Social media influencers and green buying behavior in emerging market FMCG sectors: Mediating role of brand equity and moderating effects of age and culture among university students

George Yaw Bludo; Miloslava Chovancová; Kwabena Nsiah Takyi

doi:10.2478/mmcks-2025-0023

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Social media influencers and green buying behavior in emerging market FMCG sectors: Mediating role of brand equity and moderating effects of age and culture among university students

Management & Marketing

Volume 20 (2025): Issue 4 (December 2025)

By: George Yaw Bludo , Miloslava Chovancová and Kwabena Nsiah Takyi

Open Access

|Dec 2025

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Construct definition.

Construct	Definition	References
SMIs	Individuals who have built a reputation on social media platforms for their knowledge, authenticity, and content creation, influencing followers’ attitudes and behaviors	Lou & Yuan (2019); Belanche et al. (2021)
GBB	Consumption behavior that reflects concern for the environment, leading to the purchase of environmentally friendly products	Peattie (2010); Joshi & Rahman (2015)
PDs	The outcome of consumer evaluation reflecting the final act of selecting and buying a product, especially in response to environmental values and motivations.	Yadav & Pathak (2017)
BE	The value and strength of a brand as perceived by consumers, including brand awareness, associations, perceived quality, and loyalty.	Aaker (1991); Kim & Hyun (2011)
Age	A demographic variable representing the respondent’s age is often used to assess generational differences in consumer attitudes and behaviors.	Djafarova & Rushworth (2017)
CU	The shared values, beliefs, and norms of a group that influence consumption behavior are often differentiated by collectivist vs individualist tendencies.	Hofstede (2001); Sharma (2014)

Source: Author’s compilation from SmartPLS4

Table 2

Participants information.

Series	Constructs	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	211	36.6
	Female	365	63.4
Age	20–25	126	21.9
	26–30	219	38.0
	31–35	148	25.6
	36–40	83	14.4
Education	Diploma/Higher national diploma	106	18.4
	Bachelor/Undergraduate	263	45.7
	Master/Graduate	139	24.1
	Ph.D.	68	11.8
Faculty	Business administration	127	22.0
	Health and allied science	96	16.7
	Education	189	32.8
	Engineering	73	12.7
	Law	91	16.0
University type	Public	6
	Private	4

Source: Author’s compilation

Table 3

Reliability and validity synopsis.

Series	Proxy	Outer loadings	Cronbach’s alpha	Rho_a	Composite reliability	AVE	VIF
SMIs			0.833	0.836	0.889	0.667
	SMIs 1	0.846					2.626
	SMIs 2	0.855					2.826
	SMIs 3	0.794					1.877
	SMIs 4	0.767					1.656
GBB			0.935	0.935	0.954	0.837
	GBB1	0.877					2.693
	GBB2	0.933					4.494
	GBB3	0.927					4.474
	GBB4	0.921					3.914
BE			0.866	0.870	0.909	0.713
	BE1	0.843					2.093
	BE2	0.854					2.231
	BE3	0.835					2.327
	BE4	0.846					2.315
CU			0.870	0.879	0.912	0.722
	CU1	0.848					2.297
	CU2	0.919					3.269
	CU3	0.841					2.138
	CU4	0.785					1.724
PD			0.920	0.924	0.943	0.805
	PDs1	0.878					2.992
	PDs2	0.919					4.080
	PDs3	0.895					3.314
	PDs4	0.897					2.846

Note: VIF - Variance inflation factor, AVE - Average variance extract.

Source: Author’s compilation from SmartPLS4

Table 4

Fornell Larcker.

	BE	CU	GBB	PDs	SMIs
BE	0.845
CU	0.803	0.849
GBB	0.541	0.638	0.915
PDs	0.535	0.634	0.888	0.897
SMIs	0.653	0.689	0.813	0.749	0.817

BE – brand equity, Cu – culture, GBB – green buying behavior, SMIs – social media influencers, PDs – purchase decisions.

Source: Author’s compilation from SmartPLS4

Table 5

HTMT.

Series	BE	CU	GBB	PDs
BE
CU	0.825
GBB	0.595	0.716
PDs	0.575	0.706	0.853
SMIs	0.768	0.810	0.816	0.851

BE – brand equity, Cu – culture, GBB – green buying behavior, SMIs – social media influencers, PDs – purchase decisions.

Source: Author’s compilation from SmartPLS4

Table 6

Hypothesis.

Series	Beta	Standard dev	T – value	Prob	Decision
Direct
H1: SMIs → GBB	0.802	0.024	24.583	0.000	Yes
H2: GBB → PDs	0.813	0.026	31.783	0.000	Yes
H3: SMIs → BE	0.653	0.031	20.850	0.000	Yes
H4: BE → GBB	0.017	0.036	0.477	0.634	No

Mediating
SMIs → GBB → PDs	0.652	0.035	18.657	0.000	Yes
SMIs → BE → GBB	0.011	0.023	0.476	0.634	No

Moderating
Age*SMIs → GBB	-0.001	0.045	0.013	0.990	No
CU*GBB → PDs	-0.044	0.018	2.399	0.016	Yes

BE – brand equity, Cu – culture, GBB – green buying behavior, SMIs – social media influencers, PDs – purchase decisions.

Source: Author’s compilation from SmartPLS4

Appendix A1

Measurement of constructs.

Construct	Measurement items	Supporting references
SMIs	SMI1: I follow SMIs who promote eco-friendly products.	Lou & Yuan (2019); Belanche et al. (2021)
	SMI2: I trust the product recommendations of eco-conscious influencers. SMI3: Influencers shape my opinions about sustainable brands. SMI4: I am more likely to buy a product if pro	Lou & Yuan (2019); Belanche et al. (2021)
GBB	GBB1: I prefer buying environmentally friendly products.	Peattie (2010); Joshi & Rahman (2015); Yadav & Pathak (2017)
	GBB2: I consider the environmental impact before purchasing. GBB3: I support brands that are known for their green practices. GBB4: I avoid products that harm the environment.
PDs	PD1: I often buy eco-friendly products. PD2: I am willing to pay more for green products. PD3: I frequently choose sustainable brands over conventional ones. PD4: My purchasing behavior is influenced by my concern for the environment.	Yadav & Pathak (2017); Paul et al. (2016)
BE	BE1: I trust the quality of brands endorsed by eco-conscious influencers. BE2: I have a positive perception of sustainable brands. BE3: I feel loyal to brands that support environmental causes. BE4: Eco-friendly brands are more reputable, in my opinion.	Aaker (1991); Kim & Hyun (2011); Chen & Chang (2012)
Age	Age will be collected as a demographic variable (e.g., 18–24, 25–30, etc.) and used for moderation analysis.	Djafarova & Rushworth (2017); Statista (2024)
CU	CU1: I make green purchases to conform to my cultural values. CU2: My CU encourages environmental responsibility. CU3: People in my cultural group support sustainable consumption. CU4: I buy green products because they are socially accepted in my CU.	Hofstede (2001); Sharma (2014); Nguyen et al. (2017)

Source: Author’s compilation from SmartPLS4

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/mmcks-2025-0023 | Journal eISSN: 2069-8887 (formerly 1842-0206) | Journal ISSN: 1842-0206

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 86 - 109

Submitted on: Aug 30, 2025

Accepted on: Nov 17, 2025

Published on: Dec 31, 2025

Published by: Society for Business Excellence

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

Social media influencers,

Green buying behavior,

Purchase decisions,

Brand equity,

Age,

Culture,

University students,

FMCG,

Emerging markets

Related subjects:

Business and economics,

Business management,

Marketing, sales, customer relations,

Management, organization, corporate governance,

Business development, change management, cooperation,

Entrepreneurship

© 2025 George Yaw Bludo, Miloslava Chovancová, Kwabena Nsiah Takyi, published by Society for Business Excellence
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 20 (2025): Issue 4 (December 2025)

Social media influencers and green buying behavior in emerging market FMCG sectors: Mediating role of brand equity and moderating effects of age and culture among university students

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Appendix A1

Paradigm

My account