], charitable giving
legitimacy and perceived social responsibility [2,3]. On the other hand, [10], and self-indulgent choice [7], most of this research focuses on
several scholars argue that sustainable practices in luxury brands are individuals’ own prior behaviors as the source of licensing. Far fewer
often symbolic and may even conflict with the traditional essence of studies have examined whether moral actions at the brand level can
luxury, defined by rarity, exclusivity, and sensory indulgence [4]. similarly relax consumers’ moral constraints and foster self-justification
Existing research has primarily examined how sustainability claims in­ in later consumption decisions.
fluence attitudes toward the green luxury products themselves, but far Building on this gap, the present research investigates three core
less attention has been paid to whether such green cues may spill over to questions: (1) Does luxury green marketing paradoxically increase
shape consumers’ evaluations of other non-green products offered by consumers’ willingness to purchase non-sustainable luxury products
the same brand. from the same brand? (2) If so, what psychological mechanism accounts
This question is particularly relevant in today’s luxury market, where for this effect? (3) Under what boundary conditions does this effect
many brands launch sustainable sub-lines (e.g., bags made from recycled strengthen or diminish?
materials), while the majority of their revenue still comes from non- To address these questions, we conducted four experimental studies

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chunqu_xiao@[Link] (C. Xiao).

[Link]
Received 14 January 2025; Received in revised form 16 November 2025; Accepted 6 January 2026
Available online 19 January 2026
2666-1888/© 2026 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ([Link]
nc-nd/4.0/).
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

that together form a progressive empirical framework. Study 1 tests the sustainable consumption, typically by signaling environmental re­
main effect of luxury green marketing on consumers’ purchase in­ sponsibility and strengthening consumer trust and brand identification
tentions for non-green products. Study 2 examines brand moral image as [21]. However, when transferred to the luxury domain, this logic
the underlying mediator. Study 3 introduces brand type as a moderator. operates under distinct constraints. Luxury brands’sustainability efforts
Study 4 incorporates consumers’ green skepticism to further assess often carry a symbolic rather than transformative character, reflecting
boundary conditions. Collectively, this multi-study design enables us to the longstanding value tension between luxury and sustainability [16,
identify not only the consequences of luxury brands’ green initiatives 17].
but also the psychological processes and contextual limits that shape To mitigate this tension, many luxury brands introduce eco-friendly
these outcomes. capsules, recycled materials, or philanthropic collaborations. While
This research makes three primary contributions. First, it extends these actions present an image of responsibility, they frequently raise
moral licensing to the luxury consumption domain by demonstrating new ethical concerns. Scholars note that such initiatives may function as
that brand-level moral actions, rather than only individuals’ own be­ symbolic compliance, actions that improve external perceptions without
haviors, can trigger licensing effects. Second, it enriches the literature on altering core business practices [22]. Reviews of greenwashing similarly
luxury sustainability by showing that green actions can generate cross- highlight how selective or exaggerated claims can create an appearance
product psychological spillovers within a brand’s portfolio. That is, of sustainability while masking broader inconsistencies [23].
sustainability cues may enhance evaluations of unrelated non-green Consumer reactions are therefore mixed. Some interpret luxury
luxury items when perceived as authentic, offering a new perspective brands’ green initiatives as genuine improvements and develop more
on the long-debated tension between luxury and sustainability. Third, favorable attitudes [24]. Others question their authenticity, expressing
the findings provide practical implications for luxury brands: although green skepticism, a doubt toward the truthfulness or depth of environ­
green communication can strengthen moral legitimacy, it also carries mental claims [25,26]. As a result, the effectiveness of green marketing
ethical risks when consumers perceive inconsistency or insincerity. The in the luxury sector is inherently ambivalent: it can enhance a brand’s
effect diminishes or even reverses among consumers with high green ethical image, but it may also trigger suspicion when perceived as moral
skepticism, underscoring the necessity of credibility and substantive posturing rather than substantive change.
sustainable practices. This research thus offers valuable insights into Notably, extant research largely focuses on how green marketing
how luxury brands can design sustainability strategies that are both shapes evaluations of sustainable luxury products [27], while over­
effective and ethically sound. looking potential spillover effects on the broader brand portfolio. For
most luxury houses, sustainable lines account for only a small fraction of
2. Literature review and research hypotheses their offerings; their strategic value often lies less in sales volume and
more in projecting a moral symbol that elevates the brand’s overall
2.1. The nature of luxury and its moral paradox ethical standing. Such symbolic moral signaling may lead consumers to
infer that the brand has already done its part, thereby lowering moral
Luxury consumption is traditionally characterized by scarcity, sym­ scrutiny when evaluating non-sustainable products.
bolic value, and self-expressive motives rather than functional utility
[11,12]. Consumers typically purchase luxury goods to signal status, 2.3. Moral licensing literature
express identity, and differentiate themselves socially [13,14]. As such,
luxury brands operate as cultural and social markers that convey pres­ The moral licensing effect refers to the tendency for individuals who
tige and distinction [15]. have engaged in, or perceive themselves as having engaged in, morally
These symbolic qualities, however, also create inherent moral and positive behavior to show greater leniency toward subsequent behaviors
ethical tensions. Scholars argue that core attributes of luxury,exclusiv­ that may be self-indulgent or morally questionable [7,8]. A substantial
ity, excess, and indulgence, conflict with contemporary values of re­ body of research has documented this effect across diverse behavioral
sponsibility, equality, and sustainability [16,17]. Luxury consumption is domains, including environmental actions [9], charitable giving [28],
often associated with wastefulness and conspicuous display, rendering it ethical decision making in economic games [29], and dishonest or
a morally ambivalent or ethically contested domain [18,19]. deceptive conduct [10]. Three comprehensive meta-analyses further
Moreover, consumers’ moral evaluations of luxury brands are highly corroborate that moral licensing is an overall significant and robust
context-dependent. While luxury may symbolize craftsmanship and psychological phenomenon [30–32].
heritage, it can simultaneously evoke concerns about elitism and Despite its empirical support, scholarly debate remains regarding the
resource inequality [20]. These tensions intensify when luxury brands boundary conditions and underlying mechanisms of this effect. Some
incorporate sustainability initiatives, as the aesthetic of excess seems classical findings have proven difficult to replicate—for example, the
fundamentally at odds with environmental responsibility [18]. As Joy moral-identity writing manipulation by Sachdeva et al. [33], or parts of
et al. [16] famously argue, sustainable luxury is a paradox: luxury is Mazar & Zhong’s [10] experiments, which did not consistently repro­
built on rarity, while sustainability calls for responsibility and restraint. duce in later replications [34]. These mixed results have led researchers
Empirical work further suggests that consumers may experience to focus more on the circumstances under which moral licensing occurs,
subtle moral unease or ethical dissonance when they perceive conflicts rather than questioning the effect’s existence per se. Moreover, prior
between luxury production and sustainability standards [18,20]. This work has concentrated predominantly on self-licensing, whereby in­
ambivalence often leads to cognitive rationalization—consumers justify dividuals justify their own subsequent behavior based on their past
their choices to preserve a consistent moral self-view [17]. moral actions[8,9], while other-licensing, whether moral signals from
Taken together, luxury consumption is shaped by a dual tension: the external agents such as brands or organizations can elicit similar psy­
pursuit of pleasure and distinction on the one hand, and the desire for chological responses, has received far less empirical attention.
moral responsibility on the other. This inherent moral paradox of luxury Within consumer behavior, the seminal work of Khan & Dhar [7]
provides an important foundation for understanding how consumers demonstrated that engaging in moral behavior increases consumers’
respond to luxury brands’ green marketing efforts and the ethical signals preference for indulgent or hedonic products. However, their focus was
embedded within them. limited to the sequence of one’s own moral act to one’s own indulgent
choice, leaving open the question of whether moral cues originating
2.2. Green marketing in luxury brands from brands, particularly luxury brands, can produce comparable
licensing effects. In addition, existing studies have largely examined
Green marketing is widely regarded as a key strategy for promoting licensing in the context of hedonic consumption [35], while the domain

2
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

of non-sustainable luxury products, which carries stronger ethical ten­ status signaling and identity expression, whereas mass-market brands
sion and social controversy, has been notably underexplored. are evaluated more on functional performance and price–value consid­
Overall, the literature suggests several unresolved gaps: whether erations [17]. These differences shape not only consumers’ purchase
moral licensing can be triggered by brand-generated moral signals, motivations but also how they interpret ethical cues communicated by
whether a luxury brand’s moral image can be internalized to produce brands.
licensing effects, and whether such effects extend to ethically conten­ When a luxury brand engages in green marketing, consumers often
tious luxury categories. The present research seeks to address these gaps. construe it as an intentional effort to transcend mere conspicuous con­
sumption and to demonstrate a sense of social responsibility [13]. Such
2.4. Brand moral image as a mediating mechanism symbolic actions elevate the brand’s moral image and are therefore
more likely to activate the moral licensing mechanism described earlier,
Brunk’s [2] authoritative definition of consumer-perceived brand consumers feel that the brand has done its part, allowing them to justify
morality, which conceptualizes it as “consumers’ aggregate perception purchasing the brand’s non-sustainable offerings with reduced moral
of a subject’s (i.e., a company, brand, product, or service) moral­ tension [7]. Prior research similarly notes that sustainability practices in
ity.”Luxury brands’sustainability initiatives are often perceived by the luxury sector tend to be symbolic rather than transformational,
consumers as a positive moral signal. According to the halo effect [36], serving to reconcile the tension between luxury and responsibility at the
favorable impressions formed on one dimension, such as environmental image level more than at the operational level [40,41]. As a result,
responsibility, can spill over to shape perceptions of the brand as a consumers assign stronger symbolic meaning to luxury brands’ green
whole. This cognitive spillover links the green cue to broader moral efforts compared to similar actions by non-luxury brands.
meanings such as responsibility, legitimacy, and ethical standing, In contrast, green initiatives by mass-market brands are typically
thereby easing the moral tension typically associated with luxury con­ interpreted through a functional lens. Consumers tend to evaluate such
sumption [37].Self-consistency theory further suggests that consumers initiatives in terms of product efficiency, cost savings, or quality signals
prefer brands that align with their own beliefs and values [38,39]. When rather than as indicators of ethical virtue [42,43]. Consequently,
a luxury brand communicates a socially responsible image through mass-market green marketing is less likely to elevate the overall moral
green marketing, consumers may incorporate this positive moral attri­ image of the brand or to activate a licensing process. Empirical findings
bute into their self-concept, fostering a sense of congruence between the support this differentiation: Steinhart et al. [42] show that CSR actions
self and the brand. Such alignment not only strengthens brand identi­ enhance perceived sincerity more strongly for luxury than for
fication but also allows consumers to view the brand’s non-sustainable mass-market brands, and Griskevicius et al. [19] find that moral or
offerings with less ethical discomfort. altruistic cues are more potent in status-laden consumption contexts.
Building on this foundation, moral licensing theory offers additional Taken together, these arguments suggest that the licensing mecha­
insight into how these perceptions shape behavior. Moral licensing nism triggered by green marketing should be stronger, and potentially
posits that when individuals believe they, or entities associated with exclusive, to luxury brands. Thus, we hypothesize:
them, have demonstrated moral behavior, they accumulate a sense of
moral credit that reduces self-restraint in subsequent choices [7,8]. In H3: The positive effect of luxury green marketing on consumers’ will­
the luxury context, this means that after perceiving a brand’s green ingness to purchase the brand’s non-sustainable products will be stronger
actions as socially responsible, consumers may infer that the brand has for luxury brands than for non-luxury brands.
already done its part. This perceived responsibility transfer legitimizes
subsequent indulgent or non-sustainable consumption, helping con­ 2.6. The moderating role of green skepticism
sumers maintain a positive moral self-view while still pursuing luxury,
status, and hedonic gratification. Consumers display increasingly divergent psychological reactions to
Although the internal psychological process underlying moral brands’ environmental claims. Green skepticism refers to the tendency
licensing is difficult to capture directly, prior work in consumer behavior to doubt the truthfulness or motives behind a firm’s environmental
has consistently shown that the effect can be identified through shifts in messages [26]. Such skepticism often arises when consumers perceive
subsequent behavioral choices [7,10]. For instance, consumers who corporate sustainability efforts as selective, symbolic, or strategically
purchase environmentally friendly products often show greater indul­ motivated rather than substantive [44,45]. In contrast, consumer trust
gence afterward, and individuals who engage in prosocial acts display reflects confidence that a brand’s environmental actions are genuine and
stronger preferences for hedonic options in subsequent decisions. aligned with its stated values [24,46]. These two constructs form a
Following this empirical tradition, the present research conceptual­ psychological continuum shaping how consumers interpret green mar­
izes the pattern whereby a luxury brand’s green marketing enhances its keting signals.
perceived moral image, which in turn increases consumers’willingness When trust is high, consumers are more likely to interpret a brand’s
to purchase the brand’s non-sustainable luxury products as a behavioral sustainable actions as sincere efforts to assume social responsibility,
manifestation of moral licensing. On this basis, we propose Hypotheses 1 thereby allowing green cues to enhance the brand’s moral image. This
and 2. heightened moral perception can, in turn, facilitate moral licensing,
consumers feel justified in relaxing constraints on subsequent non-
H1: The adoption of green marketing by a luxury brand increases con­ sustainable choices [7]. However, when skepticism is high, the same
sumers' willingness to purchase other non-environmentally friendly luxury green cues may be interpreted as opportunistic or performative, weak­
items from the same brand. ening or even reversing the moral image enhancement that enables
H2: This effect is mediated by the brand's moral image. Green marketing licensing [47,48].
enhances consumers' perceptions of a luxury brand's ethical image, which, Prior research shows that green skepticism reduces the persuasive­
in turn, increases their willingness to purchase other non-eco-friendly ness of green advertising, CSR communication, and eco-labels [25] and
products from the brand. can trigger trust erosion and negative affective responses, particularly in
high-involvement categories [49]. This dynamic is amplified in the
2.5. The moderating role of brand type luxury context. Because luxury consumption is inherently linked to ex­
clusivity, excess, and aesthetic indulgence, features often perceived as
Luxury and mass-market brands differ fundamentally in the symbolic incompatible with sustainability [17], consumers tend to scrutinize
versus functional value they offer consumers. According to the theory of luxury brands’ environmental claims more critically. Athwal et al. [40]
brand symbolism [12], luxury brands derive their value primarily from note that luxury sustainability initiatives are frequently interpreted as

3
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

symbolic impression management rather than substantive change, 3.3. Manipulation checks
increasing the likelihood of moral backlash when consumers perceive
inauthenticity [50]. Analysis of luxury familiarity and purchase behaviour showed that
Building on this literature, we argue that green skepticism moderates our respondents were generally familiar with luxury products (M =
the effect of luxury green marketing on consumers’ willingness to pur­ 4.89, SD = 1.25) and had purchased some amount of luxury products in
chase non-sustainable products. When skepticism is low and trust is the past two years (M = 4.68, SD = 7.03).
high, green actions strengthen the brand’s moral image, enabling a
stronger licensing effect. When skepticism is high, the psychological 3.4. Results
pathway from green cues to moral image becomes attenuated or
reversed, reducing or eliminating the licensing effect. 3.4.1. Purchase intension
Thus, we propose: The t-test was used to examine the luxury green marketing on con­
sumer purchase intension. The results showed that whether or not to
H4: Consumer green skepticism moderates the effect of luxury green adopt green marketing significantly influenced participants' willingness
marketing on consumers’ willingness to purchase non-sustainable luxury to purchase the non-green product (t (158) = 2.23, p = .027, d = 0.47;
products, such that the effect is stronger when green skepticism is low and Mgreen = 3.70, SD = 1.98, Mnon-green = 2.85, SD = 1.61). Participants in
weaker when green skepticism is high. the green marketing group were much more likely to buy the product
that wasn't green than people in the non-green marketing group.
3. Study 1: The influence of luxury green marketing on
consumers' purchase intention 3.4.2. Control variables
To further assess robustness, we estimated an OLS regression
The main purpose of Study 1 was to test whether green marketing by including gender, age, and education as covariates. The overall model
a luxury brand would affect consumers' willingness to buy non-eco was significant, F(4, 155) = 9.58, p < .001, explaining 19.8 % of the
products from the same brand. variance in purchase intention (Adjusted R² = 0.18). Importantly, the
effect of green (vs. non-green) luxury marketing remained significant (β
= 0.16, t(155) = 2.24, p = .027), indicating that demographic hetero­
3.1. Design and participants geneity does not account for the observed effect.

Study 1 conducted a between-subjects design with green marketing 3.5. Discussion

(green vs. non-green). One hundred and sixty-two MBA students from a
local business school1 participated in this experiment by filling out Study 1 preliminarily verified the main effect that consumers’ pur­
questionnaires online, and excluding the two subjects who did not chase intension toward green marketing of luxury goods. When a luxury
complete the experiment, a total of 160 valid questionnaires were brand does green marketing, consumers are much more likely to buy
collected. Among them, 67 % were female, and the average age was 34.6 other products from that brand that aren't green. The results provided
years old. support for H1. This study only examined the main effect of green
marketing of luxury goods on consumers' willingness to purchase non-
green luxury goods. The potential mechanisms involved are unclear
3.2. Procedure and will be examined below through Study 2.

After reading the consent form and the instructions, participants 4. Study 2: Mediating effect of ethical brand image
were randomly assigned either to green situations or to non-green sit­
uations. First, the participants read the description: "Hosteni is a luxury Study 2 aimed to replicate the ethical licensing effect of green luxury
brand." The green marketing group then saw, "In order to protect the as well as the underlying mediating effect.
environment and be socially responsible, the brand has launched a new
handbag made of renewable nylon." The non-green marketing group 4.1. Sampling and procedure
saw, "The brand has launched a new handbag made of nylon." After­
wards, the two groups were shown a picture of another product with the Study 2 conducted a between-subjects design with green marketing
text, "The brand has recently launched another handbag made of croc­ (green vs. non-green). 219 MBA students recruited from a local business
odile skin." In this process, the participants saw pictures of the product in school participated in this experiment by filling out questionnaires on­
exactly the same material both times, with the only difference being line, and excluding the subjects who did not pass the recognition check,
whether it was described as a luxury product made of environmentally a total of 201 valid questionnaires were collected. Among them, 68.3 %
friendly materials (see Appendix B1). Then the participants were asked were female, and the average age was 36.8 years old.
to evaluate their willingness to buy the product. The scale was adapted
from Schuitema and Groot [51] with three question items: "I would like 4.2. Procedure
to buy this product," "I like this product," "This product is attractive to
me"; 1 = "strongly disagree" and 7 = "strongly agree"; Cronbach's α = After reading the consent form and the instructions, participants
0.99). In addition, this study also assessed participants' familiarity with were randomly assigned either to green situations or to non-green sit­
luxury goods and the quantity of luxury items purchased in the past two uations. The experimental scenario was essentially the same as in Study
years, adhering to the linguistic style of top-tier English journals [52]. 1, but the green luxury product was replaced with a renewable cashmere
Last, participants reported their age, gender and education level. scarf and the second product was replaced with leather goods made of
ostriches’ skin (see Appendix B2). Subjects saw the exact same product
picture material in two conditions, differing only by whether it was a
1
The tuition fee for the MBA program at this business school is 320,000 RMB green luxury. The dependent variable purchase intention was also
(approximately 45,000 USD), attracting mid-career professionals with sub­ measured by the same scale as in Study 1. Then the participants were
stantial disposable income. Prior luxury-consumption studies likewise use MBA asked to evaluate brand moral image to buy the product. The scale was
samples because they closely resemble actual luxury consumers in purchasing adapted from Brunk [2] with four items: “I believe this brand is ethical”,
power and brand familiarity [52]. “I believe this brand is socially responsible”, “I believe this brand is

4
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

socially conscious”, and “I believe this brand is environmentally The indirect effect was significant (b = − 0.57, SE = 0.15, CI95 % [− 0.90,
responsible”; 1 = "strongly disagree" and 7 = "strongly agree"; Cron­ − 0.29]). The direct effect was not significant (b = 0.04, SE = 0.21, CI95 %
bach's α = 0.95). In addition, this study also assessed participants' [− 0.39, 0.47]).
perceived price (scoring from 1 to 100) and familiarity with luxury
goods (Seven-point Likert scale). Last, participants reported their age 4.5. Discussion
and gender.
In Study 2, we examined consumers’ attitudes toward the green
4.3. Manipulation check marketing of luxury products. Our findings suggest that when a luxury
brand launches green marketing, it leads to a significant increase in
As in previous experiments, our participants were generally more consumers’ willingness to purchase the brand, providing support for H1.
familiar with luxury products (M = 4.78, SD = 1.26). In addition, the Additionally, the mediation analysis showed that introducing green
green marketing group (Mgreen = 64.15, SD = 19.64) and control group luxury products significantly enhances consumers’ perceptions of the
(Mcontrol = 68.79, SD = 16.61) were at the same level of pricing brand’s moral image, which subsequently increases their willingness to
perception (t (199) = − 1.906, p = 0.06, ns), which indicates that purchase other non-green products from the same brand, supporting H2.
perceived price did not differ across conditions and therefore does not Across the first two studies, we therefore demonstrate that green mar­
bias the manipulation. keting by luxury brands increases consumers’ willingness to purchase
subsequent non-green products, and that this effect operates through
enhanced perceived brand ethical image. Building on these findings, the
4.4. Results
subsequent studies further explore the boundary conditions of this effect
and whether this ethical licensing process is specific to luxury brands.
Before conducting the main analyses, we examined whether the key
Although visual stimuli were identical across conditions in Study 2,
statistical assumptions were met. Given the relatively large sample size
future research should examine price expectations more granularly,
(N = 201), the sampling distribution of the mean can be considered
particularly in categories where green attributes may imply cost dif­
approximately normal under the central limit theorem, and minor de­
ferences. In Study 3, we extended this line of inquiry by introducing a
viations from normality do not bias t-tests or PROCESS estimates. Lev­
different product category to test whether the observed moral licensing
ene’s tests indicated no violation of the homogeneity of variance
effect generalizes across stimuli.
assumption across conditions (ps > 0.10). In addition, following Hayes
[53], mediation analysis via PROCESS Model 4 does not require nor­
5. Study 3: Moderating effect of brand type
mally distributed residuals, and visual inspection of residual plots
showed no concerns regarding model misspecification or influential
Study 3 tested the moderating effect of brand type. We expected that,
outliers. These checks support the appropriateness of the analytical
only luxury brands experience the ethical licensing effect of green
approach used in Study 2.
marketing. For non-luxury brands, the introduction of environmentally
friendly products will not increase consumers' willingness to purchase
4.4.1. Purchase intention
other non-eco products from that brand.
The t-test was used to examine the luxury green marketing on con­
sumer purchase intension. The results showed that whether or not to
adopt green marketing significantly influenced participants' willingness 5.1. Sampling and procedure
to purchase the non-green product (t (199) = 2.10, p = .037, Cohen’s d =
0.30; Mgreen = 4.58, SD = 1.61, Mnon-green = 4.04, SD = 1.94). Study 3 used a 2 (green marketing vs. non-green marketing) x 2
(luxury brand vs. non-luxury brand) between-subjects design with 276
4.4.2. Brand ethical image MBA students recruited from a local business school. After excluding 8
Green luxury marketing significantly predicted brand ethical image. incomplete questionnaires, a total of 268 valid responses were collected.
The introduction of green luxury goods will significantly improve the Among them, 65.4 % were female, and the average age was 37.4.
ethical image of luxury brands (t (199) = 3.78, p < .00, Cohen’s d = 0.54;
Mgreen = 4.06, SD = 1.67, Mnon-green = 3.20, SD = 1.53). To test the 5.2. Procedure
mediating role of brand ethical image, a bootstrapping analysis with
5000 resamples (PROCESS Model 4; [53]) was conducted (Fig. 1). The After reading the consent form and instructions, participants pro­
results revealed that green marketing of luxury brand (green = 0, ceeded to the formal experimental session. They were randomly
non-green = 1) significantly predicted brand ethical image (b = − 1.04, assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (green marketing vs. non-green
SE = 0.25, CI95 % [− 1.54, − 0.54]) and brand ethical image significantly marketing) × 2 (luxury brand vs. non-luxury brand) design. In the green
predicted purchase intention (b = 0.54, SE = 0.05, CI95 % [0.43, 0.66]). marketing condition, participants read the statement: “Fosteni is a

Fig. 1. The mediation effect of brand ethical image. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01. Unstandardized coefficients are reported.

5
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

luxury brand (vs. a popular brand) that recently launched a pair of Specifically, for luxury brands, consumers were more likely to purchase
glasses made from renewable materials.” In the non-green marketing the second environmentally unfriendly product in the green marketing
condition, they read: “Fosteni is a luxury brand (vs. a popular brand) condition than in the non-green marketing condition, F(1, 264) = 4.02, p
that recently launched a pair of glasses.” = .046, partial η² = 0.02; Mgreen = 5.27, SD = 1.63 vs. Mnon-green = 4.97,
Immediately after reading the stimulus, participants completed two SD = 1.72. However, for non-luxury brands, conducting green market­
brief manipulation-check items. They rated (1) how luxurious they ing was associated with lower consumer purchase intentions for the
perceived the brand to be and (2) how environmentally friendly they second environmentally unfriendly product than not launching green
perceived the product to be (both on 7-point Likert scales). These items marketing, F(1, 264) = 3.94, p = .048, partial η² = 0.01; Mgreen = 5.09,
were included to verify the effectiveness of the brand-type manipulation SD = 1.80 vs. Mnon-green = 5.51, SD = 1.54.
and the green-marketing manipulation.
Next, all participants were shown an image of a second product, 5.5. Discussion
accompanied by the description, “The brand has recently launched
another down jacket with fox fur.” The exact same product image was Study 3 aimed to examine the impact of brand type as a moderator of
used across all conditions (see Appendix B3). Participants then evalu­ green marketing on consumers' purchase intentions. The findings indi­
ated this second, environmentally unfriendly product by reporting their cated that when luxury brands engage in green marketing, consumers
intention to purchase it, using the same scale employed in Study 1 are more likely to perceive these brands as ethical and, consequently,
(Cronbach’s α = 0.98). Finally, participants completed demographic show a greater inclination to purchase new products from them, as
questions such as gender and age. compared to non-luxury brands. This supports hypothesis 3. Conversely,
consumers demonstrated a higher willingness to purchase products from
5.3. Manipulation checks non-luxury brands that did not implement green marketing, compared
to those that did. This may be attributed to the fact that for non-luxury
Brand type. Participants perceived the brand in the luxury condition products, green marketing might lower consumers' perception of prod­
as significantly more luxurious (M = 5.84, SD = 1.01) than in the non- uct quality. Previous studies have discovered that consumers generally
luxury condition (M = 3.12, SD = 1.24), t(266) = 18.27, p < .001, Cohen’s regard products made from recyclable materials as of inferior quality
d = 2.23. Green vs. non-green messaging did not influence perceived [4]. The outcomes of this experiment align with earlier research that
luxury,p > 0.05, indicating that the brand-type manipulation was suggests green marketing may negatively affect consumers' positive
successful. perceptions of products, and that there was no evidence of a moral
Green marketing manipulation. Participants in the green marketing licensing effect for non-luxury products.
condition rated the product as significantly more environmentally We note that the MBA sample may pose some limits to generaliz­
friendly (M = 5.91, SD = 1.10) than those in the non-green condition (M ability; therefore, a broader consumer sample is included in later study
= 3.08, SD = 1.32), t(266) = 18.01, p < .001, d = 2.20. Brand type had no to further validate the robustness of this mechanism.
effect on perceived greenness, t(266) < 1, ns. These results confirm that
both manipulations were effective. 6. Study 4: Moderating effect of consumer green skepticism

5.4. Results Study 4 was designed to address two limitations of the prior studies.
First, because Studies 1–3 relied on MBA samples, we recruited a
5.4.1. Purchase intention broader non-student sample to improve generalizability. Second, earlier
A 2 × 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on purchase manipulation checks were insufficient, so Study 4 adopted a more direct
intention. The analysis revealed a significant interaction between green operationalization of luxury-brand perception and incorporated green
marketing and brand type, F(1, 264) = 4.38, p = .038, partial η² = 0.02 skepticism as a theoretically relevant moderator. This design enables a
(Fig. 2). Neither the main effect of green marketing, F(1, 264) = 1.68, p stronger test of whether the effect of luxury green marketing on pref­
= .196, partial η² = 0.01, nor the main effect of brand type, F(1, 264) = erences for non-green luxury products holds, or weakens, when con­
1.79, p = .182, partial η² = 0.01, was significant. sumers question the brand’s environmental sincerity.
Further examination of the interaction revealed that only luxury
brands experience the ethical licensing effect of green marketing. 6.1. Sampling and procedure

Study 4 recruited 220 participants from Credemo ([Link]

[Link]), a high-quality online research platform widely used in
behavioral and consumer research. Participants were residents of China
(female = 65.0 %; Mage = 31.35). We also collected demographic in­
dicators relevant to luxury consumption, including monthly income,
self-reported familiarity with luxury brands (1 = not at all, 7 = very
much, M = 4.53, SD = 1.30), and the number of luxury items purchased
in the past two years (M = 2.29, SD = 2.34). As expected, participants
demonstrated moderate luxury familiarity.

6.2. Procedure

The procedure closely followed that of Study 2, with the addition of

measuring consumer green skepticism as a moderator. Participants were
randomly assigned to either a green-luxury or non-green-luxury condi­
tion. As in previous studies, the stimuli consisted of a luxury brand in­
formation and two product presentations, differing only in whether the
first product was described as environmentally friendly (recycled ma­
terials) or not. The second focal product was a non-sustainable luxury
Fig. 2. The moderation effect of brand type. item. After viewing each product, participants evaluated its perceived

6
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

sustainability using three items adapted from Park et al. [54] (e.g., “I thresholds, the persistence of the effect suggests that demographic het­
believe this product is environmentally friendly”; 1 = strongly disagree, erogeneity does not explain the observed pattern.
7 = strongly agree; Cronbach’s α = 0.88). Participants then indicated
their purchase intention using a behavioral pricing measure adapted
from Zhou et al. [55]: “The official retail price of this product is 10,000 6.5. Discussion
RMB. If you were to purchase it, what is the maximum price you would
be willing to pay?” Next, participants completed measures of green Study 4 extends the findings of the first three studies by addressing
skepticisms ([46]; [45]; Cronbach’s α= 0.82), perceived brand luxuri­ two important limitations: sample representativeness and the precision
ousness (Cronbach’s α= 0.81), and other luxury-related attributes. of the manipulation checks, while also providing a theoretically mean­
Specifically, they rated the brand’s perceived quality, price level, ingful test of the moderating role of consumer green skepticism. Using a
durability, exclusivity, scarcity, uniqueness, use of precious materials, broader non-student sample and a more direct operationalization of
and overall luxury perception. sustainability and luxury perceptions, this study offers stronger evidence
Finally, participants reported demographic information (age, for the proposed psychological mechanism and its boundary conditions.
gender, education level, monthly income), familiarity with luxury Consistent with the earlier studies, participants low in green skep­
goods, and the number of luxury items purchased in the past two years. ticism exhibited a clear licensing pattern: exposure to a luxury brand’s
green product increased their willingness to pay for a subsequent non-
6.3. Manipulation checks sustainable luxury product. This replicates and strengthens the core ef­
fect observed in Studies 1–3. The simple-slope analysis demonstrated a
6.3.1. Perceived sustainability of the first product moderate effect (d = 0.43), indicating that consumers who are relatively
Participants in the green-luxury condition perceived the recycled- trusting of environmental claims readily infer moral credit from a
nylon handbag as significantly more sustainable (Mgreen = 6.01, SD = brand’s green initiative and extend this positive judgment to other parts
0.66) than those in the non-green-luxury condition (Mnon-green = 4.96, of the brand’s portfolio.
SD = 1.21), t(218) = 7.98, p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.98. This confirms the However, and importantly, this effect did not hold for consumers
effectiveness of the sustainability manipulation. high in green skepticism. Among these individuals, green marketing did
not increase willingness to pay for non-sustainable products; instead,
6.3.2. Perceived sustainability of the second product willingness to pay remained essentially unchanged (d = 0.04). This
Perceived sustainability of the crocodile-skin handbag did not differ attenuation is theoretically meaningful: consumers who question the
across conditions (Mgreen = 2.42, SD = 1.22, Mnon-green = 2.65, SD = authenticity of sustainability efforts appear less likely to infer moral
1.45; t(218) = 1.28, p = .20. Thus, the manipulation did not uninten­ virtue from a brand’s green claims, thereby weakening the psychological
tionally influence perceptions of the focal product. basis for ethical licensing. This pattern aligns with prior literature sug­
gesting that green skepticism undermines moral signaling and reduces
6.3.3. Luxury-Related attributes the persuasive power of sustainability messaging.
A series of independent-samples t-tests revealed no significant dif­ Additionally, Study 4 employed a more rigorous set of manipulation
ferences between conditions on perceived luxuriousness (p = .22), checks, demonstrating that the sustainability manipulation influenced
quality (p = .31), price level (p = .16), durability (p = .19), scarcity (p = only perceived greenness and did not spill over to perceptions of luxu­
.16), or uniqueness (p = .80).These results confirm that the manipula­ riousness, quality, price level, or other luxury-related attributes. This
tion influenced only perceived sustainability and did not alter broader rules out a critical alternative explanation: that the licensing effect arises
luxury perceptions. because green products alter the perceived luxury positioning or value
of the brand. The clean manipulation strengthens causal inference and
6.4. Results affirms the proposed mechanism—enhanced brand moral image­
—rather than changes in perceived product category or luxury level.
6.4.1. Willingness to pay Finally, although demographic covariates slightly reduced the sta­
A moderated regression analysis tested whether the effect of luxury tistical significance of the main effect, the direction and magnitude of
green marketing on consumers’ willingness to pay was contingent on the effect remained stable, suggesting that demographic heterogeneity
consumers’ level of green skepticism. The interaction was significant (p does not account for the observed pattern. This provides additional
= .01), showing that green skepticism qualifies when a green luxury reassurance regarding the robustness of the findings, particularly given
initiative translates into higher willingness to pay for a subsequent non- the broader sample employed in this study.
sustainable product.
Simple slopes analysis revealed that: at low levels of green skepticism 7. General discussion
(− 1 SD), participants in the green-luxury condition reported a signifi­
cantly higher willingness to pay for the non-sustainable product Across four experiments, this research examines how luxury green
compared to the non-green condition (Mgreen = 3940.21 vs. Mnon-green = marketing shapes consumers’purchase intentions. Study 1 shows that
2507.10; t(218) = 3.17, p = .002), Cohen’s d = 0.43; at high levels of green marketing increases consumers’willingness to purchase other non-
skepticism (+1 SD), this difference was attenuated and no longer sig­ green products from the same brand, supporting H1. Study 2 replicates
nificant (Mgreen = 1517.90 vs. Mnon-green = 1634.60; t(218) = 0.26, p = this effect and demonstrates that it is mediated by perceived brand
.80,Cohen’s d = 0.04). moral image (H2). Study 3 identifies brand type as a boundary condi­
These results support the proposed moderating role of green tion, revealing that the effect emerges only when the focal brand is
skepticism. perceived as a luxury brand (H3). Study 4 further strengthens external
validity with a non-student sample and shows that the effect weakens
6.4.2. Control variables when consumers hold higher levels of green skepticism(H4).
To assess robustness, we estimated an OLS regression including in­ Taken together, the findings demonstrate that luxury green mar­
come, gender, education, and age as covariates. The overall model keting can produce a moral licensing effect, whereby consumers use a
showed a marginal trend, F(5, 214) = 2.13, p = .063 (Adjusted R² = brand’s moral signal to justify subsequent non-sustainable purchases.
0.03). Importantly, the effect of green (vs. non-green) luxury framing The mediated and moderated effects jointly indicate that this phenom­
remained directionally consistent and approached significance (β = enon is shaped by consumers’moral inferences about the brand and by
− 0.13, t(214) = − 1.96, p = .051). Although slightly below conventional the credibility of its sustainability claims.

7
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

7.1. Theoretical contributions claims are not supported by substantive sustainability initiatives, they
may trigger ethical tension and lead to reputational backlash. These
This research strengthens the empirical foundation of moral insights yield several managerial implications.
licensing within the consumer domain and offers two key contributions. First, luxury brands should refrain from using green marketing
First, prior work has predominantly emphasized self-generated merely as rhetorical branding or symbolic image work. Instead, sus­
licensing, where individuals rely on their own prior moral actions to tainability communication should be anchored in verifiable and
justify subsequent indulgent or ethically questionable choices [7,8]. enduring ethical practices. Managers may consider strengthening
Whether moral cues originating from external agents, such as brands, supply-chain traceability, investing in circular-material innovation,
can similarly serve as psychological credentials has remained underex­ disclosing environmental performance, and adopting third-party certi­
plored. Our findings demonstrate that a luxury brand’s green marketing fication to reduce the gap between communicated intentions and actual
can elevate its perceived moral image, which consumers then internalize practices. In addition, brands should remain attentive to the moral
as a justificatory resource when evaluating non-sustainable luxury boundaries of green communication. While moral signals can enhance
products. This extends moral licensing from a self-directed process to an consumer responses, the credibility and consistency of such messages
other-generated form of licensing, highlighting how brand-level ethical are essential for preventing perceptions of manipulation.
cues participate in consumers’ moral reasoning. Second, our findings suggest that moral licensing may be uninten­
Second, we identify an important boundary condition that qualifies tionally, or strategically, used as a psychological lever to stimulate
when such licensing occurs. Study 3 reveal that the effect emerges only consumption. Although virtue-induced consumption may generate
in luxury brand contexts and not for non-luxury brands. This pattern short-term gains, it risks eroding a brand’s moral legitimacy in the long
suggests that luxury brands’ symbolic value, social identity relevance, run. Rather than relying on moral inducement, luxury brands should
and perceived authenticity [13,14] amplify the strength and credibility prioritize sustainability education and emphasize shared responsibility
of their moral signals, making them more likely to be internalized as part between firms and consumers, shifting the focus from eliciting purchase
of consumers’ self-concepts. In contrast, moral cues from ordinary to cultivating responsible consumption norms.
mass-market brands lack the symbolic potency needed to trigger a Finally, the development of sustainable luxury requires a broader
licensing response. This insight refines the theoretical understanding of governance coalition involving consumers, media, and regulators. In­
how signal strength, brand status, and ethical judgment interact within dustry associations and public agencies may promote unified certifica­
moral decision processes. tion systems and disclosure standards, encouraging brands to
In addition, this research contributes to the long-standing debate on substantiate their sustainability narratives with verifiable data. Greater
the conceptual tension between luxury and sustainability and advances transparency not only enhances public trust but also supports the tran­
understanding of the moral dimension of brand image by revealing how sition of luxury brands’ green marketing from symbolic ethics to sub­
moral attributions shape consumers’ responses to inconsistent sustain­ stantive, system-level sustainability practices.
ability practices. Prior studies suggest that luxury products and envi­
ronmental responsibility are often perceived as incompatible [18,4,56]. 7.3. Limitation and future directions
Many scholars argue that introducing sustainable attributes into luxury
goods may dilute perceptions of quality, exclusivity, or prestige, core This study examines how green marketing influences consumers'
markers of luxury consumption [57]. Although emerging work recog­ willingness to purchase non-green luxury goods. However, future
nizes potential points of compatibility, such as durability or timelessness research could address some limitations and broaden the scope of in­
[58], the dominant narrative still frames sustainability as a threat to the quiry. Specifically, this study focuses on a limited set of material luxury
symbolic and experiential value of luxury. goods, which are commonly used in luxury research. While this aligns
Against this backdrop, our findings offer a different perspective. with established paradigms in luxury studies, future research could
Rather than reducing the desirability of luxury offerings, a luxury explore the effects of green marketing on experiential luxury products
brand’s green initiative can elevate consumers’ evaluations of its non- [62,63]. Prior studies suggest that experiential products carry distinct
green products through an enhanced moral image. This demonstrates emotional values compared to material goods, potentially leading to
that sustainability cues can generate a “green halo effect” even in the different consumer responses. Therefore, comparing the impact of green
luxury domain, a pattern typically observed for mass-market or non- marketing on experiential versus material luxury goods could offer
luxury brands. Importantly, this mechanism is distinct from green­ deeper insights into the phenomenon. For instance, future studies could
washing dynamics. Prior literature shows that greenwashing, firms examine whether the moral licensing effect observed in this study per­
strategically using environmental claims to manipulate percep­ sists for experiential goods such as luxury hotels or services.
tions—often triggers consumer skepticism and harms brand trust Moreover, the current operationalization distinguishes green from
[59–61]. In contrast, our Study 4 shows that when consumers perceive non-green products in a binary manner, which, while consistent with
higher green skepticism, the positive spillover disappears, indicating prior experimental paradigms, may oversimplify how consumers
that the effect we observe is contingent on the perceived authenticity of perceive sustainability claims in real marketplaces [54]. Actual luxury
the sustainability signal rather than mere rhetorical persuasion. brand portfolios often include products with varying degrees of envi­
Together, these insights advance theory by showing that (1) sus­ ronmental attributes, category-specific expectations, and nuanced sus­
tainability cues do not inherently undermine luxury value and can even tainability positioning. Future research could adopt a more granular
enhance evaluations of unrelated luxury products when perceived as approach by manipulating levels of greenness (e.g., low, moderate,
authentic; and (2) the ethics-related spillover mechanism differs high), or by incorporating multidimensional sustainability cues to better
fundamentally from greenwashing, reinforcing the importance of cred­ reflect real-world complexity. Such extensions would provide a more
ibility as a boundary condition in luxury sustainability communications. ecologically valid understanding of how consumers evaluate luxury
brands’diverse sustainability offerings.
7.2. Practical implication In addition, beyond laboratory and scenario-based experiments,
future research could incorporate behavioral tracking or field experi­
This research uncovers the dual consequences of luxury brands’ ments to observe consumers’ real-world responses to luxury brands’
green marketing. On the one hand, sustainability cues can enhance sustainability messages [64]. Potential methodological extensions
perceptions of the brand’s moral image, which in turn may psycholog­ include incorporating explicit assessments of moral self-concept,
ically legitimize consumers’ willingness to purchase non-sustainable employing self-concept priming paradigms, using identity-alignment
products from the same brand. On the other hand, when such green measures that capture shifts in perceived brand-self congruence, or

8
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

applying time-series and longitudinal designs to test how moral-image introduced products with design elements aimed at lower-tier markets,
internalization unfolds and stabilizes across repeated exposures. while Dior has launched campaigns targeting more mainstream seg­
Employing longitudinal designs would also allow scholars to examine ments. Although consumers from these markets are not traditionally the
the durability and temporal evolution of the moral licensing effect, of­ primary audience for luxury goods, it would be worthwhile to examine
fering greater ecological validity and insight into how consumers’ moral how such strategies impact the perceptions and sales of high-end luxury
perceptions shift over time. products. Understanding whether these efforts dilute brand equity or
Apart from purchasing behavior, consumers’ evaluations of luxury broaden appeal could offer meaningful insights for luxury brand man­
goods are influenced by perceived values such as product value, brand agers navigating evolving consumer landscapes.
status, brand heritage, conspicuousness, and uniqueness [65,13,66].
The symbolic value of status display remains central to the appeal of Author contributions
luxury brands. Future research could investigate how green marketing
by luxury brands affects consumer perceptions of non-green luxury Chunqu Xiao and Zhijun were responsible for the idea and first draft
products across these dimensions. For instance, it would be valuable to of this research. Jiuling Xiao and Xu Zhang were responsible for data
assess whether green marketing influences consumers' perceived luxury collection and analysis. Qingyi Li contributed to the revision by sup­
or brand exclusivity and how these shifts impact brand image porting data collection and data analysis.
management.
It is also important to recognize that some of the experimental ma­ Funding
terials used in this research, such as crocodile skin, ostrich leather, and
animal fur, may carry varying degrees of ethical sensitivity across cul­ This study was financed by National Social Science Foundation of
tural contexts. In certain societies, the use of exotic or animal-derived China (granted number: 19ZDA362).
materials in luxury goods is considered a status symbol and remains
relatively normalized, whereas in others it may evoke strong moral CRediT authorship contribution statement
concerns related to animal welfare or environmental ethics. These
culturally contingent interpretations may shape how consumers eval­ Zhijun Li: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Formal analysis,
uate both the green product and the non-sustainable product used in our Data curation, Conceptualization. Jiuling Xiao: Supervision, Project
manipulations. Future research should therefore test whether the administration, Investigation. Xu Zhang: Formal analysis, Data cura­
observed effects generalize to cultures with different ethical norms tion. Chunqu Xiao: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Conceptu­
regarding animal-derived luxury goods or employ alternative stimuli alization. Qingyi Li: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review &
that reduce culturally variable moral sensitivities. editing.
More broadly, researchers should consider cross-cultural and
generational differences in consumers’ ethical evaluations of luxury
brands. Cultural norms and age-related value orientations may moder­ Declaration of competing interest
ate how individuals assign moral meaning to green marketing [67].
Comparative studies across different cultural contexts (e.g., individual­ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
istic vs. collectivistic cultures) and generational cohorts (e.g., Millen­ interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
nials vs. Generation Z) would further enhance the generalizability of the the work reported in this paper.
findings and clarify the boundary conditions of moral licensing in luxury
consumption. Acknowledgements
Lastly, future research could move beyond green marketing to
explore other marketing strategies that may appear at odds with the The authors of this work would like to thank the editors who pro­
exclusivity of luxury goods. For example, brands like Balenciaga have vided comments.

Appendix A

Table A1

Table A1
Representative literature on the green marketing of luxury.

Authors Main findings

Achabou, and Dekhili [18] Consumers of luxury goods are mainly concerned with the intrinsic quality of the products, while the socially responsible behavior of the brands is
only a secondary selection criterion, i.e., luxury goods and social responsibility can be in conflict.
Steinhart [42] Luxury goods that make environmental statements and take part in actions to protect the environment will be seen as more useful by consumers.
Janssen et al.[68] Luxury brand awareness, perceived brand consistency, and consumer self-identification are influencing consumers' willingness to purchase
sustainable luxury brands.
Dekhili [4] The inclusion of sustainability information in luxury goods affects consumers' perceptions of the quality of those goods. There are incompatibilities
between luxury goods and environmental attributes.
Pinto et al. [57] If a luxury brand has a strong sense of ethics, it can hurt the brand's image as an elite brand, which can make consumers less loyal to the brand.
Meijers et al. [56] There is a conflict between luxury and environmental protection. Consumers' perception of luxury brands' involvement in environmental protection
depends on their attitudes towards environmental protection.
Athwal et al.[40] Three core themes emerge from this review: (1) consumer concerns and practices; (2) organizational concerns and practices; and (3) international
and cross-cultural issues.
Talukdar and Yu [69] Materialists are more likely to approve of sustainable marketing of luxury goods because this group of consumers is more concerned with the
practical attributes of the product. However, this effect only occurs in the case of private consumption.
(continued on next page)

9
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

Table A1 (continued )
Authors Main findings

Kapferer andMichaut- International comparisons across generations show that millennials are no more sensitive to luxury brand sustainability when purchasing luxury
Denizeau[41] goods than older generations. However, luxury buyers' motivations for sensitivity to luxury brands' sustainability actions vary by generation.
Millennials most often perceive luxury and sustainability as contradictory.
Sun et al. [58] There is potential compatibility between luxury and environmental sustainability. Luxury goods have durable attributes, last longer, and are less
likely to be discarded, so they are relatively less harmful to the environment.
Amatulli et al. [35] When compared to customer service-focused strategies, sustainability-focused brand communication makes people more likely to book high-end
hotels because it makes them think the hotel is more honest.
Carranza et al. [64] Green enablers—such as green identity and perceived readiness—positively impact consumers' attitudes toward green luxury. Green disablers—such
as perceived contradiction, greenwashing, green skepticism, and risk—negatively impact consumers' attitudes toward green luxury. Self-
enhancement and self-transcendence exert a moderating effect between disablers and green luxury attitudes.
Li and Kang[70] Pro-self-orientation can also drive intentions to support sustainable luxury brands when consumers’ personal identity is salient. Salient social
identity can further strengthen the relationship between prosocial orientation and sustainable luxury behavioral intentions.
Osburg et al. [71] Consumers’ quality, emotional, price, and social value perceptions, as well as purchase and electronic word-of-mouth intentions, are consistently
higher in all three emerging markets compared to the developed market.
Joenpolvi et al. [72] Using predominant locomotion, progress-focused language that creates a regulatory fit with circular luxury products would increase consumer
engagement.
Source: authors’ work.

Appendix B. Materials used in studies

B1. Materials used in Study 1

B2. Materials used in Study 2

B3. Materials used in Study 3

10
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

Appendix C. The validity of the experimental materials

C1. Pretest of Study 1

The pretest aimed to ensure that participants perceived the two stimuli in line with the intended manipulation.

a) Rationale for Stimulus Selection

In Study 1, we selected a renewable-nylon handbag as the green luxury stimulus and a crocodile-skin handbag as the non-green luxury stimulus.
This choice was guided by two considerations that align with common practices in luxury product design and consumer perception.
First, renewable or recycled synthetic materials (e.g., renewable nylon) are widely used in contemporary luxury sustainability initiatives. Such
materials are generally viewed by consumers as environmentally friendly, technologically innovative, and consistent with brands’ corporate social
responsibility efforts. Therefore, a renewable-nylon handbag provides a credible and realistic representation of a green luxury product.
Second, exotic leather (e.g., crocodile skin) is a traditional marker of luxury due to its rarity, craftsmanship, and high economic value. At the same
time, it is often associated with environmental and ethical concerns related to biodiversity, animal welfare, and ecological impact. These associations
make crocodile-skin goods a suitable representation of a non-green luxury product, enabling a meaningful contrast with the green stimulus while
keeping product category and luxury positioning constant.

b) Procedure

The study recruited 80 participants from Credamo, a widely used online research platform in China. All of them passed the attention check.
Participants were 65 % female, with an average age of 31.09 years (SD = 8.78). To assess relevance to the luxury consumption context, we collected
additional demographic indicators including monthly income (M = 21,300 RMB), self-reported familiarity with luxury brands (1 = not at all, 7 = very
much; M = 4.69, SD = 1.23), and the number of luxury items purchased in the past two years (M = 2.16, SD = 2.07). These data confirm that the
sample possessed sufficient exposure to luxury consumption to evaluate the experimental stimuli reliably.
After reading the consent form and the instructions, participants were randomly assigned either to the green or non-green condition. All partic­
ipants first read the description “Hosteni is a luxury brand.” In the green marketing condition, they were told, “In order to protect the environment and
be socially responsible, the brand has launched a new handbag made of renewable nylon.” In the non-green condition, they read, “The brand has
launched a new handbag made of nylon.” Participants then viewed an identical product image across both conditions, with only the sustainability
information differing.
To verify that participants perceived the intended sustainability manipulation, they rated the perceived environmental friendliness of the first
product using three items adapted from prior sustainability research [54] (“This product is environmentally friendly,” “This product is sustainable,”
“This product is green”; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Cronbach’s α = 0.93).
Next, all participants were shown a second product from the same brand, a handbag made of crocodile skin, and evaluated it using the same three
perceived sustainability items (Cronbach’s α = 0.93).
To ensure that the two products did not inadvertently differ along other luxury-related attributes, participants rated their perceptions of the
brand’s quality, price, durability, exclusivity, scarcity, uniqueness, use of precious materials, and overall luxury perception (“luxury,” “high-end,” and
“prestigious”) on 7-point scales (Cronbach’s α = 73).
Finally, participants completed demographic questions (age, gender, education level, monthly income) and reported their familiarity with luxury
goods and the number of luxury items purchased in the past two years.

11
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

c) Manipulation checks

Perceived Sustainability of the first Green vs. Non-Green Product: Participants in the green condition perceived the renewable-nylon handbag as
significantly more sustainable (Mgreen = 6.02, SD = 0.72) than participants in the non-green condition (Mnon-green = 4.87, SD = 1.45), t(78) = 4.48, p <
.001, Cohen's d = 1.15. This confirms the effectiveness of the sustainability manipulation.
Perceived Sustainability of the Second Product: Perceived sustainability of the crocodile-skin handbag did not differ between conditions (Mgreen =
2.34, Mnon-green = 2.60, t(78) = − 0.75, p = 0.46, ns), indicating that the manipulation did not unintentionally alter perceptions of the focal product.
Luxury-Related Attributes: A series of t-tests revealed no significant differences between conditions on perceived luxuriousness(Mgreen = 5.80,
Mnon-green = 5.55, t(78) = 1.42, p = 0.16, ns), quality (Mgreen = 5.20, Mnon-green = 5.15, t(78) = 0.22, p = 0.84, ns), price (Mgreen = 6.08, Mnon-green =
5.93, t(78) = 0.77, p = 0.44, ns), durability (Mgreen = 5.40, Mnon-green = 5.30, t(78) = 0.40, p = 0.68, ns), scarcity (Mgreen = 5.03, Mnon-green = 5.10, t
(78) = − 0.29, p = 0.78, ns), uniqueness (Mgreen = 5.43, Mnon-green = 5.35, t(78) = 0.32, p = 0.76, ns). This suggests that the two conditions differed
only in perceived sustainability and not in perceived luxury level, addressing potential confounds involving price or product category.

d) Summary

The test confirmed that:(1) The green vs. non-green manipulation operated as intended.(2)The focal non-green luxury product was perceived
equivalently across conditions.(3)The green cue altered sustainability perception without affecting luxury-related attributes. These findings validate
the stimulus set used in Study 1 and rule out alternative explanations related to category, perceived luxury, or product quality differences.
[Link] of Study 2
The pretest aimed to ensure that participants perceived the two stimuli in line with the intended manipulation.

a) Procedure, stimuli, and, measures

The study recruited 80 participants from Credamo, a widely used online research platform in China. Two of them didn't pass the attention check
and left the 78 sample. Participants were 63.7 % female, with an average age of 30.37 years (SD = 7.37). To assess relevance to the luxury con­
sumption context, we collected additional demographic indicators including monthly income (M = 21,300 RMB), self-reported familiarity with luxury
brands (1 = not at all, 7 = very much; M = 4.91, SD = 1.23), and the number of luxury items purchased in the past two years (M = 2.30, SD = 2.94).
These data confirm that the sample possessed sufficient exposure to luxury consumption to evaluate the experimental stimuli reliably.
To enhance the diversity of product categories and to demonstrate the replicability of the green-non-green contrast across different luxury ma­
terials, Study 2 employed a new pair of stimuli: a cashmere scarf and an ostrich-leather accessory. Cashmere has recently been discussed as a
renewable but environmentally sensitive material due to concerns about land degradation and ecological impact, whereas ostrich leather is widely
recognized as a high-end yet ethically controversial material associated with animal-welfare concerns. This contrast allowed us to operationalize green
and non-green luxury choices while keeping the brand category and perceived luxury level consistent.
Except for the change in stimuli, this pretest followed the same procedure and used the same measures as in test C1. Participants first evaluated the
perceived sustainability of the cashmere product and the ostrich-leather product (three 7-point items assessing environmental friendliness, sustain­
ability, and greenness, Cronbach’s α = 0.90 and 0.91). They then rated the brand on perceived quality, price, durability, exclusivity, scarcity,
uniqueness, use of precious materials, and overall luxury perception (Cronbach’s α = 0.63), followed by demographic questions and luxury familiarity
measures.

b) Manipulation checks

Perceived Sustainability of the first Green vs. Non-Green Product: Participants in the green condition perceived the renewable-nylon handbag as
significantly more sustainable (Mgreen = 6.10, SD = 0.58) than participants in the non-green condition (Mnon-green = 5.18, SD = 1.35), t(76) = 3.90, p <
.001, Cohen's d = 1.04. This confirms the effectiveness of the sustainability manipulation.
Perceived Sustainability of the Second Product: Perceived sustainability of the crocodile-skin handbag did not differ between conditions (Mgreen =
2.48, SD = 1.29; Mnon-green = 2.77, SD = 1.60, t(76) = − 0.88, p = 0.38, ns), indicating that the manipulation did not unintentionally alter perceptions of
the focal product.
Luxury-Related Attributes: A series of t-tests revealed no significant differences between conditions on perceived luxuriousness (Mgreen = 5.80,
Mnon-green = 5.55, t(76) = 1.42, p = 0.10, ns), perceived quality (Mgreen = 5.36, Mnon-green = 5.59, t(76) = − 1.07, p = 0.29, ns), price (Mgreen = 5.90, Mnon-
green = 6.23, t(76) = − 1.33, p = 1.87, ns), durability (Mgreen = 5.38, Mnon-green = 5.54, t(76) = − 0.62, p = 0.54, ns), uniqueness (Mgreen = 5.46, Mnon-green
= 5.38, t(76) = 0.36, p = 0.72, ns). This suggests that the two conditions differed only in perceived sustainability and not in perceived luxury level,
addressing potential confounds involving price or product category.

c) Summary

The pretest results confirmed that the materials selected for Study 2 successfully captured the intended distinction between a sustainable
(cashmere) and a non-sustainable (ostrich leather) luxury product, while keeping perceived luxury attributes constant across conditions. These
findings support the validity of the stimulus set and provide a solid foundation for the main experiment.

Appendix D. Scales used in the research

Source Variable Items

Vigneron & Johnson [73] Perception of luxuriousness The extent to which you thought the brand is a luxury brand
Xu & Mehta [52], The extent to which you thought the brand is a high-end brand
(continued on next page)

12
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

(continued )
Source Variable Items

The extent to which you thought the brand is a symbol of prestige

Grohmann & Bodur [74] Purchase intention I would like to buy this product.
I like this product.
This product is attractive to me
Brunk [2] Brand moral image I believe this brand is ethical.
I believe this brand is socially responsible.
I believe this brand is socially conscious.
I believe this brand is environmentally responsible.
Park et al. [54] Perception of product sustainability This product is environmentally friendly
This product is green
This product is sustainable
Skarmeas & Leonidou [46] Consumer green skepticism It is doubtless/doubtful that this is a socially responsible brand.
Leonidou & Skarmeas [45] It is certain that this retailer is concerned to improve the well-being of society
It is sure that this retailer follows high ethical standards
It is unquestionable/questionable that this retailer acts in a socially responsible way.

Data availability [20] I.A. Davies, Z. Lee, I. Ahonkhai, Do consumers care about ethical-luxury? J. Bus.
Ethics 106 (1) (2012) 37–51, [Link]
[21] R.M. Dangelico, D. Vocalelli, “Green marketing”: an analysis of definitions,
Data will be made available on request. strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature, J. Clean.
Prod. 165 (2017) 1263–1279, [Link]
[22] T.P. Lyon, A.W. Montgomery, The means and end of greenwash, Organ. Environ.
References
28 (2) (2015) 223–249, [Link]
[23] S.V. de Freitas Netto, M.F.F. Sobral, A.R.B. Ribeiro, et al., Concepts and forms of
[1] Forbes, Eco-chic: can high-end brands balance indulgence and responsibility? greenwashing: a systematic review, Environ. Sci. Eur. 32 (2020) 19, [Link]
Forbes (2024). [Link] org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3.
4/09/26/eco-chic-can-high-end-brands-balance-indulgence-and-responsibility/. [24] Y.S. Chen, The drivers of green brand equity: green brand image, green
[2] K.H. Brunk, Un/ethical company and brand perceptions: conceptualising and satisfaction, and green trust, J. Bus. ethics 93 (2) (2010) 307–319, [Link]
operationalising consumer meanings, J. Bus. Ethics 111 (4) (2012) 551–565, 10.1007/s10551-009-0223-9.
[Link] [25] Y.S. Chen, C.H. Chang, Greenwash and green trust: the mediation effects of green
[3] O. Iglesias, S. Markovic, J.J. Singh, V. Sierra, Do customer perceptions of corporate consumer confusion and green perceived risk, J. Bus. Ethics 114 (3) (2013)
services brand ethicality improve brand equity? Considering the roles of brand 489–500, [Link]
heritage, brand image, and recognition benefits, J. Bus. Ethics 154 (2) (2019) [26] L.A. Mohr, D. Eroǧlu, P.S. Ellen, The development and testing of a measure of
441–459, [Link] skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers' communications, J. consum.
[4] S. Dekhili, M.A. Achabou, F. Alharbi, Could sustainability improve the promotion aff. 32 (1) (1998) 30–55, [Link]
of luxury products? Eur. Bus. Rev. 31 (4) (2019) 488–511, [Link] [27] C. Amatulli, M. De Angelis, C. Donato, The atypicality of sustainable luxury
10.1108/EBR-04-2018-0083. products, Psychol. Mark. 38 (11) (2021) 1990–2005, [Link]
[5] M. De Angelis, F. Adıgüzel, C. Amatulli, The role of design similarity in consumers’ mar.21559.
evaluation of new green products: an investigation of luxury fashion brands, [28] J. Cascio, E.A. Plant, Prospective moral licensing: does anticipating doing good
J. Clean. Prod. 141 (2017) 1515–1527, [Link] later allow you to be bad now? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 56 (2015) 110–116, https://
jclepro.2016.09.230. [Link]/10.1016/[Link].2014.09.009.
[6] A. Gustafsson, M.D. Johnson, Research: how to position a luxury brand as [29] G. Cornelissen, M.R. Bashshur, J. Rode, M. Le Menestrel, Rules or consequences?
sustainable, Harv. Bus. Rev. (2021). [Link] The role of ethical mind-sets in moral dynamics, Psychol. Sci. 24 (4) (2013)
sition-a-luxury-brand-as-sustainable. 482–488, [Link]
[7] U. Khan, R. Dhar, Licensing effect in consumer choice, J. Mark. Res. 43 (2) (2006) [30] R. Ferguson, L. Kaufmann, A. Brown, Piedad de la, X. Garcia, Influences of past
259–266, [Link] moral behavior on future behavior: a review of sequential moral behavior studies
[8] A.C. Merritt, D.A. Effron, B. Monin, Moral self-licensing: when being good frees us using meta-analytic techniques, Psychol. Bull. 150 (6) (2024) 694–726, https://
to be bad, Soc Pers. Psychol Compass 4 (5) (2010) 344–357, [Link] [Link]/10.1037/bul0000441.
10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x. [31] I. Blanken, N. van de Ven, M. Zeelenberg, A meta-analytic review of moral
[9] L. Geng, X. Cheng, Z. Tang, K. Zhou, L. Ye, Can previous pro-environmental licensing, Pers, Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41 (4) (2015) 540–558, [Link]
behaviours influence subsequent environmental behaviours? The licensing effect of 10.1177/0146167215572134.
pro-environmental behaviours, J. Pac. Rim Psychol. 10 (2016) 1–9, [Link] [32] P. Simbrunner, B.B. Schlegelmilch, Moral licensing: a culture-moderated meta-
org/10.1017/prp.2016.6. analysis, Manag. Rev. Q. 67 (4) (2017) 201–225, [Link]
[10] N. Mazar, C.B. Zhong, Do green products make us better people? Psychol. Sci. 21 017-0128-0.
(4) (2010) 494–498, [Link] [33] S. Sachdeva, R. Iliev, D.L. Medin, Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of
[11] J.N. Kapferer, The future of luxury: challenges and opportunities, J. Brand Manag. moral self-regulation, Psychol. Sci. 20 (4) (2009) 523–528, [Link]
21 (9) (2014) 716–726, [Link] 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x.
[12] F. Vigneron, L.W. Johnson, A review and a conceptual framework of prestige- [34] J. Urban, Š. Bahník, M.B. Kohlová, Green consumption does not make people
seeking consumer behavior, Acad. mark. sci. rev. 1 (1) (1999) 1–15. cheat: Three attempts to replicate moral licensing effect due to pro-environmental
[13] Y.J. Han, J.C. Nunes, X. Drèze, Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand behavior, J. Environ. Psychol. 63 (2019) 139–147, [Link]
prominence, J. Mark. 74 (4) (2010) 15–30, [Link] jenvp.2019.01.011.
jmkg.74.4.015. [35] C. Amatulli, M. De Angelis, A. Stoppani, The appeal of sustainability in luxury
[14] K.P. Wiedmann, N. Hennigs, A. Siebels, Value-based segmentation of luxury hospitality: an investigation on the role of perceived integrity, Tour. Manag. 83
consumption behavior, Psychol. Mark. 26 (7) (2009) 625–651, [Link] (2021) 104228, [Link]
10.1002/mar.20292. [36] R.E. Niisbett, T.D. Wilson, The halo effect: evidence for unconscious alteration of
[15] P. Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Harvard judgments, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35 (4) (1977) 250–256, [Link]
University Press, 1984. 0022-3514.35.4.250.
[16] A. Joy, J.F. Sherry Jr., A. Venkatesh, J. Wang, R. Chan, Fast fashion, sustainability, [37] C. Schamp, M. Heitmann, R. Katzenstein, Consideration of ethical attributes along
and the ethical appeal of luxury brands, Fash. Theory 16 (3) (2012) 273–295, the consumer decision-making journey, J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 47 (2019) 328–348,
[Link] [Link]
[17] J.N. Kapferer, All that glitters is not green: the challenge of sustainable luxury, Eur. [38] J.L. Aaker, The malleable self: the role of self-expression in persuasion, J. Mark.
Bus. Rev. 22 (4) (2010) 40–45. Res. 36 (1) (1999) 45–57, [Link]
[18] M.A. Achabou, S. Dekhili, Luxury and sustainable development: is there a match? [39] J.E. Escalas, J.R. Bettman, You are what they eat: the influence of reference groups
J. Bus. Res. 66 (10) (2013) 1896–1903, [Link] on consumers’ connections to brands, J. Consum. Psychol. 13 (3) (2003) 339–348,
jbusres.2013.02.011. [Link]
[19] V. Griskevicius, J.M. Tybur, B. Van den Bergh, Going green to be seen: Status, [40] N. Athwal, V.K. Wells, M. Carrigan, C.E. Henninger, Sustainable luxury marketing:
reputation, and conspicuous conservation, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98 (3) (2010) A synthesis and research agenda, Int. J. Manag. Rev. 21 (4) (2019) 405–426,
392–404, [Link] [Link]

13
Z. Li et al. Sustainable Futures 11 (2026) 101655

[41] J.N. Kapferer, A. Michaut-Denizeau, Are millennials really more sensitive to [58] J.J. Sun, S. Bellezza, N. Paharia, Buy less, buy luxury: understanding and
sustainable luxury? A cross-generational international comparison of sustainability overcoming product durability neglect for sustainable consumption, J. Mark. 85
consciousness when buying luxury, J. Brand Manag. 27 (2020) 35–47, [Link] (3) (2021) 28–43, [Link]
org/10.1057/s41262-019-00165-7. [59] J. Adamkiewicz, E. Kochańska, I. Adamkiewicz, R.M. Łukasik, Greenwashing and
[42] Y. Steinhart, O. Ayalon, H. Puterman, The effect of an environmental claim on sustainable fashion industry, Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 38 (2022) 100710,
consumers' perceptions about luxury and utilitarian products, J. Clean. Prod. 53 [Link]
(2013) 277–286, [Link] [60] X. Du, How the market values greenwashing? Evidence from China, J. Bus. Ethics
[43] M. Vock, Luxurious and responsible? Consumer perceptions of corporate social 128 (3) (2015) 547–574, [Link]
responsibility efforts by luxury versus mass-market brands, J. Brand Manag. 29 (6) [61] S. Szabo, J. Webster, Perceived greenwashing: the effects of green marketing on
(2022) 569, [Link] environmental and product perceptions, J. Bus. Ethics 171 (4) (2021) 719–739,
[44] M.A. Delmas, V.C. Burbano, The drivers of greenwashing, Calif Manage Rev 54 (1) [Link]
(2011) 64–87, [Link] [62] N. Peng, A. Chen, Luxury hotels going green: the antecedents and consequences of
[45] C.N. Leonidou, D. Skarmeas, Gray shades of green: causes and consequences of consumer hesitation, J. Sustain. Tour. 27 (9) (2019) 1374–1392, [Link]
green skepticism, J. Bus. Ethics 144 (2) (2017) 401–415, [Link] 10.1080/09669582.2019.1622710.
s10551-015-2829-4. [63] M.S. Rosenbaum, I.A. Wong, Green marketing programs as strategic initiatives in
[46] D. Skarmeas, C.N. Leonidou, When consumers doubt, watch out! the role of CSR hospitality, J. Serv. Mark. 29 (2) (2015) 81–92, [Link]
skepticism, J. Bus. Res. 66 (10) (2013) 1831–1838, [Link] 2013-0167.
jbusres.2013.02.004. [64] R. Carranza, L. Zollo, E. Díaz, M. Faraoni, Solving the luxury fashion and
[47] R. Guo, W. Zhang, T. Wang, C.B. Li, L. Tao, Timely or considered? Brand trust sustainable development “oxymoron”: a cross-cultural analysis of green luxury
repair strategies and mechanism after greenwashing in China—From a legitimacy consumption enablers and disablers, Bus. Strategy Environ. 32 (4) (2023)
perspective, Ind. Mark. Manag. 72 (2018) 127–137, [Link] 2399–2419, [Link]
indmarman.2018.04.001. [65] D. Dion, S. Borraz, Managing heritage brands: a study of the sacralization of
[48] G. Nyilasy, H. Gangadharbatla, A. Paladino, Perceived greenwashing: the heritage stores in the luxury industry, J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 22 (2015) 77–84,
interactive effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance [Link]
on consumer reactions, J. bus. ethics 125 (4) (2014) 693–707, [Link] [66] S. Lee, H. Baumgartner, K.P. Winterich, Did they earn it? Observing unearned
10.1007/s10551-013-1944-3. luxury consumption decreases brand attitude when observers value fairness,
[49] M.D. De Jong, K.M. Harkink, S. Barth, Making green stuff? Effects of corporate J. Consum. Psychol. 28 (3) (2018) 412–436, [Link]
greenwashing on consumers, J. Bus. Tech. Commun. 32 (1) (2018) 77–112, [67] B. Frank-Martin, K.J. Peattie, Sustainability marketing: a Global Perspective,
[Link] Wiley, 2009.
[50] E.H. Kim, T.P. Lyon, Greenwash vs. brownwash: exaggeration and undue modesty [68] C. Janssen, J. Vanhamme, S. Leblanc, Should luxury brands say it out loud? Brand
in corporate sustainability disclosure, Organ. Sci. 26 (3) (2015) 705–723, https:// conspicuousness and consumer perceptions of responsible luxury, J. Bus. Res. 77
[Link]/10.1287/orsc.2014.0949. (2017) 167–174, [Link]
[51] G. Schuitema, J.I. De Groot, Green consumerism: The influence of product [69] N. Talukdar, S. Yu, Do materialists care about sustainable luxury? Mark. Intell.
attributes and values on purchasing intentions, J. Consum. Behav. 14 (1) (2015) Plan. 38 (4) (2020) 465–478, [Link]
57–69, [Link] [70] J. Li, J. Kang, Sustainable luxury brands: the moderating effects of salient identity-
[52] L. Xu, R. Mehta, Technology devalues luxury? Exploring consumer responses to AI- based goals, J. Prod. Brand Manag. 33 (2) (2024) 273–286, [Link]
designed luxury products, J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 50 (6) (2022) 1135–1152, https:// 10.1108/JPBM-04-2023-4452.
[Link]/10.1007/s11747-022-00854-x. [71] V.S. Osburg, V. Yoganathan, F. Bartsch, et al., How sustainable luxury influences
[53] A.F. Hayes, Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process product value perceptions and behavioral intentions: A comparative study of
Analysis: A regression-Based Approach, Guilford Publications, 2017. emerging vs. developed markets, J. Bus. Ethics 191 (2024) 713–738, [Link]
[54] J. Park, H.J. Eom, C. Spence, The effect of perceived scarcity on strengthening the org/10.1007/s10551-024-05661-8.
attitude–behavior relation for sustainable luxury products, J. Prod. Brand Manag. [72] E. Joenpolvi, G. Mortimer, F. Mathmann, Driving consumer engagement for
31 (3) (2022) 469–483, [Link] circular luxury products: Two large field studies on the role of regulatory mode
[55] X. Zhou, C. Xiao, S. Yoon, H. Zhu, The color of status: color saturation, brand language, J. Consum. Behav. 24 (2) (2025) 886–905, [Link]
heritage, and perceived status of luxury brands, J. Consum. Res. (2025) ucaf029, cb.2448.
[Link] [73] F. Vigneron, L.W. Johnson, Measuring perceptions of brand luxury, in: J.
[56] M.H. Meijers, M.K. Noordewier, P.W. Verlegh, W. Willems, E.G. Smit, Paradoxical N. Kapferer, J. Kernstock, T. Brexendorf, S. Powell (Eds.), Advances in Luxury
side effects of green advertising: how purchasing green products may instigate Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2017, [Link]
licensing effects for consumers with a weak environmental identity, Int. J. Advert. 978-3-319-51127-6_10.
38 (8) (2019) 1202–1223, [Link] [74] B. Grohmann, H.O. Bodur, Brand social responsibility: conceptualization,
[57] D.C. Pinto, M.M. Herter, D. Gonçalves, E. Sayin, Can luxury brands be ethical? measurement, and outcomes, J. Bus. Ethics 131 (2015) 375–399, [Link]
Reducing the sophistication liability of luxury brands, J. Clean. Prod. 233 (2019) 10.1007/s10551-014-2279-4.
1366–1376, [Link]

14