Multidimensional green brand equity: A cross-cultural scale development and validation study

Abstract

A plethora of studies indicate that brand equity is an intangible asset that played a vital role in increasing overall performance and customer preferences. The next logical questions would be the following: “How can a firm offer eco-friendly brands?” and “How can one measure green brand equity?” The purpose of this research is to propose an original, unique, and validated scale to measure multidimensional green brand equity for both products and services in a cross-cultural context. This study used a multistep scale development research design, and collected data from 980 consumers of telecommunication and home appliances industries in Pakistan and Italy. The six-dimensional green brand equity scale consists of social influence, sustainability, perceived quality, brand awareness, brand association, and brand leadership. As the green brand equity scale was invariant across Pakistan and Italy, researchers can test this scale both conceptually in the research and theoretically in the corporate environment.

Keywords

cross-culture green brand equity Italy multidimensional scale Pakistan scale development sustainability

Introduction

The society is witnessing significant and steady environmental issues due to the large volume of environmental effluence caused by different marketers. Consumers face the fierce competition between traditional products and their environment-friendly counterparts as an increasing number of companies offer eco-friendly products/services. Ishaq and Di Maria (2020) explained the importance of greening as a prosperity or even survival option for some businesses. From consumers’ point of view, the term “greening” indicates an action that mitigates negative effects on the environment, such as eco-purchasing (Ishaq, 2018). Haws et al. (2014) define green consumption as the propensity to explain the significance of environmental protection through purchasing eco-friendly products/services. Green consumption comprises of consumers’ routine actions to reduce purchasing and decreasing consumption of less polluted products and services. On the contrary, sustainable consumption is a consumer act of purchasing, consuming, and disposing the goods that are related to environmental and social welfare. Companies are starting to acknowledge the current business potential in “going green” (Raska & Shaw, 2012) to obtain a competitive advantage (Ishaq et al., 2014). However, businesses’ operations remain focused on short-term profits and self-centered approaches at the expense of communities’ well-being (Porter & Kramer, 2011), thereby earning the dissatisfaction of different stakeholders, such as communities, supply chain partners, employees, and customers. Many countries are reaping enormous economic benefits from globalization, such as fuel for innovation; creation of jobs; fulfillment of customer needs; and development of trade, infrastructure, and economies. For instance, KPMG is exclusively focusing on environmental issues, such as the Global Green Initiative, while Walmart is constantly pressuring Procter & Gamble, General Electric, and other suppliers to produce eco-friendly products (Rosenbloom & Barbaro, 2009). But some organizations are losing their corporate reputation due to environmental incident like Takata airbags that were used by 19 automakers in the United States were eventually recalled due to issues in the airbags’ inflator that may cause severe injury, explosion, and even death.

Green practices are drawing the undivided attention of firms in taking care of the environment; they have led to the establishment of the Sustainability Consortium to support environment-related proposals and provide useful information (Kumar and Christodoulopoulou, 2014). Moreover, MIT Sloan Management Review publishes articles and news specifically on sustainability. Many renowned companies, such as Nokia, Caterpillar, Johnson & Johnson, Starbucks, Patagonia, Cisco, Hewlett Packard, Gap, and Interface, are actively participating in eco-friendly practices (Sheth et al., 2011). There are five potential strategies to going green: increasing product value, pursuing new markets, enhancing the corporate image, developing a competitive advantage, and complying with environmental rules (Chen, 2010). The sale of eco-friendly products has been increasing significant because of the rise of environmentalism, and consumers are ready to pay higher prices. Honda, Toyota, and General Motors are best examples of firms that are exploiting this opportunity effectively and charging consumers premium prices (Oliver & Lee, 2010; Royne et al., 2011). Hence, this research argues that implementing green marketing strategies may improve companies’ intangible brand equity.

Keller (1993) defines brand equity as “an added value of a brand that forms part of a product created in the minds of consumers in response to past investments in the marketing of the brand.” Consumer-based brand equity (CBBE), a multifaceted concept, is the starting point for measuring brand equity through several interlinked dimensions, such as brand loyalty, brand association, perceived quality, and brand awareness (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2016). A strategic objective of marketing research is to ascertain how CBBE impacts consumer buying behavior (Ishaq et al., 2014). The previous literature uses ad hoc methods to measure brand equity, for example, accounting-based values, equalization prices, incremental cash flows, scanner-based measures, collection of customer-based measures, conjoint analysis, future earnings and price premium. However, these measurement mechanisms are not easily understood and developed without rigorous psychometric tests.

Given the significant role of branding in consumer buying behavior, the next plausible questions are how firms offer eco-friendly brands and how they measure green brand equity. Surprisingly, the literature does not have any multidimensional scale for measuring green brand equity. A few authors such as Chen (2010), Kang and Hur (2012) and Ng et al. (2014) measured green brand equity using unidimensional scales, but other researchers state that brand equity cannot be measured with a single dimension (Buil et al., 2008; Ishaq & Di Maria, 2020; Ishaq et al., 2014; Yoo & Donthu, 2001) due to a lack of conceptual soundness and rigorous methodology. The main objective of the current research is to create a parsimonious, valid and reliable multidimensional green CBBE construct with rigorous psychometric properties. This study also assesses the generalizability of this scale in two distinctive cultures: Italy and Pakistan. The second contribution of this scale is its generalizability to both the product and the service industries, which the traditional scale of brand equity cannot do. Last, this scale is simultaneously applicable to both individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Previously, Vázquez et al. (2002) proposed a four-dimensional construct of brand equity with a 22-item scale about the sports shoe industry of Spain. However, Kocak et al. (2007) replicated this study in the Turkish context and found that only 16 items in the scale are valid.

Multidimensional green brand equity: an overlooked matter

Researchers have found a significant progression in branding concepts (Ishaq et al., 2014; Kapferer, 2012) that provides an approach to differentiating firms’ offers, influences buying behavior, stipulates functional benefits, and establishes strong customer relationships (Çifci et al., 2016; Schau et al., 2009). Brands are best evaluated through brand equity, which consists of a brand’s liabilities and assets; a brand’s symbol and name are associated either positively or negatively with the value offered by the firm to its customers (Christodoulides & De Chernatony, 2010; Hasni et al., 2018). Keller (1993) defines brand equity as a differential effect of consumers’ brand knowledge on a brand’s marketing strategies. Aaker (1991) explains brand equity as a set of assets and liabilities linked with a brand’s emblem/logo, term, or name; it may denigrate or enrich the brand value of a product or service offered by a company. Following Keller (1993) and Aaker (1996), this study defines green brand equity as a set of brand assets and liabilities about environmental, social, and economic concerns and eco-friendly commitments that are connected to a brand and boost or decline the value offered by the brand’s product or service.

Kapferer (2012) claims that brands are valuable assets for companies; hence, understanding and learning how to measure and build a strong brand equity has a substantial influence. Many researchers offered various brand equity scales with complex statistical and methodological procedures (Park & Srinivasan, 1994). By contrast, the present study focuses on the consumer-based perspective because it acts as a driving force of brand profitability and increased market share. Researchers have proposed two broad categorizations to measure CBBE, namely, direct approaches, which are used to measure brand equity through utilities and consumers’ preferences (Srinivasan et al., 2005), and the indirect method, which measures brand equity through its dimensions (Ishaq et al., 2014; Keller & Brexendorf, 2019).

Since the last decade, we have experienced noteworthy ethical endorsements on greening, sustainability, ethical branding and social responsibility (e.g., Gupta & Kumar, 2013). Concerning environmental issues that afflict the world, consumers are enthusiastically looking for green products to make their valuable contribution to world’s health (Ishaq & Di Maria, 2020; Jones et al., 2016). Therefore, the greening concept is challenging for businesses (Hartmann & Ibanez, 2006), and companies are trying to incorporate it in their strategy formations (Kang & Hur, 2012). The researchers also tried to find out the consumer buying behavior for eco-friendly products and found strong associations among them (Lai et al., 2010).

There are empirical (see Kucukusta et al., 2013; Namkung & Jang, 2013) and theoretical papers (Davcik et al., 2015; Ishaq & Di Maria, 2020; Kumar & Christodoulopoulou, 2014) that related to greening paradigm with brand management but no study is undertaken to link green initiatives as brand equity’s dimension. This study fills the gap by offering modified brand equity theory that will help in measuring the performance of eco-friendly product which provides green value and functional and emotional benefits to the consumers. A brand which differentiates itself, delivers meaningfulness, and provides value to the consumers is always enjoyed strong brand equity (Székely & Knirsch, 2005). Another contribution of green brand equity is an incremental contribution that a brand offered to its consumers as compared to other products and delivers brand credibility in the market during uncertainty and crisis.

Scale development process

In social sciences, two long-standing approaches are available to understand cultural differences: the emic approach and etic approach (Morris et al., 1999). An etic approach is the approach of the observer. The researchers used this approach to prevent any alteration in the culture in which they are conducting research by direct interaction. An emic approach is an insider approach where researcher studied the intrinsic cultural of a given society or group. Researchers usually take an emic approach for scale development while taking respondents from one culture and then replicated in other cultures (Durvasula et al., 1993), whereas this study used an etic approach where respondents were selected from two cultures simultaneously to test scale’s reliability and validity. The scale designed through etic approach is metrically, linguistically, conceptually, and functionally equivalent in cross-cultures that provide the basis for comparison (Berry, 1980).

The data was collected from Italian and Pakistani consumers because both countries have an adequate level of cultural and economic differences. They are distinctive and epitomized at a different level of Hofstede’s cultural study. The most important and relied dimension for cross-cultural studies is collectivism-individualism (Seock & Lin, 2011), that accounted for 52% in research (Engelen & Brettel, 2011). In collectivism-individualism dimension, Pakistani culture is based on closed and long-term commitment with groups in the form of extended relationships and extended family or immediate family members. This behavior has a paramount significance which usually overrides some regulations, societal norms, and rules. On the contrary, Italian scored high on individualistic scale, and they believed in personal objectives and in personal fulfillment and happiness. In economic development angle, Pakistan is considered as “emerging economy,” whereas the Italian economy is taken as developed.

Study 1_A—items generation

Since there is no multidimensional scale available on green brand equity, a multistep process is carefully and thoroughly used to develop green brand equity scale based on the recommendations of Churchill (1979) and Bagozzi et al. (1991). This study includes preliminary measuring statements from previous studies (Buil et al., 2008; Netemeyer et al., 2004; Yoo & Donthu, 2001). The exploratory survey was used to collect the qualitative data from 90 consumers conveniently (45 participants each from Pakistan and Italy) about their perceptions of “green branding” during March 2016 in Italy and May 2016 in Pakistan. The participants provided answers to an open-ended question: “In 8–10 words, please enlighten what comes in your mind when you imagine about a green (eco-friendly) brand.” Numerous scholars (Burnett & Dunne, 1986) argued that the sample used in scale development study might threaten the generalizability and external validity because of unique population characteristics and non-representativeness. In spite of this, Hofstede (1991) argued that maximally homogeneous samples in the cross-culture study are useful as compared to representative ones because they reduced the confounding impact of additional factors and provided accurate theoretical predictions. This data was analyzed to generate pool items through coordination with six academicians to reduce researchers’ perceptual distortion. With the help of exploratory study and previous literature, an enlarged 48-item pool was formed. To remove unrelated items, a focus group discussion was conducted during July and August 2016 that resulted in 41 items.

Study 1_B—exploratory factor analysis

As Fabrigar and Wegener (2011) propose, exploratory factor analysis was performed to explore the factors of multidimensional green brand equity scale. To establish reliability and standard validity, the data was collected conveniently from 380 consumers via equal representation from both countries (i.e., 95 consumers each from product and service category) during September—November 2016. In this phase, two psychometric tests were applied to collected data from both samples. In the first stage, six highly intercorrelated items were deleted. The correlation sufficiency was tested with Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and it concluded that all items were significantly correlated at 0.001 level when collectively analyzed. The second stage was to run an exploratory factor analysis to remove unrelated items. The principal component factor analysis runs with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The results showed six distinctive factors that explained the 80.421% variance. In addition, the current factorial structure did not change after the deletion of four double-barreled questions. These tests provided 31-item scale to measure multidimensional green brand equity with six dimensions: social influence (5 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.72), sustainability (5 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.79), perceived quality (6 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.81), brand awareness (6 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.78), brand association (4 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.72), and brand leadership (5 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.75).

The six-dimensional construct of green brand equity is defined as follows:

Social influence—defined as quality and quantity given to the consumers to promote repurchase intentions (Homburg et al., 2010). Kelman (1974) identified three social processes of social influence theory: internalization, identification, and compliance. Internalization indicated that a consumer accepts the influence of congruent group members (Dholakia et al., 2004); identification reflected the consumer’s sense of attachment and belongingness (Shen et al., 2010); and compliance specified individual actions to confirm the opinion of important people in his or her life.

Brand leadership—consisted of two standpoints (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2012). First, building a brand leader that involved consideration of intangible and tangible aspects such as perceived reliability, quality associations, product performance, country of origin, and firm reputation among consumers. Second, brand success that occurred when an organization reinforced its brand meaning through delivery and consistent imagery.

Brand associations—defined as anything associated with the brand which can originate from various sources on its uniqueness, strength, and favorability (Aaker, 1991).

Brand awareness—related to the buyer’s recall or recognition of a specific brand within a product category (Aaker, 1991).

Perceived quality—referred to as the consumer’s evaluation of the product’s/service’s overall superiority or excellence. It is a subjective evaluation of consumers about the product, rather than objective quality, based on their perceptions (Zeithaml, 1988).

Sustainability—explained through three dimensions, that is, social, environmental, and economic dimensions. The social dimension relates with social responsibility activities of the company (Peloza & Shang, 2011), environmental links with greening expectations (10) while economic associates with financial position (Székely & Knirsch, 2005). This study incorporates all three dimensions to measure sustainability aspect of green brand equity.

Study 1_C—confirmatory factor analysis

In cross-cultural research, biased information can lead to erroneous outcomes. Therefore, the equivalence of cross-cultural data is considered a serious concern (Craig & Douglas, 2000). There are two prominent systematic approaches to overcome these equivalence issues: (1) first is to oversee the issues before the data collection and (2) put special emphases during data interpretation. As the basic objective of this article is to develop green brand equity scale in two cultures, we equally emphasize on both approaches.

In the first phase, particular attention was given to the construct equivalence that has three methodological approaches (Craig & Douglas, 2000). First, the category equivalence which referred to whether the classification of stimuli or object can employ in different countries. Second, the conceptual equivalence which described as whether the same object, stimuli and constructs expressed in same fashion. Third, the functional equivalence which indicated whether the object, stimuli, and constructs have the same function. For conceptual and functional equivalence, the six-dimensional green brand equity concept and its interpretation were appropriate in both Italy and Pakistan. The construct equivalence was counted when brands from different categories were selected. So, we choose two sectors: product (home appliances) and service (telecommunications) for wide acceptance of new scale.

The brands we selected from the home appliances industry were readily available in Italy and Pakistan with same functions, whereas telecom brands were different but offered similar services. We selected one service and one product category in such a manner that most consumers had a tendency to buy. This was not possible in case of other products (e.g., automobile manufacturer) as the products are expensive and buying power is comparatively low especially in Pakistan. In contrast with previous scale development studies, we collected the data from actual consumer whereas most of the previous studies used student samples.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the multidimensionality of green brand equity scale (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). The 31 items obtained from factor analysis during the pilot study was taken as indicator variables for CFA. The model was estimated through maximum likelihood method using AMOS 18 software. To evaluate invariance parameters in two samples, the Chi-square test was used to determine the fit indices. However, the researchers proposed two additional methods to test model invariance as Chi-square test has a serious limitation, that is, sensitivity to sample size. The first alternative method is to use adequate model fitness through root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), incremental fit index (IFI), comparative fit index (CFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and normed-fir index (NFI). Hair et al. (2006) proposed 0.90 threshold value for IFI, CFI, NNFI, and NFI, whereas 0.08 for RMSEA. The second method is a negligible difference in CFI between two samples (Byrne, 2013).

Study 2_A—multidimensional green brand equity scale testing at large scale

With the help of systematic sampling, data were collected via a mall-intercept survey in metropolitan cities of Italy and Pakistan from August 2017 to February 2018. This data collection activity yielded 980 usable questionnaires with 82% response rate. Table 1 shows the demographic profile of the respondents. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to check the demographical difference in both samples. The results revealed no significant differences (p < .05), and hence samples are comparable (Schertzer et al., 2008).

Table 1.

Demographic profile of respondents.

Variable	Category	Pakistani Respondents		Italian Respondents
		Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
		N = 528		N = 452
Gender	Male	286	54	234	52
	Female	242	46	218	48
Age	Less than 20 years	49	09	32	7
	21–25 years	145	27	131	29
	26–30 years	112	21	92	20
	31–35 years	95	18	88	19
	35–40 years	76	14	64	14
	More than 40 years	51	10	45	10
Educational Qualification	Undergraduate	214	41	172	38
	Masters	186	35	183	40
	Doctorate	128	24	97	21
Occupations	Full Time	234	44	202	45
	Part Time	125	24	98	22
	Unemployed	73	14	90	20
	Self-Employed	96	18	62	14
Marital Status	Single	255	48	260	58
	Married	192	36	117	26
	Undisclosed	81	15	75	17
Sectors	Home Appliances	268	51	233	52
Sectors	Telecommunication	260	49	219	78

To draw legitimate conclusions in the cross-cultural generalization of theories, models or constructs, researchers should establish measurement invariance. Else, results can be flawed or even offer ambiguous conclusions. The measurement invariance refers to whether or not the studying phenomena generate the same attribute, when it applies, in different circumstances (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Hence, if measurement invariance sustained, it indicates that the theory holds across samples. In this study, we measured invariance through multigroup CFA as it is the most appropriate technique to evaluate cross-cultural measurement difference. However, before analyzing multigroup analysis, all items were assessed through exploratory factor analysis to determine the dimensions and reliability for each country separately.

Individual analysis: Italy versus Pakistan

On preliminary analysis, we determined the dimensionality of a green brand equity instrument and its internal consistency for each country separately. We used Cronbach’s α and exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation using the principal component matrix. The results indicated that the corresponding items were highly reliable and grouped within their factors with significant factor except LEAD1, PQ3, and BAWAR5 and BAWAR6 for both countries. These items were deleted in further analyses. All factor loadings (Table 2) were found positive and significant (p < .001) for both samples. The final 27-item multidimensional green brand equity scale was tested for further analyses and is given in Appendix 1.

Table 2.

Exploratory factor analysis using principal component analysis.

Construct	No. of Items	Pakistani Sample		Italian Sample
		Home Appliance	Telecommunication	Home Appliance	Telecommunication
		Loading Range	Loading Range	Loading Range	Loading Range
Social Influence	5	0.79–0.85	0.82–0.86	0.80–0.85	0.80–0.89
Brand Leadership	4	0.87–0.89	0.72–0.82	0.72–0.89	0.77–0.81
Perceived Quality	5	0.75–0.81	0.73–0.86	0.78–0.86	0.76–0.82
Sustainability	5	0.84–0.91	0.77–0.87	0.71–0.82	0.82–0.90
Brand Awareness	4	0.77–0.84	0.77–0.84	0.81–0.81	0.82–0.92
Brand Association	4	0.81–0.89	0.71–0.73	0.79–0.88	0.76–0.82

Next, we performed CFA to check the multidimensionality of the proposed scale, with maximum likelihood method using AMOS 18. The hypothesized model was based on six exogenous constructs of green brand equity: social influence, leadership, brand awareness, brand association, sustainability, and perceived quality. A total of four separate CFAs were conducted: two for each product category across both samples. On the further step, we evaluated the offending or inconsistent estimates from the results. The outcomes showed no offending estimations (i.e., correlation or covariance matrices are negatively definite, larger correlation values equal to or greater than 1, insignificant error variances, or negative variances were exhibited). After this, different measurement fit indices were checked separately for each sector in both countries. The standard regression estimates of six-dimensional measurement model signified that all constructs had adequate factor loadings in both Italian and Pakistani samples. Table 3 indicates the factor loadings for each construct that was highly significant in both samples.

Table 3.

Confirmatory factor analyses results for Italian and Pakistani sample.

Construct	No. of Items	Pakistani Sample				Italian Sample
		Home Appliance		Telecommunication		Home Appliance		Telecommunication
		SRW Range	S.E. Range	SRW Range	S.E. Range	SRW Range	S.E. Range	SRW Range	S.E. Range
Social Influence	5	0.74–0.83	0.31–0.45	0.79–0.84	0.29–0.38	0.75–0.82	0.33–0.44	0.75–0.84	0.29–0.42
Brand Leadership	4	0.76–0.82	0.33–0.42	0.75–0.82	0.33–0.44	0.71–0.83	0.31–0.44	0.80–0.83	0.31–0.36
Perceived Quality	5	0.80–0.85	0.26–0.36	0.81–0.84	0.23–0.36	0.81–0.87	0.24–0.34	0.82–0.90	0.19–0.33
Sustainability	5	0.81–0.88	0.23–0.34	0.81–0.89	0.21–0.34	0.80–0.88	0.23–0.34	0.81–0.89	0.21–0.34
Brand Awareness	4	0.79–0.84	0.29–0.40	0.80–0.85	0.28–0.36	0.78–0.82	0.33–0.40	0.75–0.81	0.29–0.45
Brand Association	4	0.76–0.84	0.29–0.42	0.79–0.86	0.26–0.38	0.82–0.84	0.29–0.33	0.81–0.88	0.23–0.34

SRW = standardized regression weight, S.E. = standard error, all values are significant at *p < .001.

The Chi-square results (Table 4) for Pakistani and Italian home appliance and telecommunication sectors were statistically significant at 0.001. The normed Chi-square (χ²/df) of this study was well under the cut-off point, which is not greater than 5.0 (Hu & Bentler, 1998). The GFI, IFI, NFI, and CFI values were higher than the minimum value of 0.9 that revealed the model fitness for each sample, whereas the RMSEA values for both samples suggested adequate fitness for each model. Hence, all measurement fit indices surpassed the heuristic critical values and supported the model for both samples.

Table 4.

Fit indices results.

Country	Industry	χ²	df, p	χ²/df	GFI	RMSEA	NFI	IFI	CFI
Pakistan	Home Appliances	305.84	98, .001	3.12	0.93	0.06	0.98	0.92	0.91
Pakistan	Telecommunication	317.26	103, .001	3.08	0.91	0.07	0.96	0.93	0.94
Italy	Home Appliances	329.51	108, .001	3.05	0.95	0.07	0.97	0.91	0.98
Italy	Telecommunication	244.47	114, .001	2.14	0.90	0.07	0.99	0.95	0.92

Hair et al. (2006) defined convergent validity as an extent to which a single item combined variance among other items in the same construct. The results showed that all factor loadings on six constructs across two samples were significant (p < .001) and greater than 0.50 that showed evidence for convergent validity (Hair et al., 2006). Discriminant validity refers to an extent to which a construct is one dimensional or distinct from other (Hair et al., 2006). It was evident that there was no cross-loading among items which implied discriminant validity. Moreover, average variance extracted (AVE) and reliability indices were also above the threshold value of 0.6 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 5 specifies the composite reliability, AVE, discriminant, and convergent validity results.

Table 5.

Mean, standard deviation, reliabilities, and validities of Italian and Pakistan sample.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	Mean	Std. Dev.
Pakistani Sample
1. SI	0.63						4.21	0.63
2. LEAD	0.24	0.63					4.01	0.41
3. PQ	0.19	0.24	0.70				4.05	0.86
4. SUST	0.26	0.22	0.14	0.72			4.54	0.72
5. BAWAR	0.31	0.25	0.24	0.31	0.66		4.36	0.68
6. BASSO	0.29	0.26	0.24	0.27	0.21	0.66	4.26	0.59
Composite Reliability	0.94	0.93	0.95	0.92	0.90	0.90
Italian Sample
1. SI	0.62						4.15	0.54
2. LEAD	0.31	0.64					4.44	0.49
3. PQ	0.26	0.27	0.72				4.17	0.65
4. SUST	0.23	0.23	0.18	0.70			4.42	0.41
5. BRANDAWAR	0.31	0.20	0.29	0.26	0.63		4.51	0.58
6. BRANDASSO	0.20	0.29	0.28	0.30	0.24	0.69	4.38	0.66
Composite Reliability	0.94	0.91	0.93	0.95	0.93	0.92

SI = social influence, LEAD = brand leadership, PQ = perceived quality, SUST = sustainability, BAWAR = brand awareness, BASSO = brand association.

Notes: AVE is on diagonal with bold, and the lower side of AVE is correlation matrix. All correlations are significant at *p < .0.001.

Measurement invariance assessment: group analyses

To understand the validity of multidimensional constructs, various tests of invariances are proposed contingent on study purpose (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). The goal of this research was to develop multidimensional green brand equity constructs in cross-cultural settings; measurement invariance was undertaken through configural invariance and metric invariance while using multigroup CFA. Vandenberg and Lance (2000) argue about the unanimous consensus on the applicability of multigroup CFA as a versatile and powerful method to test cross-cultural invariance. This invariance is based on model comparisons through a change in CFI (ΔCFI), change in CMIN/df (Schertzer et al., 2008), and χ² difference (Byrne, 2013). To establish measurement invariance across two cultures, the value of ΔCFI should be smaller than or equal to ˗0.01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

The exploratory analysis and CFA had stipulated robust confirmation of configural invariance, but a multigroup CFA was used to confirm at a rigorous level. To consider as invariant, the minimum requirement for the scale is that adequate measurement fits simultaneously in Italian and Pakistani sample. The configural invariance test (Model 1: Table 5) was performed using an unconstrained model, which was also considered as a baseline model for subsequent model comparisons. The results were statistically significant and provide good measurement of fit indices showing the applicability of green brand equity scale across cultures. Hence, the results revealed that green brand equity scale demonstrates acceptable factor structure equivalence across samples.

After establishing configural invariance, the next step was to test metric invariance that referred as “different scores on the items can be meaningfully compared across countries” (Schertzer et al., 2008). In this analysis, we imposed constraints on factor loadings of the baseline model (Model 1: Table 6) to be equal in both countries (restrict to 1.0). The test indicated statistically significant χ² (Model 2: Table 6) whereas other indices (GFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.96, IFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.069, CFI = 0.93, and CMIN/df = 2.75) were highly suitable for the model (Hair et al., 2006). The results also showed the χ² difference between constrained model (M2) and unconstrained model (M1) as Δχ² = 13.85, Δdf = 15, ΔCFI = 0.000, p < .001. Thus, these results were giving full support to metric invariances for multidimensional of green brand equity scale in two countries (Byrne, 2013).

Table 6.

Cross-cultural measurement invariance tests: configural and metric method.

Test	Model	χ²	Df	χ²/df	GFI	RMSEA	NFI	IFI	CFI	Δχ²	Δdf	ΔCFI
Configural	1	1197.08	424	2.82	0.93	0.07	0.97	0.92	0.93	—	—	—
Metric	2	1210.93	439	2.75	0.91	0.06	0.96	0.91	0.93	13.85	15	0.000

Study 2_B—construct and convergent validity

For construct validity, we run a correlation among multidimensional green brand equity (as a single construct) with brand preference and repurchase intentions. Recently, the researchers investigated the impact of green satisfaction and green brand image on consumer preferences (Borin et al., 2013; Huang & Sarigöllü, 2014; Papista & Krystallis, 2013), as well as customer attitudes (Hur et al., 2014). Based on previous literature, brand equity has a strong relationship with consumer preferences and repurchase intentions (Buil et al., 2008). However, there is no multidimensional scale of green brand equity exists, so based on Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) arguments we can expect a positive correlation of green brand equity with repurchase intention and consumer preferences.

We collected the data on brand preference and repurchase intentions from same respondents. The reliability of brand preference was 0.91 for Pakistani and 0.93 for Italian, and the reliability of repurchase intention was 0.89 for Pakistani and 0.86 for Italian respondents. The correlations between green brand equity and brand preference were 0.61 and 0.66 (p < .001) for Pakistani and Italian samples, respectively. The correlations among green brand equity and repurchase intentions were 0.73 and 0.69 for Pakistani and Italian respondents, respectively. These findings exhibited the strong support of construct validity of green brand equity scale. To perform a check on convergent validity more rigorously, the same study respondents were asked to respond to four-item one-dimensional green brand equity construct of Chen (2010). The reliability of overall green brand equity was 0.87 and 0.90 for Pakistani and Italian respondents, respectively. The results indicated that the values of the correlation were 0.78 and 0.81 (p < .001) for Pakistani and Italians consumers, respectively. Hence, these statistics strongly endorsed the convergent validity of green brand equity construct.

Study 3—nomological validity

As recommended by Churchill’s (1995) study to establish the nomological validity of the scale, the association of multidimensional green brand equity scale with brand attitude and positive word-of-mouth communication was tested for both countries. The data was collected from 161 consumers from Pakistan and 137 consumers from Italy during December 2019—February 2020 on fashion brands that are readily available in both countries. The results indicated acceptable model fitness (χ² = 982.49, df = 374, p < .001; CFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.059) (Hair et al., 2006). All path coefficients among six dimensions of green brand equity scale were positively associated (p = .001) with word-of-mouth communication and brand attitude in both cultures. Specifically, brand association was strongly influenced by word-of-mouth communication (b = .49, p = .001) in Pakistani context, whereas social influence was affected more strongly on brand attitude (b = .42, p = .001) in Italian context. Therefore, as per the recommended guidelines, the scale fulfilled the criteria of nomological validity in both cultures.

Discussion and implications

The environmentalism sense in consumers is increasing significantly, and they are willing to pay a premium price for eco-friendly products and services. Therefore, the greening concept is greatly acknowledged and applied extensively, which makes it an inevitable trend for business firms. Subsequently, green marketing provides a way to obtain a sustained competitive advantage while accessing new markets and profitability. Jung and Sung (2008) argue that brand equity helps a firm to obtain a competitive advantage because it conveys a strength to capture new markets and offers its products or services at higher margins. In addition to this advantage, firms can exploit environmental issues through brand positioning and acquire a differentiation advantage as well. It becomes a vital decision for brand managers to have a reliable and valid green brand equity measuring instrument. In addition, firms are already investing in green business operations (e.g., General Electric, Unilever, Adidas, Nike, and Marks & Spencer) to increase their profit margins, as consumers are showing a willingness to pay premium prices (Ishaq, 2018; Ishaq and Hussain, 2016). This article extends the brand equity theory in the ecological milieu and provides a convenient instrument to measure green brand equity that is easy to administer and has cross-cultural equivalence.

The six-factor multidimensional green brand equity scale is well fitted in both cultures, and factor loadings across groups are indicating convergent validity. The overall fit indices and measurement invariances reinforce the theorized six-factor model. The four CFA demonstrate comparable and consistent results. Despite brand equity’s paramount importance and its increased significance in eco-friendly products, there were no efforts made to develop a multidimensional green brand equity scale. The present study attempts to address all previous limitations while offering a multidimensional green brand equity scale in product and service industries in two distinctive cultures. Previously, the academic literature had a unidimensional scale on green brand equity (Chen, 2010; Kang & Hur, 2012; Ng et al., 2014), whereas the researchers claimed that brand equity could not be measured using a single dimension scale (Buil et al., 2008; Ishaq et al., 2014; Yoo & Donthu, 2001). Therefore, this study is proposing the first multidimensional scale to measure green brand equity for both product and service industries in a cross-cultural setting.

To understand cross-cultural equivalence, Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998) proposed measurement invariance tests. Conversely, the importance and its practical execution are rarely discussed in academic literature, and researchers believe that the scale designed in one country is applicable in other cultures. This assumption is negated in the studies of Kocak et al. (2007) and Vázquez et al. (2002) as the brand equity scale was not applicable in Turkey due to cultural differences. In this research, we examined whether this multidimensional scale has the same conceptualization across both developed and emerging economies. For this purpose, we used metric and configural invariance. Results showed that there were no conceptualization or measurement differences in either country.

These results have significant implications for international companies and researchers. As the green brand equity scale is invariant across Pakistan and Italy, researchers can test this scale in both product and service industries in the same manner. We also argued that this scale is valid in countries that have the same cultural inferences as proposed by Hofstede (1991). Moreover, this scale is helpful for brand managers as it is generalized across cultures, which allows them to formulate and implement effective branding strategies in the international environment.

Apart from the practical importance of this research, this study also has some limitations, which should be addressed in upcoming studies. This study spurs academicians to revalidate and revise our scale. As we investigated one product category (home appliance) and one service sector (telecommunication), future researchers should implement this scale on other polluted consumer products/services such as textile, banking, and hospitality industries. Also, future researchers should test the scale generalizability in business-to-business categories, and extend this green brand equity model to chain equity, retail equity, and organizational equity.

In conclusion, the main objective of this article is to foster a cross-cultural equivalence scale to measure green brand equity. We used the etic approach to formulate 27-item green brand equity scale epitomizing six dimensions: social influence, leadership, perceived quality, brand awareness, brand association, and sustainability. This scale has theoretical inferences that will help measure green brand equity’s antecedents (corporate image, trust, marketing activity, consumption experience, and brand knowledge) and consequences (repurchase intentions, word-of-mouth communication, brand loyalty, and customer satisfaction). Moreover, this scale is not only reliable and validated but also parsimonious that manager can use to track brand equity consistently. These brand tracking studies are helpful in giving a broad picture to evaluate the brand positioning so that they can allocate the resources efficiently in specific green brand equity dimension. Finally, the configural and metric invariance test demonstrates the applicability and generalization of green brand equity scale cross-culturally, hence making it a helpful tool for other cultures.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Multidimensional green brand equity scale.

Construct	Items
Social Influence	Brand X is socially acceptable.
	I feel like Brand X actually cares about me.
	Brand X would make a good impression on other people.
	I considered myself as a part of a group who use Brand X.
	Brand X has a good reputation.
Leadership	The branding strategies of Brand X are environmental friendly.
	Brand X has aspirational imagery.
	Brand X is one of the leading brands in the industry.
	Brand X is technologically advanced from competitors.
Perceived Quality	Brand X has consistent quality.
	Brand X offers eco-friendly features in reasonable price.
	Brand X has reliable product(s)/service(s).
	The likelihood of Brand X functionality is very high.
	Brand X must be of excellent quality.
Sustainability	I consider Brand X is more beneficial to society’s welfare than other brands.
	I consider Brand X is environmentally responsible.
	I consider Brand X as economical with eco-friendly technology.
	It is important for me that Brand X is a sustainable brand.
	It is important for me that Brand X is a socially responsible brand.
Brand Awareness	I am familiar with Brand X environmental friendly initiatives.
	When I think of (brand category), Brand X is one of the brands that come in my mind.
	I can differentiate Brand X from other competing brands.
	I know what Brand X looks like.
Brand Association	When I think of (brand category), I feel proud to buy Brand X.
	Brand X provides good value for money.
	Brand X has personality.
	I have trust on the company that offers Brand X.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Muhammad Ishtiaq Ishaq

References

Aaker

D. A.

(1991). Managing brand equity. Free Press.

Aaker

D. A.

(1996). Building strong brands. Free Press.

Aaker

D. A.

Joachimsthaler

(2012). Brand leadership. Simon & Schuster.

Bagozzi

R. P.

Phillips

L. W.

(1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.

Berry

J. W.

(1980). Social and cultural change. In Triandis

H. C.

Brislin

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 211–280). Allyn and Bacon.

Borin

Lindsey-Mullikin

Krishnan

(2013). An analysis of consumer reactions to green strategies. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(2), 118–128.

Buil

de Chernatony

Martinez

(2008). A cross-national validation of the consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(6), 384–392.

Burnett

J. J.

Dunne

P. M.

(1986). An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing research. Journal of Business Research, 14(4), 329–343.

Byrne

B. M.

(2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

10.

Chen

Y. S.

(2010). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 307–319.

11.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2): 233–255.

12.

Christodoulides

De Chernatony

(2010). Consumer-based brand equity conceptualization and measurement: A literature review. International Journal of Market Research, 52(1), 43–66.

13.

Churchill

G. A.

Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.

14.

Çifci

Ekinci

Whyatt

Japutra

Molinillo

Siala

(2016). A cross validation of Consumer-Based Brand Equity models: Driving customer equity in retail brands. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3740–3747.

15.

Craig

C. S.

Douglas

S. P.

(2000). Configural advantage in global markets. Journal of International Marketing, 8(1), 6–26.

16.

Davcik

N. S.

Da Silva

R. V.

Hair

J. F.

(2015). Towards a unified theory of brand equity: Conceptualizations, taxonomy and avenues for future research. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(1), 3–17.

17.

Dholakia

U. M.

Bagozzi

R. P.

Pearo

L. K.

(2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network-and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241–263.

18.

Durvasula

Andrews

J. C.

Lysonski

Netemeyer

R. G.

(1993). Assessing the cross-national applicability of consumer behavior models: A model of attitude toward advertising in general. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 626–636.

19.

Engelen

Brettel

(2011). A cross-cultural perspective of marketing departments’ influence tactics. Journal of International Marketing, 19(2), 73–94.

20.

Fabrigar

L. R.

Wegener

D. T.

(2011). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.

21.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

22.

Gupta

Kumar

(2013). Sustainability as corporate culture of a brand for superior performance. Journal of World Business, 48(3), 311–320.

23.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Pearson Prentice Hall.

24.

Hartmann

Ibanez

V. A.

(2006). Green value added. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(7), 673–680.

25.

Hasni

M. J. S.

Salo

Naeem

Abbasi

K. S.

(2018). Impact of internal branding on customer-based brand equity with mediating effect of organizational loyalty. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46(11–12), 1056–1076.

26.

Haws

K. L.

Winterich

K. P.

Naylor

R. W.

(2014). Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 336–354.

27.

Hofstede

(1991). Empirical models of cultural differences. In Bleichrodt

Drenth

P. J. D.

(Eds.), Contemporary issues in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 4–20). Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.

28.

Homburg

Wieseke

Kuehnl

(2010). Social influence on salespeople’s adoption of sales technology: A multilevel analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 159–168.

29.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424.

30.

Huang

Sarigöllü

(2014). Assessment of brand equity measures. International Journal of Market Research, 56, 783–806.

31.

Hur

W. M.

Kim

Woo

(2014). How CSR leads to corporate brand equity: Mediating mechanisms of corporate brand credibility and reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 75–86.

32.

Ishaq

M. I.

(2018). Testing sustainable consumption behavior in Italy and Pakistan. European Journal of Business Science and Technology, 4(1), 93–104.

33.

Ishaq

M. I.

Di Maria

(2020). Sustainability countenance in brand equity: A critical review and future research directions. Journal of Brand Management, 27, 15–34.

34.

Ishaq

M. I.

Hussain

N. M.

(2016). Creative marketing strategy and effective execution on performance in Pakistan. Revista De Administração De Empresas, 56(6), 668–679.

35.

Ishaq

M. I.

Hussain

N. M.

Asim

A. I.

Cheema

L. J.

(2014). Brand equity in the Pakistani hotel industry. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 54(3), 284–295.

36.

Jones

Hillier

Comfort

(2016). Sustainability in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(1), 36–67.

37.

Jung

Sung

(2008). Consumer-based brand equity. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 12(1), 24–35.

38.

Kang

Hur

W. M.

(2012). Investigating the antecedents of green brand equity: A sustainable development perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(5), 306–316.

39.

Kapferer

J. N.

(2012). The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and strategic thinking. Kogan Page.

40.

Keller

K. L.

(1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

41.

Keller

K. L.

(2016). Reflections on customer-based brand equity: Perspectives, progress, and priorities. AMS Review, 6(1–2), 1–16.

42.

Keller

K. L.

Brexendorf

T. O.

(2019). Measuring brand equity. In Bruhn

(Ed.), Handbuch Markenführung (pp. 1409–1439). Springer Gabler.

43.

Kelman

H. C.

(1974). Further thoughts on the processes of compliance, identification, and internalization. In Tedeschi

(Ed.), Perspectives on social power (pp. 125–171). Aldine.

44.

Kocak

Abimbola

Özer

(2007). Consumer brand equity in a cross-cultural replication: An evaluation of a scale. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(1–2), 157–173.

45.

Kucukusta

Mak

Chan

(2013). Corporate social responsibility practices in four and five-star hotels: Perspectives from Hong Kong visitors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 19–30.

46.

Kumar

Christodoulopoulou

(2014). Sustainability and branding: An integrated perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1), 6–15.

47.

Lai

C. S.

Chiu

C. J.

Yang

C. F.

Pai

D. C.

(2010). The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand performance: The mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 457–469.

48.

Morris

M. W.

Leung

Ames

Lickel

(1999). Views from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 781–796.

49.

Namkung

Jang

S. S.

(2013). Effects of restaurant green practices on brand equity formation: Do green practices really matter? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 85–95.

50.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Krishnan

Pullig

Wang

Yagci

Dean

Ricks

Wirth

(2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 209–224.

51.

P. F.

Butt

M. M.

Khong

K. W.

Ong

F. S.

(2014). Antecedents of green brand equity: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(2), 203–215.

52.

Oliver

J. D.

Lee

S. H.

(2010). Hybrid car purchase intentions: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(2), 96–103.

53.

Papista

Krystallis

(2013). Investigating the types of value and cost of green brands: Proposition of a conceptual framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(1), 75–92.

54.

Park

C. S.

Srinivasan

(1994). A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 271–288.

55.

Peloza

Shang

(2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 117–135.

56.

Porter

M. E.

Kramer

M. R.

(2011). How to reinvent capitalism: And unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 62–77.

57.

Raska

Shaw

(2012). Is the greening of firms helping consumers to go green? Social Marketing Quarterly, 18(1), 40–54.

58.

Rosenbloom

Barbaro

(2009). Green-light specials, now at Wal-Mart. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/business/25walmart.html

59.

Royne

M. B.

Levy

Martinez

(2011). The public health implications of consumers’ environmental concern and their willingness to pay for an eco-friendly product. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45(2), 329–343.

60.

Schau

H. J.

Muñiz

A. M.

Jr Arnould

E. J.

(2009). How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51.

61.

Schertzer

S. M.

Laufer

Silvera

D. H.

McBride

J. B.

(2008). A cross-cultural validation of a gender role identity scale in marketing. International Marketing Review, 25(3), 312–323.

62.

Seock

Y. K.

Lin

(2011). Cultural influence on loyalty tendency and evaluation of retail store attributes. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 39(2), 94–113.

63.

Shen

K. N.

A. Y.

Khalifa

(2010). Knowledge contribution in virtual communities: Accounting for multiple dimensions of social presence through social identity. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(4), 337–348.

64.

Sheth

J. N.

Sethia

N. K.

Srinivas

(2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21–39.

65.

Srinivasan

Park

C. S.

Chang

D. R.

(2005). An approach to the measurement, analysis, and prediction of brand equity and its sources. Management Science, 51(9), 1433–1448.

66.

Steenkamp

J. B. E.

Baumgartner

(1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.

67.

Székely

Knirsch

(2005). Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics for sustainable performance. European Management Journal, 23(6), 628–647.

68.

Vandenberg

R. J.

Lance

C. E.

(2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.

69.

Vázquez

Del Rio

A. B.

Iglesias

(2002). Consumer-based brand equity: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing Management, 18(1–2), 27–48.

70.

Yoo

Donthu

(2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14.

71.

Zeithaml

V. A.

(1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.

Multidimensional green brand equity: A cross-cultural scale development and validation study

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Multidimensional green brand equity: an overlooked matter

Scale development process

Study 1A—items generation

Study 1B—exploratory factor analysis

Study 1C—confirmatory factor analysis

Study 2A—multidimensional green brand equity scale testing at large scale

Individual analysis: Italy versus Pakistan

Measurement invariance assessment: group analyses

Study 2B—construct and convergent validity

Study 3—nomological validity

Discussion and implications

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References

Study 1_A—items generation

Study 1_B—exploratory factor analysis

Study 1_C—confirmatory factor analysis

Study 2_A—multidimensional green brand equity scale testing at large scale

Study 2_B—construct and convergent validity