Leveraging green brand equity for organic food brands: the multifaceted role of green satisfaction

Figures & data

Figure 1. The proposed research model.

Source: Developed by author.

Table 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model fit.

Fit Criteria	X^2/df	SRMR	RMSEA	GFI	IFI	TLI	CFI
Recommended	2–5	0.08	0.08	0.9	0.95	0.95	0.95
Before Respecification	3.009	0.059	0.079	0.892	0.944	0.950	0.954
After Respecification	2.547	0.049	0.07	0.911	0.960	0.956	0.965
Fit Result	Good	Perfect	Acceptable	Good	Perfect	Good	Perfect

Notes: Model fit: According to Byrne (2013), Hu and Bentler (1999) and Kline (2016).

Table 2. Psychometric properties of the measurement model.

Construct	Item	Loading	SMC	AVE	MSV	CR	CA
Green	GSA1	0.858	0.736
Satisfaction	GSA2	0.834	0.695
(GSA)	GSA3	0.820	0.672
	GSA4	0.841	0.708
	GSA5	0.681	0.463	0.655	0.553	0.904	0.906
Green	GTR1	0.869	0.755
Trust	GTR2	0.837	0.701
(GTR)	GTR3	0.901	0.812
	GTR4	0.898	0.806	0.768	0.643	0.864	0.929
Green	GBI1	0.870	0.757
Brand	GBI2	0.895	0.801
Image	GBI3	0.832	0.693
(GBI)	GBI4	0.769	0.592	0.710	0.680	0.840	0.904
Green	GBE1	0.798	0.637
Brand	GBE2	0.870	0.756
Equity (GBE)	GBE3	0.817	0.668	0.687	0.680	0.703	0.874

Notes: Loading = Standardised Loading; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; MSV = Maximum Shared Variance; SMC = Squared Multiple Correlation; CR = Composite Reliability; CA = Cronbach Alpha.

Source: Survey Data.

Table 3. Assessment of discriminant validity.

	R Squared (R^2)	1	2	3	4
Green Satisfaction (1)	N/A	0.809
Green Trust (2)	0.650	0.545	0.876
Green Brand Image (3)	0.351	0.591	0.802	0.843
Green Brand Equity (4)	0.820	0.744	0.755	0.825	0.829

Notes: Square Root of the Average Variance Extracted is bold on the diagonal; Constructs correlations are below the diagonal; N/A means Not Applicable.

Source: Survey Data.

Figure 2. The structural model.

Notes: *** denotes p < 0.001; *denotes p < 0.05; Gr = Green.

Source: AMOS Graphics (survey data).

Table 4. Outcomes of hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis	Causal path	Standardised	Unstandardised	t-statistic	p-value	Result
H1	GSA→GBI	0.593	0.749	+9.962	***	Supported
H2	GSA→GTR	0.104	0.134	+1.996	0.042	Supported
H3	GSA→GBE	0.377	0.422	+7.550	***	Supported
H4	GBI→GTR	0.741	0.816	+12.356	***	Supported
H5	GBI→GBE	0.507	0.448	+6.854	***	Supported
H6	GTR→GBE	0.143	0.154	+2.136	0.033	Supported

Notes: GSA = Green Satisfaction; GTR = Green Trust; GBI = Green Brand Image; GBE = Green Brand Equity; Standardised and unstandardised are estimates; p-values denoted by three asterisks (***) were < 0.001.

Source: Survey Data.

Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Routledge Taylor and Francis.

 Google Scholar

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (3rd ed.). Guilford Publication.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data used in this research is available at: https://doi.org/10.17632/hmwsrp22yk.1