Research on World Agricultural Economy

Key Drivers of Eco-Friendly Agricultural Product Purchase Intentions: A Case Study in South Korea

Saem Lee

Department of Spatial & Environmental Planning, Chungnam Institute, Gongju‑si 32589, Chungcheongnam‑do, Republic of Korea

Gwanyong Jeong

Department of Geography, College of Social Science, Chonnam National University, 77 Yongbong‑ro, Buk‑gu, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v6i3.1795

Received: 28 February 2025 | Revised: 14 March 2025 | Accepted: 26 May 2025 | Published Online: 1 July 2025

---

Abstract

The increasing demand for environmentally friendly agricultural products reflects a global shift toward sustainable consumption. This study examines the key determinants influencing consumer behavioral intentions to purchase eco-friendly agricultural products, utilizing the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) as a conceptual framework. The study focuses on the effects of personal attitudes (ATT), subjective norms (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC) on behavioral intention (BI). Additionally, this research incorporates sustainability-related factors, including consumer knowledge, trust in eco-labels, and health consciousness, to enhance the understanding of sustainable purchasing behavior. A structured survey was conducted among 200 consumers in the Seoul metropolitan area, and the data were analyzed. The findings reveal that personal attitudes (β = 0.504, p < 0.001) and perceived behavioral control (β = 0.670, p < 0.001) were found to be a significant determinant behavioral intention, indicating that consumers with a positive attitude toward eco-friendly products and those who perceive greater ease in purchasing them are more likely to act on their intentions. Subjective Norms (SN) demonstrated a weaker influence on purchasing intention (β = 0.413, p < 0.01), suggesting that individual decision-making plays a more prominent role than social pressure. The study highlights the importance of making eco-friendly agricultural products more accessible, affordable, and credible through policy interventions and marketing strategies. The findings might contribute to identify strategies that can encourage sustainable consumer choices and support policy development in the eco-friendly agricultural sector.  

Keywords: Personal Attitude; Perceived Behavioral Control; Environmentally Friendly Agricultural Products

---

References

[1] United Nations Environment Programme, 2016. Global Environment Outlook. UN Publications: New York, NY, USA.

[2] United Nations, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations: New York, NY, USA.

[3] FAO, 2019. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. FAO: Rome, Italy.

[4] Lee, H., Kim, Y., 2020. Consumer perceptions of eco-friendly food in Korea. Journal of Sustainable Food Systems. 8(1), 33–45.

[5] Korea Rural Economic Institute, 2021. Trends in consumer behavior toward sustainable agriculture. Korea Rural Economic Institute: Naju-si, Republic of Korea.

[6] Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2022. Eco-Friendly Certification Guidelines. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Sejong, Republic of Korea.

[7] Kim, J., Park, S., 2019. The distinction between organic and eco-friendly food certification. Korean Journal of Food Policy. 36(2), 120–134.

[8] Choi, M., 2020. Alternative agriculture and changing consumer values. Asia-Pacific Journal of Sustainable Development. 12(3), 77–89.

[9] Lee, D., Kwon, Y., 2021. Price as a barrier in sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Policy. 14(2), 55–70.

[10] Park, J.H., Shin, Y., 2021. Policy perspectives on eco-labeling in Korea. Sustainable Markets Review. 5(1), 88–103.

[11] Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation, 2019. Market Trends of Eco-friendly Agricultural Products. Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation: Seoul, Republic of Korea.

[12] Nielsen Korea, 2020. Korean Organic & Eco Food Market Outlook 2025. Nielsen Korea: Seoul, Republic of Korea.

[13] Organic Trade Association, 2021. 2021 Organic Industry Survey. Organic Trade Association: Washington, DC, USA.

[14] Moon, Y., Lee, H.J., 2021. The rise of sustainable food systems in East Asia. Environmental Policy Journal. 19(4), 112–128.

[15] Lim, S., Jeong, D., 2020. Intention vs. behavior in green purchasing: A meta-analysis. Korean Journal of Consumer Studies. 25(3), 45–60.

[16] Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues. 56(3), 407–424.

[17] Ahn, J., Lee, M., 2020. Barriers to green product adoption. Marketing Research in Asia. 10(2), 92–105.

[18] Thøgersen, J., 2006. Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour. Ecological Economics. 63(3), 558–567.

[19] Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 50(2), 179–211.

[20] Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. Psychology Press.

[21] Bamberg, S., Möser, G., 2007. Twenty years after Hines et al.: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 27(1), 14–25.

[22] Cho, Y., Park, H., 2021. Cross-cultural comparisons in green consumer behavior. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management. 21(2), 189–205.

[23] Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

[24] Han, H., Kim, Y., 2010. An extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior: The role of norms and trust. Tourism Management. 31(4), 546–554.

[25] Jeong, M., Song, H., 2018. Moderating roles of age and income in green purchasing behavior. Korean Marketing Journal. 35(2), 101–118.

[26] Scalco, A., Noventa, S., Sartori, R., et al., 2017. Predicting organic food consumption: A meta-analytic structural equation model based on the theory of planned behavior. Appetite. 112, 235–248.

[27] Hughner, R.S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., et al., 2007. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 6(2–3), 94–110.

[28] Thøgersen, J., Zhou, Y., 2012. Chinese consumers’ adoption of a “green” innovation – The case of organic food. Journal of Marketing Management. 28(3–4), 313–328.

[29] Kim, Y., Chung, J.E., 2011. Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 28(1), 40–47.

[30] Lee, H.J., Yun, Z.S., 2015. Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food Quality and Preference. 39, 259–267.

[31] Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W., 2008. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics. 64(3), 542–551.

[32] Teng, C.C., Lu, C.H., 2016. Organic food consumption in Taiwan: Motives, involvement, and purchase intention under the moderating role of uncertainty. Appetite. 105, 95–105.

[33] Hayes, A.F., 2022. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 3rd ed. The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA.

[34] Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 18(1), 39–50.

[35] Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., et al., 2019. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed. Cengage: Boston, MA, USA.

[36] Xu, Y., Du, J., Khan, M.A.S., et al., 2022. Effects of subjective norms and environmental mechanism on green purchase behavior: An extended model of theory of planned behavior. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 10, 779629. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.779629

[37] Ho, S.S., Liao, Y., Rosenthal, S., 2015. Applying the theory of planned behavior and media dependency theory: Predictors of public pro-environmental behavioral intentions in Singapore. Environmental Communication. 9(1), 77–99.

[38] Liao, C.H., 2024. Exploring social media determinants in fostering pro-environmental behavior: Insights from social impact theory and the theory of planned behavior. Frontiers in Psychology. 15, 1445549.

[39] Sun, H., Zhang, Q., Guo, W., et al., 2022. Hikers’ pro-environmental behavior in national park: Integrating theory of planned behavior and norm activation theory. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. 5, 1068960. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.1068960.

[40] Zheng, Y., Chi, T., 2015. Factors influencing purchase intention towards environmentally friendly apparel: An empirical study of US consumers. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education. 8(2), 68–77.

[41] Carrete, L., Castaño, R., Felix, R., et al., 2012. Green consumer behavior in an emerging economy: Confusion, credibility, and compatibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 29(7), 470–481.

[42] Shen, X., Xu, Q., Liu, Q., 2022. Predicting sustainable food consumption across borders based on the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic structural equation model. PLOS ONE. 17(11), e0275312.

[43] Eberle, L., Milan, G.S., Borchardt, M., et al., 2022. Determinants and moderators of organic food purchase intention. Food Quality and Preference. 100, 104609.

[44] Hasan, M., Suciarto, A., 2021. The effect of green marketing and attitude on the intention to purchase organic products. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism. 12(5), 1324–1332.

[45] Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W., 2006. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 19(2), 169–194.

[46] Kumar, B., Manrai, A.K., Manrai, L.A., 2017. Purchasing behavior for environmentally sustainable products: A conceptual framework and empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 34, 1–9.

[47] Gleim, M.R., Smith, J.S., Andrews, D., et al., 2013. Against the green: A multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. Journal of Retailing. 89(1), 44–61.