Journal of Cleaner Production 362 (2022) 132306

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

How manipulating incentives and participation in green programs affect

satisfaction: The mediating role of warm glow
Deema Abdallah Bazaraa a, Abeer Abdelrahman Mahrous a, Mohamed Hamed Elsharnouby a, b, *
a
Dept. of Business Administration, Cairo University, P.O.Box 12613, Giza, Egypt
b
Dept. of Business Administration, Badr University in Cairo, P.O.Box 11829, Giza, Egypt

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

Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bôas de Sustainable consumption and green marketing are receiving considerable attention. Nevertheless, the focus of
Almeida past studies has always been on customer participation, with less attention given to how to satisfy those cus­
tomers. Also, the focus has been on participants in green programs and not those who choose not to participate.
Keywords: The use of incentives to encourage voluntary green program participation is quite uncommon. The purpose of
Green marketing
this research is to examine how manipulating the different types and levels of incentives affect the relationship
Warm glow
between voluntary green program participation and satisfaction through the mediating role of warm glow. Three
Green programs
Social norms experimental studies were carried out, and data were tested and analyzed using SPSS and PROCESS macro.
Services marketing Results show that the best option to be used by managers to satisfy participants and non-participants of green
Sustainability. programs when incentivizing participation is the high self-benefiting incentive. Yet, if this is not feasible, then
the second-best option is not to incentivize participation.

1. Introduction be performed due to external pressure. This sustainability picture needs

to be reframed. First, sustainable development should be viewed as an
Sustainable consumption behavior refers to incorporating sustain­ opportunity for value creation (Melissen et al., 2015) rather than an
ability issues into consumer decision-making. Sustainability and green extra burden imposed on businesses. Second, sustainable activities can
marketing are currently receiving paramount interest in academia and increase profitability and competitive advantage creation for the busi­
public policy (Donmez-Turan, and Kiliclar, 2021; Jung et al., 2020; ness (Kiron et al., 2012). Third, consumers now are paying close atten­
Kumar and Yadav, 2021). For a long time, businesses’ strategies and tion to social, moral, and ethical considerations, and their choices no
policies assumed that natural resources are infinite; hence environ­ longer reflect the mere preference of price and quality (Mies and Gold,
mental impact was not much considered. Nowadays, such assumption is 2021; Shazly and Mahrous, 2020). This increased consumer social re­
no longer valid. Natural resources are finite, and without environmental sponsibility concern has led to the expansion of environmentally
care and change in businesses and customers’ current pattern of friendly products (Hunt and Dorfman, 2009; Marzouk and Mahrous,
behavior, high costs would be incurred (Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017; 2020).
Groening et al., 2018; Kotler, 2011; Rex and Baumann, 2007). The result Even though green marketing and sustainability have been of great
would not only be scarcity in resources, but huge negative side effects interest to marketers recently past studies have focused on customers’
will occur such as climate change, depletion in the ozone layer, participation rather than their satisfaction (Giebelhausen et al., 2016;
increased air and water pollution, increased diseases and health prob­ Torrijos et al., 2021). Yet, satisfaction is a very important variable for
lems, and much more (Melissen et al., 2015). As a result, many com­ any marketing manager, especially when deciding to adopt sustain­
panies are now reexamining their sustainability policies (Kotler, 2011; ability initiatives or not.
Wang, 2017). Also, the use of incentives to encourage voluntary green program
Not all businesses recognize the benefits sought from sustainability participation is quite an uncommon practice by marketers (Amrutha and
development. Some view it as an add-on to their work yet important to Geetha, 2021). Additionally, previous studies about green marketing

* Corresponding author. Dept. of Business Administration, Cairo University, P.O.Box 12613, Giza, Egypt.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.A. Bazaraa), [email protected] (A.A. Mahrous), [email protected],
[email protected] (M.H. Elsharnouby).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132306
Received 31 July 2021; Received in revised form 9 May 2022; Accepted 18 May 2022
Available online 21 May 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.A. Bazaraa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 362 (2022) 132306

have always focused on the people choosing to participate in green public good or worthy cause, engaging in friendly action, refraining
programs and not on those choosing not to participate. However, both from imposing negative externalities on others" (Benabou and Tirole,
groups are considered customers, and satisfying both of them should be 2006, p.1656). Social norms are defined as "rules (either explicit or
the aim of any manager. Besides, no research has examined how the implicit) that a group uses to define desirable and undesirable behavior"
different levels of the different types of incentives moderate the indi­ (Giebelhausen et al., 2016, p. 57). There are two types of norms:
vidual response to green programs (Giebelhausen et al., 2016). descriptive norms and injunctive norms. Descriptive norms specify what
Accordingly, this research studies how the customer voluntary green is done, while injunctive norms specify what should be done (Cialdini
programs’ participation and incentivizing such participation affect et al., 1990). People tend to act following the social norms of society.
satisfaction. Specifically, this research examines how manipulating the An injunctive norm is expected to encourage people to participate in
type (self-benefiting incentives and other-benefiting incentives) and voluntary green programs (e.g., conserving water and electricity, recy­
level (low, high) of incentive can affect the relationship between cling trash, or reusing a towel). Participation in such programs is viewed
voluntary green program participation and warm glow. It also examines as prosocial, moral, and desirable (Giebelhausen et al., 2016). Moreover,
how warm glow mediates the relationship between participation in it attaches honor to its participant and shame to its non-participant
voluntary green programs and satisfaction. Three true experimental (Batson, 1998; Freeman, 1997). Social norms are usually studied in
studies are used to examine how participation in voluntary green pro­ behavioral contexts related to environmentalism (Cialdini et al., 1990;
grams positively affects warm glow and service satisfaction. Hayes Goldstein et al., 2008; Mazar and Zhong, 2010). However, people’s at­
PROCESS macro is used to assess the statistical significance of the in­ titudes toward the environment might not often be translated into
direct and direct effects in the three studies and the moderated media­ eco-friendly behavior (Kotler, 2011).
tion effects in studies two and three. Yet, despite the degree to which people act in reality in a sustainable
The paper is organized as follows; section two reviews the literature way (i.e., descriptive norm), doing so is always viewed as a good
on green program participation, warm glow, customer satisfaction, and behavior (i.e., injunctive norm).
incentives to develop the research hypotheses. Section three discusses
the three sequential experimental studies; it discusses the design, par­ 2.2. Warm glow
ticipants, procedures and measurement of each experiment study. Sec­
tion four presents the results and discussion of each experimental study. According to the classical prosocial behavior theory, pure altruism
Finally, section five shows the conclusion, research implications, limi­ encourages people to contribute to the common good (e.g., Bergstrom
tations, and future research directions. et al., 1986). Altruism has always been conceptualized in literature as a
personal value structure that affects behavior significantly (Schwartz
2. Literature review and hypotheses development and Bilsky, 1987; Stern et al., 1995). Nevertheless, research on
analyzing the benefits of contributing to pubic goods shows that
2.1. Voluntary green programs altruism does not completely explain prosocial behavior (Andreoni,
1989; 1990). A direct, personal utility is experienced by people when
Green marketing refers to an organization’s efforts to design, pro­ contributing to public goods apart from any increase in the common
mote, price and distribute products that will not harm the environment good. This is what Andreoni calls warm glow." Regarding environmen­
(Nandini and Deshpande, 2011). Examples of green marketing include tally responsible behavior choices, people experience arm glow due to
environmentally safer products, recyclable packaging, energy-efficient the moral satisfaction induced by contributing to the common good of
operations, phosphate-free detergents, and fewer plastic bottles. the environment (Bhattacharya et al., 2020; Nunes and Schokkaert,
A voluntary green program is "an initiative that 1) has a stated goal of 2003). This conceptualization is supported by studies proposing that
improving the natural environment, and 2) utilizes the voluntary efforts some people buy green energy at a premium price to feel better about
of the sponsoring organization’s customers" (Giebelhausen et al., 2016, themselves rather than caring about the impact exerted on the envi­
p. 56). Some examples include restaurant recycling programs, ronment (Wüstenhagen and Bilharz, 2006).
conserving electricity programs, hotel linen and towel reuse programs, In the last decades, models of prosocial behavior started to move
and programs that encourage shoppers to come with their bags to retail from the classical approach based on pure altruism to warm glow
outlets (Karmarkar and Bollinger, 2015; Sukhu et al., 2019). Even (Wilhelm et al., 2017). It is argued that besides altruism, other factors
though these programs have been widely present lately, little research can motivate prosocial behavior (e.g., making donations and supporting
investigates how they impact customers’ experience. There are even the environment). People can be motivated by "a desire to win prestige,
now some innovative companies looking for uncommon new types of respect, friendship, and other social and psychological objectives"
voluntary green programs. For example, Starwood brand hotels intro­ (Olson, 1965, p.60). People sometimes participate in prosocial behavior
duced an optional "Make a Green Choice" program that rewards guests to avoid the scorn of others or to receive social acclaim (Becker, 1974).
when performing green behaviors (Liu and Mattila, 2016). It is also Social image concerns and willingness for acclaim are important (Olson,
important to note that eco-efficiency used by companies should not 1965). According to Andreoni (1990), guilt and a desire for "warm glow"
deter their customers’ experiences as they may not accept less comfort, play an important role in prosocial behavior. A warm glow feeling is
luxury, or reduced service levels for the sake of eco-efficiency measures. considered impure altruism (Winterich and Barone, 2011) that increases
For example, some hotels started to use water-efficient showerheads to when helping a philanthropic or charitable cause (Andrews et al., 2014).
decrease their water usage rate. Yet, their customers were not happy In the psychology literature, the "negative state relief model" is
with such change, which caused hotels to reinstall the showerheads to similar to warm glow but in a way that people participate in charitable
permit a more firm water supply for the customers (Melissen et al., behavior and help others avoid experiencing negative emotions (Bau­
2015). mann et al., 1981; Spielmann, 2020). This is what Andreoni (1995, p. 1)
It is expected that green programs will increase over time. Such proposes as the "cold-prickle of doing something bad." When people
programs often help increase the profitability of the sponsoring orga­ choose not to participate in a good deed, a negative emotion will result.
nization and show evidence of corporate concern toward the society Dahl et al. (2005) referred to this negative emotion as "inaction guilt."
(Kiron et al., 2012). Companies are acting on the proposition that green This guilt is a negative emotion experienced due to personal or social
programs are not just the "right thing to do" but also "the smart thing to standards (Tangney et al., 1996). Peloza et al. (2013) found that people
do" (Smith, 2003, p.52). prefer to purchase products promoted through ethical appeals. A want
Green program participation is considered prosocial behavior drives this preference to avoid anticipated guilt. The perception that the
(Welsch et al., 2021). Prosocial behavior means "contributing to the flip side of warm glow is guilt makes sense. According to Bowles and

2
D.A. Bazaraa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 362 (2022) 132306

Gintis (2006), guilt and shame are the emotions that encourage people (Lepper et al., 1973). Rewards act as “an increase in the noise-to-signal
to stick to social norms (e.g., participating in green programs). Warm ratio or even reverse the sign of the signal” (Benabou and Tirole, 2006,
glow and relief of guilty feelings are behaviorally similar (Evren and p. 1645). Similarly, in cause-related marketing (CRM) campaigns, when
Minardi, 2017). Helping is considered a way of relieving the negative companies offer incentives, the purchase intention of people decreases
mood of individuals. The warm glow is a self-gratification way in adults due to the decrease in warm glow associated with the purchase
(Baumann et al., 1981). (Andrews et al., 2014). In other words, people start to view that their
CRM purchases are no longer about contributing to a good cause but
2.3. Service satisfaction about taking advantage of the incentives. Those incentives deprive
people of their warm glow good feelings experienced from contributing
Satisfaction is an overall evaluation based on the customer’s pur­ to a good cause.
chase and consumption experience with a good or service (Anderson There are two effective types of incentives: the normal direct price
et al., 2004). It results from a subjective comparison between initial effect and the indirect psychological effect. The former is the one that
expectations of the product or service and a posteriori perception of its sometimes leads to making the incentivized behavior more attractive. In
performance (Robinot and Giannelloni, 2010). Satisfaction is complex as contrast, the latter is the one that, in some cases, works in the opposite
it involves cognitive and affective (emotional) mechanisms (Oliver, direction to the price effect and crowds out the incentivized behavior
2010). Research in altruistic, moral, and giving behavior in which (Gneezy et al., 2011). In monetary market situations, the price effect
self-interests are not the main goal dominating decision making; is guides behavior while in social situations, in social situations, altruistic
explained better with affective models (Erevelles, 1998). motives and social norms guide behavior (Kerr et al., 2012). Regarding
Warm glow occurring from participating in voluntary green pro­ the incentive levels, what forms a small or a large incentive depends on
grams is a positive emotion; as a result, it should have a positive effect on the case. It is clear, as Gneezy and Rustichini’s (2000a) title suggests,
satisfaction (Erevelles, 1998; Perić-Prkosovački et al., 2021). Warm "Pay enough-or, don’t pay at all." The principle that the more-is-better
glow is a sense of moral satisfaction by voluntary participation in does not work when incentives are very small. Small incentives often
providing a public good (Kahneman and Knetsch, 1992). Harbaugh backfire despite the belief that they should make consumers more
(1998) describes warm glow as a purely internal satisfaction that results satisfied than no incentive (Liu et al., 2015). In incentivizing prosocial
in the act of giving. Charity donations induce neural activity in areas behavior and charitable giving, this effect weakens the value of proso­
connected to reward processing (Harbaugh et al., 2007). Based on the cial behavior, especially in public contexts (Ariely et al., 2009). It has
previous discussion, we propose that the positive emotion and content been shown that offering some incentive is not always better than no
caused by green program participation positively affect the satisfaction incentive. However, people respond positively to the increases in the
judgment of the service experience. Likewise, negative emotions caused size of the incentive when incentives are high (Gneezy et al., 2011).
by non-participating in the green program will negatively affect the Regarding people choosing not to participate in green programs, it
satisfaction judgment with the overall service experience. Thus, we seems that rewards (i.e., incentives) make free riders (non-participants)
hypothesize: avoid the "cold prickle" of doing something bad, as described by
Andreoni (1995). To put it differently, when incentives exist, free riders
H1. There is a positive relationship between green program partici­ (non-participants) are punished less harshly, consequently increasing
pation and warm glow. their coming participation by less. Moreover, rewards and incentives
H2. There is a positive relationship between warm glow and service reduce their shame and guilt (Fuster and Meier, 2010). To sum up, it is
satisfaction. rational to assume that offering small incentives in a voluntary green
program will decrease warm glow and satisfaction among participants
H3. The warm glow mediates the relationship between green program while increasing warm glow (i.e., decrease the cold-prickle) and satis­
participation and service satisfaction. faction among non-participants. Also, it is rational to assume that of­
fering large incentives in a voluntary green program will have the
2.4. Brand incentives opposite effect of the small incentives among participants. In contrast,
the same effect to that of the small incentives among non-participants,
Incentives are rewards given in exchange for participating in yet the effect is expected to be stronger.
voluntary green programs (Giebelhausen et al., 2016). Using incentives Not all incentives are the same. Recently, researchers have started to
(extrinsic motivation) can "crowd out" the intrinsic motivation of peo­ investigate how prosocial incentives might lead to different results.
ple’s willingness to behave prosocially leading to fewer people partici­ There are two types of incentives; "self-benefiting" incentives and "other-
pating in a prosocial activity (Hossain and Li, 2014; Peloza et al., 2013). benefiting" incentives (Imas, 2014). A self-benefiting incentive is a
People are influenced by two types of motivation; extrinsic and intrinsic. reward that directly grants utility to the green program participant—for
Extrinsic motivation is activated from the outside, while intrinsic example, cash discounts, merchandise, or loyalty program points.
motivation is activated from the inside. Intrinsic motivation is related to On the other hand, the other-benefiting incentive is a reward that
activities individuals do because they like to do them or feel satisfaction does not directly grant utility to the green program participant. In other
from doing what ought to be done (Frey and Oberholzer-Gee, 1997). words, it is a reward spent on others rather than on oneself. Anik et al.
Social psychologists have argued that there are "hidden costs of rewards" (2013) realize that charitable donations and spending on co-workers
(Lepper and Greene, 1978) and that rewards may reduce intrinsic result in happier, more satisfied employees and better employee per­
motivation (Frey and Oberholzer-Gee, 1997). For example, if an indi­ formance. The desire to help other people is a need that is originally
vidual acquires intrinsic benefits from behaving altruistically or from found in human nature (Weinstein and Ryan, 2010), so giving to others
having a sense of civic duty, compensation will partially destroy his leads to increased happiness and satisfaction (Andreoni, 1990; Dunn
intrinsic motivation and altruistic feelings (Frey, 1994). Civic-minded et al., 2008). People are happier when they spend on others rather than
people aren’t just living for themselves and achieving their personal themselves (Dunn et al., 2008; Imas, 2014). Firms often offer small
goals, but they are willing to bear some costs for the benefit of the larger benefits to customers to thank them for their loyalty and support (e.g.,
group (Frey and Oberholzer-Gee, 1997). Lyon, 2012). Such firms believe that offering these benefits will make
When people are motivated by extrinsic incentives rather than by the customers feel more appreciated which is important to relational satis­
ability to indulge in altruistic feelings, psychologists refer to this as "an faction (Drozdenko et al., 2011) and commitment (e.g., Hoffman and
over-justification effect" that can lead to a partial or total net crowding Lowitt, 2008). Yet, a small benefit given to customers that do not meet
out of prosocial behavior by the unnecessary high extrinsic incentives their expectations will make them feel less appreciated compared to

3
D.A. Bazaraa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 362 (2022) 132306

when such a small benefit is given to charity on their behalf (Liu et al., to the use of the same participants in all experimental conditions.
2015). Therefore, it will be guaranteed that no variation in score has occurred
Direct incentives might not always be the best option to motivate due to the random differences between the different participants in the
them. Evidence supports this belief, especially when incentive levels are different conditions (Field and Hole, 2010). However, whenever
low (Gneezy et al., 2011). The happiness resulting from giving benefits within-subjects designs are not feasible, between-subjects designs are
to others may be more than that resulting from equivalent direct benefit used.
to oneself (Dunn et al., 2008; Imas, 2014). Indeed, people are happier University students are the chosen sampling unit in the current
when provided with prosocial incentives rather than the standard research for the following reasons: 1) since differences between partic­
self-benefiting incentives, but only in the case of low incentives. Yet, this ipants in the experiments fall under the extraneous variable, using the
difference vanishes or reverses when high incentives are used (Imas, students’ population is appropriate because they are more homoge­
2014). Regarding the levels of other-benefiting incentives and how such neous. For example, they are of the same age, live in a similar envi­
differences affect warm glow and satisfaction, people participating in ronment, have a relatively similar socio-economic status, and have
prosocial activities are usually insensitive to the prosocial incentive similar educational backgrounds; thus, controlling these differences can
(Imas, 2014). People are insensitive to the benefits others receive for be conducted (Gravetter and Forzano, 2009; Stangor, 2014). 2) Uni­
donations made and do not pay attention when assessing the amount of versity students constitute 86% of the research subjects of the empirical
the benefit (e.g., Small et al., 2007). Besides that, it is believed that studies in consumer research studies (Peterson, 2001) and around 75%
prosocial benefit is probably evaluated according to low reference of the topics in consumer research and marketing research (Peterson and
points. People think of the power of the accumulation of many small Merunka, 2014). 3) University students’ sample is appropriate if stu­
amounts of money directed toward supporting a prosocial cause (Cial­ dents represent a group of interest. In other words, students are potential
dini and Schroeder, 1976; Estrin, 2013). This is why the phrase "even a and prospective buyers and a major target market like any other group
penny helps" is often heard. On the other hand, self-benefiting incentives (Peterson and Merunka, 2014). 4) Sometimes, university students have
may not show the same scope of insensitivity. When provided with the same basic characteristics, and they will interpret the meaning of the
self-benefiting incentives, people respond positively to the increases in empirical conditions in the same way as any other group of individuals.
the size of the incentive when incentives are high (Gneezy et al., 2011). Thus, relationships between conceptual variables found for university
In other words, people derive greater satisfaction from prosocial in­ students will also be found in other groups of individuals (Stangor,
centives than self-benefiting incentives when incentives are low, while 2014).
the opposite is true when incentives are raised (Imas, 2014). Declining to The current research includes three sequential experimental studies.
participate in a green program in the presence of a prosocial incentive Sequential experimentation is adopted as it helps build up knowledge in
violates two injunctive norms (e.g., one supporting green program stages. The experimentation is gradually beneficial and much more
participation and one supporting donations to charity). Therefore, these effective than a one-stage test to find the best solution for a given
people should feel more guilt which results in less satisfaction. Thus, problem or opportunity (e.g., Burgard et al., 2015; Simpson, 2015).
H4: The impact of the participation degree in green programs on
warm glow is qualified by an interaction of the different levels of self- 3.1. Study one: the impact of voluntary green program participation
benefiting incentives.
H5: The impact of the participation degree in green programs on 3.1.1. Design and participants
warm glow is qualified by an interaction of the different levels of other- Study one examines the effect of green program participation on
benefiting incentives. warm glow and how warm glow mediates the relationship between
Based on the above discussion, the theoretical framework is shown in participation in voluntary green programs and satisfaction. To achieve
Fig. 1 as follows: the study objective, a post-test-only control group design is used with a
control group and a treatment group. Besides, a between-subjects design
3. Methodology is adopted (Field and Hole, 2010).
The research population includes participants and non-participants
Experimental research is the chosen method to carry out the three of voluntary green programs in Egypt. A non-probability sample is
different studies. Experimental research is the best way to infer causal­ used as there is no frame for the population. A convenience sampling
ity. It gives the eligibility to manipulate the independent variables in the technique is used that includes university students. Between-subjects
studies and allows the interaction testing between them (Field and Hole, design is used in which half the students represents the control group,
2010). The current research used two methods of data collection in the and the other half represents the treatment group. Keppel and Wickens
true experiments; between-groups and within-subjects designs (Field, (2004) have suggested that using 30 participants per group is suitable.
2009). Within-subjects designs are used whenever feasible as they are Hence, a minimum sample size of 60 students is required. Yet, a larger
more economical in terms of time and effort and are more sensitive due sample size of 80 students is used in which 40 of them play the green
program participant role (treatment group) and the other 40 play the
non-green program participant role (control group).

3.1.2. Procedures and measurements

Students are invited to the college lab to participate in an online
scenario-based experiment. Each is provided with a questionnaire link to
use. Half of the students (control group) are shown a picture of a college
having normal trash bins (non-green program) and are asked to imagine
that this is their college and that they always participate in throwing
away trash in those trash bins. Then they are asked to answer some
questions about warm glow and satisfaction. In comparison, the second
half of the students (treatment group) are shown a picture of a college
having recycling bins and are asked to imagine that this is their college
and that they participate in such recycling program (green program) to
keep their college clean. Then they are asked to answer some questions
Fig. 1. Theoretical framework. about warm glow and satisfaction. All the scale items are adapted from

4
D.A. Bazaraa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 362 (2022) 132306

previous literature with slight modifications just to be consistent with 3.3. Study three: the impact of Other-Benefiting Incentives in Voluntary
the purpose and context of the research. Environmental sustainability is Green Program Participation
measured using four items developed by Peloza et al. (2013). Warm
glow is measured using four items developed by Giebelhausen et al. After conducting study two, another question is raised of whether the
(2016). The satisfaction variable is measured using three items devel­ results will change if other-benefiting incentives (e.g., giving charities
oped by Homburg et al. (2006). these benefits) are used in green programs rather than self-benefiting
incentives. This question will be addressed in study three.
3.2. Study two: The Impact of Self-Benefiting Incentives in Voluntary
Green Program Participation 3.3.1. Design and participants
Study three examines how manipulating the level (no, low, high) of
Even though using incentives to encourage voluntary green program other-benefiting incentives can affect the relationship between volun­
participation might be quite uncommon by marketers (Amrutha and tary green program participation and warm glow. To do this, a factorial
Geetha, 2021). Nevertheless, using the right type and level of incentive design is used. A 2 (participation: participate, do not participate) x 3
is expected to enhance customers’ warm glow and satisfaction (Gie­ (incentive: no incentive, low other-benefiting incentive, high other-
belhausen et al., 2016). Therefore, to build upon the findings of the benefiting incentive) factorial design experiment is carried out.
previous study, study two is carried out to examine how incentivizing Similar to study two, a between-groups design is used for the indepen­
participation using different levels (low, high) of self-benefiting in­ dent variable (participation), and a within-subjects design is used for the
centives can play a moderating role. moderator variable (incentive). ‘Carry-over’ effects have been avoided
by counterbalancing the order of the conditions. A convenience sample
3.2.1. Design and participants of 60 students was used in which 30 of them played the green program
This study examines how manipulating the level (no, low, high) of participant role, and the other 30 played the non-participant of the green
self-benefiting incentives can affect the relationship between voluntary program role.
green program participation and warm glow. To do this, a factorial
design is used. A 2 (participation: participate, do not participate) x 3 3.3.2. Procedures
(incentive: no incentive, low self-benefiting incentive, high self- Students were invited to participate in an online scenario-based
benefiting incentive) factorial design experiment is carried out. For experiment in the college’s lab like studies one and two. Study three is
the independent variable (participation), a between-groups design is exactly like study two, with the only difference in the incentives used in
used as it would not be meaningful for a person to imagine participating the second and third scenarios of the experiment. In other words, stu­
in a green program once and then asking him to imagine not partici­ dents were notified in these scenarios that participation in the green
pating in it. On the other hand, for the moderator variable (incentive), a program gives its participant points that could be used later for charity
within-subjects design is used due to its economic and sensitivity ad­ donations of values L.E.11 (small other-benefiting incentive) and L.E. 80
vantages. ‘Carry-over’ effects have been avoided by counterbalancing (large other-benefiting incentive).
the order of the conditions. A convenience sampling of 60 university
students was used in which 30 of them played the green program 4. Results and discussion
participant role, and the other 30 played the non-participant of the green
program role. 4.1. Results and discussion of study one: the impact of voluntary green
program participation
3.2.2. Procedures
Students were asked to voluntarily participate in an online scenario- Based on Giebelhausen et al. (2016) guidance, no manipulation
based experiment in the college’s lab. They were asked to read three check was needed for the green program because previous literature has
scenarios about their new college sustainability program that encour­ already used recycling programs as green programs. A pilot study with
ages recycling. First, they were shown a picture of the recycling station fifteen undergraduate students was conducted. This resulted in
in the college’s lobby. Then, half of the students were asked to imagine rephrasing and editing some statements.
that they decided to participate in such a green program. In contrast, the The reliability test results showed that all variables with an alpha
other half of the students were asked to imagine that they decided to coefficient of more than 0.7 are considered good and accepted (α envi­
ignore that green program and not participate. In the first scenario, ronmental sustainability = 0.805, α warm glow = 0.907, α service satisfaction =
students imagined participating or declining to participate in the green 0.741). An independent t-test was used to compare the green and non-
program without using any kind of incentive as a motivation. In the green program participation groups. Results concerning warm glow
second scenario, students were notified that participation in the green are shown in Fig. 2a. For the participant group, the mean of warm glow
program gives its participant points that could be redeemed later for a was 8.52. For the non-participant group, the mean of warm glow was
Pizza Hut gift card of value L.E 11 as a small self-benefiting incentive.1 6.45. In other words, participation in green programs increases warm
Finally, in the third scenario, students were notified that participation in glow. Results concerning satisfaction are shown in Fig. 2b. For the
the green program gives its participants points that could be redeemed participant group, the mean of satisfaction was 8.02. For the non-
later for a Pizza Hut gift card of value L.E. 80 as a large self-benefiting participant group, the mean of satisfaction was 6.53. In other words,
incentive. After each of these three scenarios, they were asked ques­ participation in green programs increases satisfaction.
tions about warm glow and satisfaction with the garbage disposal ser­ Regression analysis was used to assess H1 and H2 and estimate the
vice at their college. relationship between participation in green programs and warm glow
and the relationship between warm glow and satisfaction. There is a
significant positive relationship between green program participation
and warm glow (p < .001). This supports H1. Also, when regressing
satisfaction on warm glow, a significant positive relationship between
1
A pilot study was conducted to determine what participants consider to be a them is revealed (P < .001). This supports H2. In addition, the effect
low or a high incentive. A survey was distributed online on 180 students to get sizes were calculated. The effect size between participation and warm
an understanding of what they consider to be a low and a high incentive. Data glow is 0.667 (r = 0.667), and the effect size between warm glow and
were analyzed and most students consider L.E. 11 as a low incentive and L.E. 80 satisfaction is 0.552 (r = 0.552). These effect sizes are considered large
as a high incentive. (Field and Hole, 2010).

5
D.A. Bazaraa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 362 (2022) 132306

Study one is aimed to examine the effect of green program partici­

pation on warm glow and how warm glow mediates the relationship
between participation in voluntary green programs and satisfaction.
Results showed a significant positive relationship between green pro­
gram participation and warm glow (p < .001). This means that
participating in prosocial behavior such as green programs results in
people experiencing positive emotions, while refusing to participate in
green programs results in people experiencing negative emotions such as
guilt or shame. This could be explained that people are inherently
altruistic (Batson et al., 1989; Welsch et al., 2021) or that simply doing
good leads to feeling good (Isen, 1970). This positive relationship is
supported by the results of Wüstenhagen and Bilharz (2006) and
Andrews et al. (2014). Also, results showed a significant positive rela­
tionship between warm glow and satisfaction (P < .001). This means
that the pleasure resulting from participating in green programs posi­
tively affects the satisfaction judgment. In contrast, the negative feelings
and emotions resulting from refusing to participate in green programs
negatively affect satisfaction. This positive relationship is supported by
the results of Erevelles (1998), Harbaugh et al. (2007), and Giebelhau­
sen et al. (2016).
In addition to that, results revealed that warm glow acts as a full
mediator between green program participation and satisfaction. This
means that warm glow explains all the relationships between green
program participation and satisfaction. This is supported by the results
of Giebelhausen et al. (2016).

4.2Results and discussion of study two: the impact of self-benefiting

Fig. 2a. Study one results (Warm Glow).
incentives in voluntary green program participation

At the beginning of the experiment, participants were asked about

their personal views about environmental sustainability. The average
degree of their preference for environmental sustainability was 8.5 out
of 10. Students who participated in the experiment were also asked
whether they would be willing to participate in the green recycling
program or not if their college decided to introduce it. Results varied
across the different cases. If the college gives no incentive when
participating in the green program, 86.7% of the students were willing
to participate. If the college gives a low self-benefiting incentive, the
participation rate decreases dramatically to 50%. Finally, 86.7% of the
students were willing to participate if the college gives a high self-
benefiting incentive.
The reliability test showed that all variables have alpha coefficients
of more than 0.8. A two-way mixed ANOVA was carried out. The
incentive used significantly affected warm glow (p < .0001). Also, warm
glow was significantly affected by whether people participated or did
not participate in the green program being held (p < .05). The inter­
action effect was significant (p < .001). This means that the warm glow
across the different incentives was different for participants and non-
participants of the green program. Thus, H4 is supported.
Results concerning warm glow are shown in Fig. 3a. For the partic­
ipant group, the mean of warm glow using no incentive was 7.2, the
mean of warm glow using low self-benefiting incentive was 5, and the
mean of warm glow using high self-benefiting incentive was 7.97. In
other words, using low self-benefiting incentives decreases warm glow
levels among the participant group, while an opposite pattern occurs
when using high self-benefiting incentives. For the non-participant
Fig. 2b. Study one results (Satisfaction).
group, the mean of warm glow using no incentive was 5.3, the mean
of warm glow using low self-benefiting incentive was 6.07, and the mean
Mediation Testing Results: Hayes’s PROCESS macro (model 4) is
of warm glow using high self-benefiting incentive was 7.08. In other
used to check the direct and indirect effects (Hayes, 2017). The boot­
words, using self-benefiting incentives increases warm glow levels
strap procedure generated a 95% bias confidence interval that did not
among non-participants.
include zero (− 0.9662 to − 0.2420) for the indirect effect of participa­
Results concerning satisfaction are shown in Fig. 3b. For the partic­
tion on satisfaction through warm glow. After taking warm glow into
ipant group, the mean of satisfaction using no incentive was 7.96, the
account, the direct relationship between participation and satisfaction
mean of satisfaction using low self-benefiting incentive was 6.22, and
became insignificant (P = .1711). This indicates an indirect mediation
the mean of satisfaction using high self-benefiting incentive was 9.02. In
only (full mediation exists). Thus, H3 is supported.
other words, among the participant group, using low self-benefiting

6
D.A. Bazaraa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 362 (2022) 132306

and self-benefiting incentives (p < .001). In support of H2, regression

indicated that there was also a significant positive relationship between
warm glow and satisfaction (p < .001).
A moderated mediation analysis using Hayes (2017) PROCESS
macro (model7) was used to assess the statistical significance of the
indirect and direct effects. The bootstrap procedure generated a 95%
bias-corrected confidence interval that did not include zero for the no
incentive = 0 (− 1.9991 to − 1.1555), low self-benefiting incentive = 1
(0.3361–1.5070) and high self-benefiting incentive = 2 (− 1.4073 to
− 0.1313). Results supported partial mediation as the direct effect of
participation on satisfaction became significant after accounting for
warm glow (p = .0111). Thus, H3 is supported.
Study two is aimed to examine how manipulating the level (no, low,
high) of self-benefiting incentives can affect the relationship between
voluntary green program participation and warm glow. Results showed
that there is a significant positive relationship between participation in
green programs and warm glow (p < .05), qualified by a significant
interaction of participation in green programs and self-benefiting in­
centives (p < .001). Also, results showed a significant positive rela­
tionship between warm glow and satisfaction (p < .001). However,
results supported only partial mediation as the direct effect of partici­
pation on satisfaction became significant after accounting for warm
Fig. 3a. Study two results (Warm Glow). glow (p = .0111). This means that warm glow did not explain all the
relationships between participation in green programs and satisfaction.
One possibility could be that offering people direct incentives has
somehow changed the interaction framing for some of them from social
to monetary (Kerr et al., 2012). In other words, people’s satisfaction
stemmed not only from prosocial behavior and warm glow motives but
also from material self-interests that have played a role in increasing
satisfaction levels.
Results also indicated that compared to green programs using no
incentives, programs that offer low self-benefiting incentives result in a)
lower levels of warm glow and satisfaction for the green program’s
participants, yet b) higher levels of warm glow and satisfaction for the
green program’s non-participants. Also, compared to green programs
using no incentives, programs that offer high self-benefiting incentives
result in a higher warm glow and satisfaction for the green program’s
participants and the green programs non-participants. Regarding non-
participants, the higher warm glow and satisfaction could be
explained by rewards and incentives reducing their shame and guilt
feelings (Giebelhausen et al., 2016; Spielmann, 2020). Regarding par­
ticipants, the lower warm glow and satisfaction in the case of low
self-benefiting incentives could be explained that extrinsic motivation
through incentives crowds out the intrinsic motivation of people willing
to behave prosocially (Hossain and Li, 2014; Peloza et al., 2013). On the
other side, the higher warm glow and satisfaction in the case of high
self-benefiting incentives could be explained by the fact that motivated
Fig. 3b. Study two results (Satisfaction). reasoning has played a role. In other words, people usually are more
likely to reach conclusions they wish to reach but only when they can
have a good justification for them. For example, people could have
incentives decreased the satisfaction levels while using high self-
justified the appropriateness of taking a high incentive by believing that
benefiting incentives increased the satisfaction levels. For the non-
if they do not take it, someone else will take it anyway (Kunda, 1990).
participant group, the mean of satisfaction using no incentive was
Also, literature has supported that people respond positively to the in­
6.02, the mean of satisfaction using low self-benefiting incentive was
creases in the size of incentives when incentives are high (Gneezy et al.,
7.27, and the mean of satisfaction using high self-benefiting incentive
2011). It is worth mentioning that the case of high self-benefiting in­
was 7.53. In other words, using self-benefiting incentives increased the
centives yielded the best results for both groups in terms of satisfaction.
satisfaction levels among the non-participants. Thus, H4 is supported. In
addition, effect sizes were calculated. The effect size of the incentive is
0.816. This represents a very large effect. The effect size of the group is 4.3. Results and discussion of study three: the impact of Other-benefiting
0.392. This represents a medium effect. The effect size of the interaction incentives in voluntary green program participation
between incentive and group is 0.72. This represents a very large effect.
Therefore, the change in warm glow using the different incentives or Students were asked about their personal views about environmental
groups is a substantive finding. sustainability. The average degree of their preference for environmental
In support of H1, regression indicated that there was a significant sustainability was 8.57 out of 10. Students who participated in the
impact of participation in green programs on warm glow (p < .05), experiment were also asked if they would be willing to participate in the
qualified by a significant interaction of participation in green programs green recycling program if their college decided to introduce it. Results
varied across the different cases. If the college gives no incentive when

7
D.A. Bazaraa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 362 (2022) 132306

participating in the green program, 97.5% of the students were willing

to participate. Suppose the college gives a low or a high other-benefiting
incentive, the participation rate increases to 100%. All variables had an
alpha coefficient of more than 0.7, which is considered good (Field,
2009).
A two-way mixed ANOVA was carried out. Warm glow was signifi­
cantly affected by the incentive used (p = .016). The main effect of the
group variable showed that warm glow was significantly affected by
whether people participated or did not participate in the green program
held (p < .0001). In addition, the interaction effect was significant (p <
.0001). This means that warm glow across the different incentives was
different for participants and non-participants of the green program.
Thus, H5 is supported.
Fig. 4a shows results concerning warm glow. For the participant
group, the mean of warm glow using no incentive was 7.2, the mean of
warm glow using low other-benefiting incentive was 8.27, and the mean
of warm glow using high other-benefiting incentive was 8.4. In other
words, using other-benefiting incentives increases warm glow levels
among participants. For the non-participant group, the mean of warm
glow using no incentive was 5.33, the mean of warm glow using low
other-benefiting incentive was 4.53, and the mean of warm glow using
high other-benefiting incentive was 4.42. In other words, an opposite
pattern was observed among the non-participants, in which using other- Fig. 4b. Study three results (Satisfaction).
benefiting incentives decreased warm glow levels. Fig. 4b shows results
concerning satisfaction. For the participant group, the mean of satis­ groups is a substantive finding.
faction using no incentive was 8, the mean of satisfaction using low In support of H1, regression indicated that there was a significant
other-benefiting incentive was 9, and the mean of satisfaction using high positive relationship between participation in green programs and warm
other-benefiting incentive was 9. In other words, using other-benefiting glow (p < .001), qualified by a significant interaction of participation in
incentives increased the satisfaction levels, yet using low or high other- green programs and other-benefiting incentives (p < .001). In addition,
benefiting incentives was of no difference; they both led to the same the main effect of incentive on warm glow was significant (p < .001). In
satisfaction levels. For the non-participant group, the mean of satisfac­ support of H2, regression indicated that there was also a significant
tion using no incentive was 6.8, the mean of satisfaction using low other- positive relationship between warm glow and satisfaction (p < .001).
benefiting incentive was 6.2, and the mean of satisfaction using high A moderated mediation analysis using Hayes (2017) PROCESS
other-benefiting incentive was 6.18. In other words, using other- macro (model7) was used to assess the statistical significance of the
benefiting incentives decreased the satisfaction levels among the non- indirect and direct effects. The bootstrap procedure generated a 95%
participants, yet using low or high other-benefiting incentives was bias-corrected confidence interval that did not include zero for the no
almost of no difference. The effect size of the incentive was 0.346. This incentive = 0 (− 1.1832 to − 0.6031), low self-benefiting incentive = 1
represents a medium effect. The effect size of the group was .937. This (− 2.1113 to − 1.4508) and high self-benefiting incentive = 2 (− 2.6647
represents a very large effect. The effect size of the interaction between to − 1.9208). Results supported full mediation as the direct effect of
incentive and group was .818. This represents a very large effect too. participation on satisfaction became insignificant after accounting for
Therefore, the change in warm glow using the different incentives or warm glow (p = .1190). This means that warm glow did explain all the
relationships between participation in green programs and satisfaction.
Thus, H3 is supported.
Study three is aimed to examine how manipulating the level (no,
low, high) of other-benefiting incentives can affect the relationship be­
tween voluntary green program participation and warm glow. Results
indicated that there is a significant positive relationship between
participation in green programs and warm glow (p < .001), qualified by
a significant interaction of participation in green programs and other-
benefiting incentives (p < .001). Also, results indicated a significant
positive relationship between warm glow and satisfaction (p < .001).
Results supported full mediation as the direct effect of participation on
satisfaction became insignificant after accounting for warm glow (p =
.1190). This means that warm glow did explain all the relationships
between participation in green programs and satisfaction.
Compared to green programs using no incentives, programs that
offer low or high other-benefiting incentives result in a) higher levels of
warm glow and satisfaction for the green program’s participants, yet b)
lower levels of warm glow and satisfaction for the green program’s non-
participants. Regarding participants, the higher levels of warm glow and
satisfaction could be explained that accepting to participate in a green
program in the presence of a prosocial incentive as adherence to two
injunctive norms; one supporting participation in green programs and
one supporting charity donations. This results in more happiness and
satisfaction. Regarding non-participants, the lower levels of warm glow
Fig. 4a. Study three results (Warm Glow).

8
D.A. Bazaraa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 362 (2022) 132306

and satisfaction could be explained that declining to participate in a incentives for the people choosing to participate in the green programs.
green program in the presence of a prosocial incentive as a violation of If it is up to managers, they will prefer to use low other-benefiting in­
two injunctive norms, one supporting participation in green programs centives as this will be the cheapest option among the three. However,
and one supporting charity donations. This results in more guilt feeling results show that using the low or high self-benefiting incentives results
which results in less satisfaction. Finally, it is worth mentioning that in in a higher satisfaction level than using no incentives for the people
the case of low and high other-benefiting incentives for the green pro­ choosing not to participate in green programs. More specifically, using
gram’s participants or non-participants, satisfaction levels did not high self-benefiting incentives has shown better satisfaction results than
change; both had the same effect. This finding supports what Imas low self-benefiting incentives. Accordingly, if managers consider only
(2014) concluded earlier: people are insensitive to the level of the pro­ the satisfaction of people who choose to participate in green programs,
social incentive. then using any of the high self-benefiting incentives or low or high other-
benefiting incentives is good. However, if managers consider the satis­
5. Research Contributions, implications, limitations, and future faction of all groups of customers (participants and non-participants of
research green programs) as should be the case, then using high self-benefiting
incentives is the best option available as this is the only incentive
Research Contributions: The three studies suggest that warm glow scheme resulting in the highest satisfaction levels among both groups.
mediates the relationship between green program participation and Yet, this might require a high budget, so if it cannot be afforded, then
service satisfaction. Study one showed that participating in voluntary using no incentives at all will be the second-best option if the satisfaction
green programs increased warm glow, which helped to improve service of both groups of customers is to be considered.
satisfaction compared to not participating in these programs. The Public Policy Implications: From a public policy perspective, there
question raised is whether the different types and levels of incentives can are several challenges to navigate. The government is responsible for
influence the causal relationship between green program participation, supporting green and sustainable development initiatives. First, it
warm glow, and service satisfaction. Results indicated that incentives should spread awareness about environmental issues among the general
could moderate between green program participation and warm glow. public, particularly children and teenagers. For example, the govern­
Using the right combination of incentives can enhance the customer ment can spread environmental education and culture by providing li­
experience and satisfaction. braries with green corners. It can arrange colloquies and programs in
This research contributes by giving insights on the customer satis­ schools and universities to make students aware of environmental issues
faction outcome. Preceding studies on green marketing and using in­ (e.g., climate change and global warming). These activities increase the
centives in prosocial behavior have always given attention to outcomes understanding of the importance of protecting the environment and
associated with participation (Giebelhausen et al., 2016), with little participating in environmental initiatives. Second, the government
attention given to customer satisfaction despite being a valuable vari­ should spread environmental awareness and the benefits of protecting
able with importance all managers. This research combines the litera­ the environment in the business sector (Peng et al., 2021). It should
ture on satisfaction with prosocial behavior, resulting in the emotional encourage companies and organizations to carry out green initiatives
benefit of warm glow leading to increased satisfaction. Besides, this and protect the environment, especially that going green can be costly
research studies the satisfaction of all groups of people in green pro­ sometimes in the short run. In other words, the government should offer
grams, either the participants or the non-participants. In other words, them incentives to encourage these kinds of efforts. It can provide them
past research in green marketing has always focused on the participants’ with financial assistance, soft loans or tax incentives on environmental
group of the green programs and not the ones choosing not to participate projects. Doing this will provide them with a budget to spend on green
even though both groups are considered customers for the firm, and initiatives and make them willing to incentivize their green programs’
satisfying both of them should be considered. This inclusion and com­ participation to increase their customers’ satisfaction. Government can
parison give more insights into how the satisfaction level differs based provide awards for those engaging in environmental initiatives. It can
on voluntary green program participation. Furthermore, this research also talk about and praise them in the media. This can enhance their
contributes to understanding how the levels (values) of the different reputation among customers and reduce skepticism about their green
incentives moderate the person’s response to green programs. To the programs. It can encourage sustainable business practices by providing
authors’ knowledge, this is the first research that examines this point environmental training to the employees and advisory services and
and addresses this notable gap in the literature. technical support for those aiming to apply sustainable policies. Third,
Managerial Implications: The findings of this research make some the government should consider environmental evaluation when giving
contributions that managers can take advantage of. The results propose licenses for new businesses and ensure that existing businesses follow
that managers should be open to voluntary green programs. Besides, the required environmental standards and laws. Finally, Government
using the right type (e.g., self-benefiting or other benefiting) and value should even impose heavy fines on companies violating environmental
of incentive (most appropriate incentive rates) can make the customers’ compliance.
experience more pleasant. Results also show that most people are willing Limitations and Future Research: The current research has several
to participate in green programs when available, convenient, and easy to limitations that need further investigation. First, cautious interpretation
use. Most people care about the environment and are not against green of the findings of this research should be taken into consideration. This is
program initiatives. Managers can exploit this point by engaging their because the data were collected from a convenient university student
consumers in green activities. For example, Starbucks engages its com­ sample which may not represent the population of all green programs’
munity in sustainability by using green materials for producing, pack­ participants and non-participants. Future research should use a more
aging, and delivering its products to customers (Vos, 2019). diverse population when collecting data for more validation. Second,
Besides that, using the right value and type of incentive can play an this research used only one service category, garbage disposal service.
important role in the customer experience. When deciding the level Future research should repeat this study across different service cate­
(value) of the incentive, the company must understand what incentive is gories to increase the generalizability of the results. Third, hypothetical
considered to be small or large from the customer’s perspective. Market scenarios were used as a stimulus to maximize internal validity. Future
research should be conducted to understand the customers’ opinions research should carry out a field experiment to outperform the limita­
about a small or a large incentive. Accordingly, the appropriate value of tions of a hypothetical web-based experiment to increase external val­
incentives in their green programs can be used. Results show that using idity. Fourth, although the sample size was recommended by previous
any of the high self-benefiting incentives or low or high other-benefiting research (e.g., Keppel and Wickens, 2004), it can be considered a small
incentives results in a similar higher satisfaction level than using no sample. Future research can use larger sample sizes and apply the study

9
D.A. Bazaraa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 362 (2022) 132306

model to different countries for cross-cultural comparisons to better Field, A., Hole, G., 2010. How to Design and Report Experiments. Sage Publications.
Freeman, R., 1997. Working for nothing: the supply of volunteer labor. J. Labor Econ. 15
understand the incentivizing green programs phenomenon. Apart from
(1), 140–166.
addressing these limitations, this research can be extended in various Frey, B., 1994. How intrinsic motivation is crowded out and in. Ration. Soc. 6 (3),
ways. Future research might investigate how individual differences can 334–352.
play a moderating role. Future research might also investigate how other Frey, B., Oberholzer-Gee, F., 1997. The cost of price incentives: an empirical analysis of
motivation crowding-out. Am. Econ. Rev. 87 (4), 746–755.
people (public setting) can affect the relationship between participation Fuster, A., Meier, S., 2010. Another hidden cost of incentives: the detrimental effect on
in green programs and satisfaction. norm enforcement. Manag. Sci. 56 (1), 57–70.
Giebelhausen, M., Chun, H., Cronin, J., Hult, T., 2016. Adjusting the warm glow
thermostat: how incentivizing participation in voluntary green programs moderates
CRediT authorship contribution statement their impact on service satisfaction. J. Market. 80 (4), 56–71.
Gneezy, U., Rustichini, A., 2000. Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Q. J. Econ. 115 (3),
791–810.
Deema Abdallah Bazaraa: Research framework development, data
Gneezy, U., Meier, S., Rey-Biel, P., 2011. When and why incentives (Don’t) Work to
collection - analysis, writing up of the first draft of the manuscript. Modify Behavior. J. Econ. Perspect. 25 (4), 191–210.
Abeer Abdelrahman Mahrous: Research framework development and Goldstein, N., Cialdini, R., Griskevicious, V., 2008. A Room with a Viewpoint: Using
methodology, writing up of the final draft. Mohamed Hamed Elshar­ Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35
(3), 472–482.
nouby: Research Framework development-implications, writing up of Gravetter, F.J., Forzano, L.A.B., 2009. Research Methods for Psychology. Cengage
the final draft. Learning Australia.
Groening, C., Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., 2018. Green marketing consumer-level theory review: A
compendium of applied theories and further research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
Declaration of competing interest 1848–1866.
Harbaugh, W., 1998. What Do Donations Buy? A Model of Philanthropy Based on
Prestige and Warm Glow. J. Publ. Econ. 67 (2), 269–284.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Harbaugh, W., Mayr, U., Burghart, D., 2007. Neural Responses to Taxation and Voluntary
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Giving Reveal Motives for Charitable Donations. Science 316 (5831), 1622–1625.
Hayes, A., 2017. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
the work reported in this paper.
Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford publications.
Hoffman, J., Lowitt, E., 2008. A Better Way to Design Loyalty Programs. Strat. Leader. 36
References (4), 44–47.
Homburg, C., Koschate, N., Hoyer, W., 2006. The Role of Cognition and Affect in the
Formation of Customer Satisfaction: A Dynamic Perspective. J. Market. 70 (3),
Amrutha, V., Geetha, S., 2021. Linking green organizational training and voluntary
21–31.
workplace green behavior: mediating role of green supporting climate and
Hossain, T., Li, K., 2014. Crowding Out in the Labor Market: A Prosocial Setting Is
employees’ green satisfaction. J. Clean. Prod. 290, 125876.
Necessary. Manag. Sci. 60 (5), 1148–1160.
Anderson, E., Fornell, C., Mazvancheryl, S., 2004. Customer satisfaction and Shareholder
Hunt, N., Dorfman, B., 2009. How Green Is My Wallet? Organic Food Growth Slows.
value. J. Market. 68 (4), 172–185.
Reuters. http://www.reuters.com.
Andreoni, J., 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-
Imas, A., 2014. Working for the “Warm Glow”: On the Benefits and Limits of Prosocial
glow giving. Econ. J. 100 (401), 464–477.
Incentives. J. Publ. Econ. 114, 14–18.
Andreoni, J., 1995. Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: the effects of positive and negative
Isen, A., 1970. Success, Failure, Attention, and Reaction to Others: The Warm Glow of
framing on cooperation in experiments. Q. J. Econ. 110 (1), 1–21.
Success. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 15 (4), 294–301.
Andrews, M., Luo, X., Fang, Z., Aspara, J., 2014. Cause marketing effectiveness and the
Jung, J., Kim, S., Kim, K., 2020. Sustainable marketing activities of traditional fashion
moderating role of price discounts. J. Market. 78 (6), 120–142.
market and brand loyalty. J. Bus. Res.
Anik, L., Ankin, L., Norton, M., Dunn, E., Quoidbach, J., 2013. Prosocial bonuses increase
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., 1992. Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral
employee satisfaction and team performance. PLoS One 8 (9).
Satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 22 (1), 57–70.
Ariely, D., Bracha, A., Meier, S., 2009. Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and
Karmarkar, U., Bollinger, B., 2015. BYOB: How Bringing Your Own Shopping Bags Leads
monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. Am. Econ. Rev. 99 (1), 544–555.
to Treating Yourself and the Environment. J. Market. 79 (4), 1–15.
Batson, C., 1998. Altruism and prosocial behavior. In: Handbook of Social Psychology.
Keppel, G., Wickens, T., 2004. Design and Analysis: Researcher’s Handbook, fourth ed.
Batson, C., Batson, J., Griffitt, C., Barrientos, S., Brandt, J., Sprengelmeyer, P., Bayly, M.,
Pearson Education, Inc, New Jersey.
1989. Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. J. Pers. Soc.
Kerr, J., Vardhan, M., Jindal, R., 2012. Prosocial Behavior and Incentives: Evidence from
Psychol. 56 (6), 922–933.
Field Experiments in Rural Mexico and Tanzania. Ecol. Econ. 73 (15), 220–227.
Baumann, D., Cialdini, R., Kendrick, D., 1981. Altruism as hedonism: helping and self-
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Velken, I., 2012. Sustainability Nears a Tipping
gratification as equivalent responses. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 40 (6), 1039–1046.
Point. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 53 (2), 69–74.
Benabou, R., Tirole, J., 2006. Incentives and prosocial behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 96 (12),
Kotler, P., 2011. Reinventing Marketing to Manage the Environmental Imperative.
1652–1678.
J. Market. 75 (4), 132–135.
Bergstrom, T., Blume, L., Varian, H., 1986. On the private provision of public goods.
Kumar, S., Yadav, R., 2021. The impact of shopping motivation on sustainable
J. Publ. Econ. 29 (1), 25–49.
consumption: A study in the context of green apparel. J. Clean. Prod. 295, 126239.
Bhattacharya, A., Good, V., Sardashti, H., Peloza, J., 2020. Beyond warm glow: the risk-
Kunda, Z., 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108 (3), 480–498.
mitigating effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR). J. Bus. Ethics 1–20.
Lepper, M., Greene, D., 1978. The Hidden Costs of Reward: New Perspectives on the
Bowles, S., Gintis, H., 2006. Prosocial Emotions. The Economy as a Complex Evolving
Psychology of Human Motivation. Erlbaum, New York.
System III: Current Perspectives and Future Directions, pp. 339–366.
Lepper, M., Greene, D., Nisbett, R., 1973. Undermining Children’s Intrinsic Interest with
Burgard, L., Dubois, S., De Guio, R., Rasovska, I., 2015. Sequential experimentation to
Extrinsic Reward: A Test of the ‘Overjustification’ Hypothesis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
perform the analysis of initial situation. Procedia Eng. 131, 30–38. .
28 (1), 129–137.
Cialdini, R., Schroeder, D., 1976. Increasing compliance by legitimizing paltry
Liu, P., Lamberton, C., Haws, K., 2015. Should Firms Use Small Financial Benefits to
contributions: when even a penny helps. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 34 (4), 599–604.
Express Appreciation to Consumers? Understanding and Avoiding Trivialization
Cialdini, R., Reno, R., Kallgren, C., 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling
effects. J. Market. 79 (3), 74–90.
the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58 (6),
Liu, S., Mattila, A., 2016. The Influence of a “Green” Loyalty Program on Service
1015–1026.
Encounter Satisfaction. J. Serv. Market. 30 (6), 576–585.
Dahl, D., Honea, H., Manchanda, R., 2005. Three Rs of interpersonal consumer guilt:
Lyon, E., 2012. Out with the Old Flooring and in with the New: How to Demolish Tile.
relationship, reciprocity, reparation. J. Consum. Psychol. 15 (4), 307–315.
http://www.cleverhousewife.com/2012/06/out-withthe-old-flooring-and-in-with
Dangelico, R., Vocalelli, D., 2017. Green Marketing”: an analysis of definitions, strategy
-the-new-how-to-demolish-tile/].
steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature. J. Clean. Prod. 165,
Marzouk, O., Mahrous, A., 2020. Sustainable Consumption Behavior of Energy and
1263–1279.
Water-Efficient Products in a Resource-Constrained Environment. J. Global Market.
Donmez-Turan, A., Kiliclar, I.E., 2021. The analysis of pro-environmental behaviour
1–19.
based on ecological worldviews, environmental training/knowledge and goal
Mazar, N., Zhong, C., 2010. Do Green Products Make Us Better People? Psychol. Sci. 21
frames. J. Clean. Prod. 279, 123518.
(4), 494–498.
Drozdenko, R., Jensen, M., Coelho, D., 2011. Pricing of green products: premiums paid,
Melissen, F., Cavagnaro, E., Damen, M., Duweke, A., 2015. Is the Hotel Industry Prepared
consumer characteristics and incentives. Int. J. Bus. Mark. Dec. Sci. 4 (1), 106–116.
to Face the Challenge of Sustainable Development? J. Vacat. Mark. 11 (30), 1–12.
Dunn, E., Aknin, L., Norton, M., 2008. Spending money on others promotes happiness.
Mies, A., Gold, S., 2021. Mapping the social dimension of the circular economy. J. Clean.
Science 319, 1687–1688.
Prod., 128960
Erevelles, S., 1998. The role of effect in marketing. J. Bus. Res. 42 (3), 192–215.
Nandini, D., 2011. A Conceptual Framework on Green Marketing – A Tool for
Evren, O., Minardi, S., 2017. Warm glow giving and freedom to be selfish. Econ. J. 127
Sustainable Development. Int. J. Sale. Market Manag. 1 (1), 1–16.
(603), 1381–1409.
Oliver, R., 2010. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. M.E. Sharpe,
Field, A., 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, third ed. Sage Publications, Thousand
New York.
Oaks, California.

10
D.A. Bazaraa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 362 (2022) 132306

Olson, M., 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press, Harvard. Smith, N., 2003. Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How? Calif. Manag. Rev. 45
Peloza, J., White, K., Shang, J., 2013. Good and Guilt-Free: The Role of Self- (4), 52–76.
Accountability in Influencing Preferences for Products with Ethical Attributes. Spielmann, N., 2020. Green is the new white: How virtue motivates green product
J. Market. 77 (1), 104–119. purchase. J. Bus. Ethics 1–18.
Peng, J., Song, Y., Tu, G., Liu, Y., 2021. A study of the dual-target corporate Stangor, C., 2014. Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Cengage Learning.
environmental behavior (DTCEB) of heavily polluting enterprises under different Stern, P., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., Guagnano, G., 1995. Values, Beliefs, and Proenvironmental
environment regulations: Green innovation vs. pollutant emissions. J. Clean. Prod. Action: Attitudes Formation toward Emergent Attitude Objects. J. Appl. Soc.
297, 126602. Psychol. 25 (18), 1611–1636.
Perić-Prkosovački, B., Brkić-Jovanović, N., Čubra, B., 2021. The Volunteer Satisfaction Sukhu, A., Choi, H., Bujisic, M., Bilgihan, A., 2019. Satisfaction and Positive Emotions: A
Index: A Validation Study in the Cultural Context of the Two European Titles—Youth Comparison of the Influence of Hotel Guests’ Beliefs and Attitudes on Their
2019 and Culture 2021, Novi Sad, Serbia. Voluntas Int. J. Voluntary Nonprofit Satisfaction and Emotions. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 77, 51–63.
Organ. 1–13. Tangney, J., Miller, R., Flicker, L., Barlow, D., 1996. Are Shame, Guilt, and
Peterson, R.A., 2001. On the use of college students in social science research: Insights Embarrassment Distinct Emotions? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 1256–1269.
from a second-order meta-analysis. J. Consum. Res. 28 (3), 450–461. Torrijos, V., Dopico, D.C., Soto, M., 2021. Integration of food waste composting and
Peterson, R.A., Merunka, D.R., 2014. Convenience samples of college students and vegetable gardens in a university campus. J. Clean. Prod. 315, 128175.
research reproducibility. J. Bus. Res. 67 (5), 1035–1041. Wang, H., 2017. Determinants of Consumers’ Purchase Behaviour towards Green Brands.
Rex, E., Baumann, H., 2007. Beyond ecolabels: what green marketing can learn from Serv. Ind. J. 37 (13–14), 896–918.
conventional marketing. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (6), 567–576. Weinstein, N., Ryan, R., 2010. When Helping Helps: An Examination of Motivational
Robinot, E., Giannelloni, J., 2010. Do Hotels’ Green Attributes Contribute to Customer Constructs Underlying Prosocial Behavior and Their Influence on Well-Being for the
Satisfaction? J. Serv. Market. 24 (2), 157–169. Helper and Recipient. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98 (2), 222–224.
Schwartz, S., Bilsky, W., 1987. Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human Welsch, H., Binder, M., Blankenberg, A.K., 2021. Green behavior, green self-image, and
Values. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53 (3), 550–562. subjective well-being: Separating affective and cognitive relationships. Ecol. Econ.
Shazly, R., Mahrous, A., 2020. Capture the hearts to win the minds: cause-related 179, 106854.
marketing in Egypt. Int. Rev. Publ. Nonprofit Mark. 1–22. Wilhelm, M., Vesterlund, L., Xie, H., 2017. Why Do People Give? Testing Pure and
Simpson, J., 2015. Testing via Sequential Experiments Best Practice and Tutorial Impure Altruism. Am. Econ. Rev. 107 (11), 3617–3633.
retrieved at. https://www.afit.edu/stat/statcoe_files/Testing_via_Sequential_Expe Winterich, K., Barone, M., 2011. Warm Glow or Cold, Hard Cash? Social Identity Effects
riments_Best_Practice.pdf. (Accessed 12 January 2022). on Consumer Choice for Donation Versus Discount Promotions. J. Market. Res. 48,
Small, D., Loewenstein, G., sha Slovic, P., 2007. Sympathy and Callousness: The Impact 855–868.
of Deliberative Thought on Donations to Identifiable and Statistical Victims. Organ. Wüstenhagen, R., Bilharz, M., 2006. Green Energy Market Development in Germany:
Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 102 (2), 143–153. Effective Public Policy and Emerging Customer Demand. Energy Pol. 34 (13),
1681–1689.

11