Green or Dirty?: A Consumer Journey on the Sustainability Image of Imported Products

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 3, 1180 - 1198

Bahar Türk

https://doi.org/10.17336/igusbd.1709370

Abstract

Purpose: As sustainability-oriented consumption practices become more widespread, environmental factors influencing consumers’ perceptions, attitudes, and risk evaluations toward imported products are gaining importance. This study aims to comparatively examine consumers' attitudes and perceived risks regarding imported products within the frameworks of “environmental import bias” and the “pollution haven hypothesis.”
Method: Structural equation models based on both theoretical frameworks were developed and analyzed using the AMOS software.
Findings: Environmental import bias was found to have a significant effect on attitudes toward imported products but showed no significant effect on perceived risk dimensions, except for time risk. Attitudes, however, significantly affected all dimensions of perceived risk. In the analysis of the pollution haven hypothesis, it was observed that this perception did not significantly influence attitudes but had a significant impact on all perceived risk dimensions except financial risk. In this model as well, attitude had a significant effect on all perceived risk dimensions.
Conclusion: Consumer decisions are influenced not only by product features but also by environmental perceptions associated with the country of origin. In this context, local producers more effectively communicating their environmental sensitivity to the public could help prevent the association of eco-friendly product perception exclusively with imported goods.

Keywords

Environmental Sustainability , Sustainable Consumption , Environmental Import Bias , Pollution Haven Hypothesis , Consumer Attitudes , Perceived Risk

Yeşil mi, Kirli mi?: İthal Ürünlerin Sürdürülebilirlik İmajı Üzerine Bir Tüketici Yolculuğu

Abstract

Amaç: Sürdürülebilirlik odaklı tüketim pratiklerinin yaygınlaştığı günümüzde, tüketicilerin ithal ürünlere yönelik algı, tutum ve risk algılarını etkileyen çevresel faktörler önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, “çevresel ithalat yanlılığı” ve “kirlilik cenneti hipotezi” çerçevesinde tüketicilerin ithal ürünlere yönelik tutumlarının ve algıladıkları risklerin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır.
Yöntem: Araştırmada, her iki kuramsal çerçeveye dayalı yapısal eşitlik modelleri oluşturulmuş ve analizler AMOS programı aracılığıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir.
Bulgular: Çevresel ithalat yanlılığının, ithal ürünlere yönelik tutum üzerinde anlamlı etkisi olduğu ve risk algısı boyutlarından sadece zaman riski boyutu üzerinde anlamlı etkiye sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Tutumun ise tüm risk boyutları üzerinde anlamlı etkisi tespit edilmiştir. Kirlilik cenneti algısının tutum üzerinde etkisi gözlenmezken, finansal risk dışındaki tüm risk boyutları üzerinde anlamlı etkisi olduğu görülmüştür. Bu modelde de tutumun tüm risk algısı boyutları üzerinde anlamlı etkisi vardır.
Sonuç: Tüketici kararları, yalnızca ürün özelliklerinden değil, ürünün menşe ülkesine dair çevresel algılardan da etkilenmektedir. Bu bağlamda, yerli üreticilerin çevresel duyarlılıklarını kamuoyuna daha etkin biçimde yansıtmaları, çevre dostu ürün algısının sadece ithal ürünlerle sınırlı kalmasını önleyebilir.

Keywords

Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik , Sürdürülebilir Tüketim , Çevresel İthalat Yanlılığı , Kirlilik Cenneti Hipotezi , Tüketici Tutumları , Algılanan Risk

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma I. Dış Ticaret Zirvesi’nde sunulan “Çevresel ithalat yanlılığı ve kirlilik cenneti hipotezi perspektifinden tüketicilerin ithal ürünlere yönelik tutum ve risk algılarının karşılaştırılması” başlıklı tebliğden türetilmiştir. Tam metin olarak hiçbir yerde yayınlanmamıştır. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimler Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Kurulu’ndan onay alınmıştır (karar no: 68282350/2025/07, tarih: 09.05.2025).

References

• ABUBAKAR, A., ABUBAKAR, H. S., & DANIEL, C. O. (2023). Foreign brand admiration, product perceived quality and consumer behaviour in Nigeria. Open Journal of Business and Management, 11(5), 2555–2571. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2023.115143
• AHMED, S. A., & D’ASTOUS, A. (2008). Antecedents, moderators and dimensions of country‐of‐origin evaluations. International Marketing Review, 25(1), 75–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330810851881
• AICHNER, T. (2014). Country-of-origin marketing: A list of typical strategies with examples. Journal of Brand Management, 21, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2014.2
• AKAR, I. (2019). Kirlilik Cennetleri Hipotezi ve dış ticaret-çevre ilişkisinde literatür incelemesi. Economics Literature, 1(1), 37–50.
• ALI, M. U., & WANG, Y. (2024). Pollution haven or pollution halo? The role of global value chains in Belt and Road economies. Review of Development Economics, 28(1), 168–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.13041
• AURUSKEVICIENE, V., PUNDZIENE, A., SKUDIENE, V., GRIPSRUD, G., NES, E. B., & OLSSON, U. H. (2010). Change of attitudes and country image after hosting major sport events. Engineering Economics, 66(1), 53–59.
• AVAZDAHANDEH, S. (2024). A new look at the CO₂ haven hypothesis using gravity model: European Union and China. Scientific Reports, 14, 18610. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-45984-w
• BALABANIS, G., & DIAMANTOPOULOS, A. (2016). Consumer xenocentrism as determinant of foreign product preference: A system justification perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 24(3), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.15.0038
• BOYLU, H., & ŞEKER, A. (2022, July 4–5). Kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi kapsamında uluslararası ticaret ve çevre ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Konferansı, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi.
• CARTER, L. L. (2020). The effects of country-of-origin image, consumer ethnocentrism, and animosity upon foreign product purchases. Journal of Marketing Development & Competitiveness, 14(2), 199–218.
• CHATTALAS, M., KRAMER, T., & TAKADA, H. (2008). The impact of national stereotypes on the country of origin effect: A conceptual framework. International Marketing Review, 25(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330810851872
• CHEN, Y. (2025). Perceived environmental image of exporting countries and its impact on consumer trust in eco-friendly imports. Journal of Sustainable Consumer Behavior, 48(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscb.2025.01.002
• DAVIDSON, A. (2010). The impact of mortality salience effects on consumer behaviour [Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University].
• DEKHILI, S., & ACHABOU, M. A. (2015). The influence of the country-of-origin ecological image on ecolabelled product evaluation: An experimental approach to the case of the European ecolabel. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2273-y
• ENRIQUEZ, M. J. R. (2024). The efficacy of environmental messaging in shaping consumer choices: An input to eco-marketing business policy. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR), 6(3), 1–10. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/3/21991.pdf
• FAUSER, S., & AGOLA, D. (2021). The influence of regional Italian images on consumer behaviour: A study of consumers in Germany. Italian Journal of Marketing, 2021(1–2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-021-00023-z
• FISCHER, L., & RÖMER, M. (2024). Country-level sustainability performance as a signal in consumer evaluations of imported goods. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 36(2), 145–162.
• GAO, Y., KIM, S., & PARK, J. (2024). Perceived environmental risks and consumer resistance to products from high-emission countries. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 33, 550–562.
• GILL, F. L., VISWANATHAN, K. K., & KARIM, M. Z. A. (2018). The critical review of the pollution haven hypothesis. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(1), 167–174.
• GÜVERCİN, D. (2019). The benefits and costs of foreign direct investment for sustainability in emerging market economies. In S. GRIMA & E. BOZTEPE (Eds.), Handbook of research on economic and political implications of green trading and energy use (pp. 239–262). IGI Global.
• HAIR, J. F., BLACK, W. C., BABIN, B. J., & ANDERSON, R. E. (2020). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• HOFFMANN, R., LEE, C. G., RAMASAMY, B., & YEUNG, M. (2005). FDI and pollution: A granger causality test using panel data. Journal of International Development, 17(3), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1186
• HSU, J. L., SHIUE, C. W., & HUNG, K. J.-R. (2024). Perceptions of environmental sustainability in imported fruit purchasing in Taiwan: Insights from origin effects. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 18, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2024.2283000
• HUANG, T., & CHEN, W. (2025). Environmental risk perception and green purchase avoidance in international product markets. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 49(1), 22–40.
• ISHII, K., & WATANABE, S. (2015). Nation brand personality and product evaluation among Japanese people: Implications for nation branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 11, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2014.19
• JAVORCIK, B. S., & WEI, S. J. (2003). Pollution havens and foreign direct investment: Dirty secret or popular myth? Contributions in Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0645.1226
• KALBURAN, Ç., KANTAR, M., BARDAKCI, A., & HAŞILOĞLU, S. B. (2023). Ulusal kimlik ve kültürel duyarlılığın tüketici etnosentrizmi ve algılanan risk üzerindeki etkisi: Bir yol analizi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(2), 565–575.
• KATSUMATA, S., & SONG, J. (2016). The reciprocal effects of country-of-origin on product evaluation: An empirical examination of four countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 28(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-09-2015-0149
• KLINE, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
• KOTAN, G. (2015). Ölüm kaygısının tüketici davranışları üzerindeki etkisi [Unpublished master's thesis]. Atatürk Üniversitesi.
• KWON, H., & JEONG, Y. (2025). National climate policy credibility and its influence on consumer attitudes toward imported goods. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(1), 110–123.
• LEE, J., & CHOI, M. (2024). Pollution haven dynamics and consumer reactions to environmentally risky imports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 430, Article 139873.
• LIANG, F. H. (2014). Does foreign direct investment harm the host country’s environment? Evidence from China. Current Topics in Management, 17, 105–121.
• LIU, J., & MARTÍNEZ, S. (2024). Country-of-origin environmental reputation and perceived risk in cross-cultural green product evaluations. International Marketing Review, 41(2), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-12-2023-0342
• LIU, P., RAHMAN, Z. U., JÓŹWIK, B., & DOĞAN, M. (2024). Determining the environmental effect of Chinese FDI on the Belt and Road countries' CO₂ emissions: An EKC-based assessment in the context of pollution haven and halo hypotheses. Environmental Sciences Europe, 36(48). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00866-0
• MAHER, A. A., CLARK, P., & MAHER, A. (2010). International consumer admiration and the persistence of animosity. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(5), 414–424.
• MARTINS, J. M., MOGULUWA, S. C., LUCAS, J. L., ILOKA, C. B., & MATA, M. N. (2023). Does perceived quality mediate the relationship between country of origin image and consumer buying behaviour in Nigerian hypermarkets? PLOS ONE, 18(8), e0285438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285438
• MARTÍNEZ-SÁNCHEZ, A., DELGADO, R., & RUIZ, L. (2024). Gen Z consumers’ responses to sustainability performance of exporting countries. International Marketing Review, 41(3), 512–533.
• MUPOSHI, A., DHURUP, M., & SHAMHUYENHANZVA, R. M. (2018). Underlying correlates of consumers’ attitudes towards Chinese apparel and relationship with purchase intention in South Africa. TD: The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 14(1), 1–10.
• NGUYEN-THANH, N., CHIN, K. H., & NGUYEN, V. (2022). Does the pollution halo hypothesis exist in this “better” world? The evidence from STIRPAT model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(58), 87082–87096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21564-z
• NIU, T., & WANG, P. (2024). The karmic debt of pollution haven hypothesis: Subnational environmental regulatory pressure and foreign divestment from an emerging market. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00602-7
• NUTTAVUTHISIT, K., & THØGERSEN, J. (2019). Developing-economy preferences for imported organic food products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 31(3), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2018.1503709
• ORTEGA‐EGEA, J. M., & GARCÍA‐DE‐FRUTOS, N. (2021). Mapping the influence of country‐of‐origin knowledge, consumer ethnocentrism, and perceived risk on consumer action against foreign products. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(5), 1164–1178. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1900
• ÖZOĞLU, B., & BÜLBÜL, H. (2013). Güdülenmiş tüketici yenilikçiliği ve algılanan risk ölçeklerinin geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(3), 131–139.
• PADHAN, L., & BHAT, S. (2024). Pollution haven or pollution halo in the context of emerging economies: A two-step system GMM approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05616-z
• PONTE, A. D. (2021). The influence of foreign elite rhetoric: National identity, emotions, and attitudes toward austerity. European Union Politics, 22(1), 155–178.
• STEENKAMP, J. B. E. M. (2021). Building strong nation brands. International Marketing Review, 38(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-09-2019-0226
• STONE, R. N., & MASON, J. B. (1995). Attitude and risk: Exploring the relationship. Psychology & Marketing, 12(2), 135–153.
• SUH, Y., HUR, J., & DAVIES, G. (2016). Cultural appropriation and the country of origin effect. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2721–2730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.008
• THØGERSEN, J., & PEDERSEN, S. (2021). The importance of the export country's environmental image for consumer responses to an imported environmentally friendly product. International Marketing Review, 38(6), 1217–1241.
• TSENG, T. H., & BALABANIS, G. (2011). Explaining the product‐specificity of country‐of‐origin effects. International Marketing Review, 28(6), 581–600.
• WANG, L., SØRENSEN, E., & HABIB, M. (2025). Green information asymmetry and risk perceptions of imported goods. Journal of Consumer Policy, 48(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-025-09552-3
• WANG, W., HE, H., SAHADEV, S., & SONG, W. (2018). UK consumers' perceived risk of buying products from emerging economies: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17(3), 326–339.
• WANG, X., LI, Y., & ZHOU, Z. (2025). Green information gaps and cross-national risk perceptions in sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 35(1), 85–102.
• WONDER, A., SERRANO, L., & CLARESTA, N. (2019). Influence of perceived risk on the purchase intention of foreign product through online marketplace [Master’s thesis, Universitas Pelita Harapan].
• YÜCE, A. (2014). Perakendecilik sektöründe tüketicilerin algıladıkları riskler: Süpermarketlerde bir uygulama. Ekev Akademi Dergisi, 58, 229–250.
• ZEREN, F. (2015). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımların CO₂ emisyonuna etkisi: Kirlilik hale hipotezi mi kirlilik cenneti hipotezi mi? Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 10(37), 6442–6448.
• ZEUGNER-ROTH, K. P. (2017). Country-of-origin effects. In C. A. VARELA & A. R. BATRA (Eds.), Cross-cultural issues in consumer science and consumer psychology: Current perspectives and future directions, 111-128. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65025-3_6
• ZHANG, H., & LI, Q. (2025). Cross-border carbon footprints and consumer risk perceptions in global value chains. Ecological Economics, 212, Article 108120.
• ZHAO, R., & KHAN, A. (2024). Transparency of environmental regulations and its effect on consumer perceived risk in global trade. Environmental Policy and Governance, 34(2), 310–327.
• ZHAO, T., & KHAN, M. R. (2024). Revisiting the pollution haven hypothesis: New evidence from consumer-side perceptions. Ecological Economics, 213, 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.107124