RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Questionnaire development
We have used previous literature studies to develop the questionnaire. By referring to different
research papers, we designed a questionnaire and identified eight independent and one
dependent variable. We have taken two questions from the research paper of Khare (2014) and
one question from Prakash & Pathak (2016) for environmental norms. We have taken three
questions from Khan & Mohsin (2017) for social norms, personal norms, Functional Value
(Willingness to Pay), and Functional Value (Quality). We have taken two questions from
Prakash et al. (2019) and one from Tian Zeng (2021) for health consciousness. Similarly, three
questions were taken from Kumar A. et al. (2020) for perceived behavioural control.
Knowledge of Sustainability related questions is taken from Santos et al. (2019) research paper.
We identified the purchase intention of sustainable food packaging in online delivery as a
dependent variable. We have taken three questions related to purchasing intention from the
research paper of Yadav R. Pathak (2016). We have used 5 points Likert scale to collect the
responses ( 1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly Agree). We
changed the context of the questions and made minor changes in the questionnaire by taking
expert advice which provided content validity to the questionnaire.
3.2 sampling and data collection
We have used the online survey method to collect responses for the research. We have floated
a Google form on social media sites such as LinkedIn, WhatsApp, and Facebook to collect the
responses. We have used a non-probability sampling method in which we selected the
convenience sampling method by circulating the Google form among the college friends,
colleagues, family, and relatives to collect responses. A check question, select strongly
disagree, was added to check the responder’s questionnaire awareness. 238 respondents filled
out the survey, and we rejected 35 responses as they filled out the check question incorrectly.
Finally, we have used 203 valid responses for quantitative analysis.
4. RESULTS
4.1 reliability and Validity
The reliability of the questionnaire was checked by using Cronbach Alpha. After analyzing the
responses, table 2 shows that the Cronbach alpha value for all variables is greater than the
minimum threshold of 0.6, confirming all constructs’ reliability. The confirmatory factor
analysis was done to check convergent and discriminant validity. The result suggested that
composite reliability (CR) is greater than 0.7, and the average variance extracted (AVE)
exceeds 0.5, conforming to the convergent validity of the questionnaire. We found that the CR
and AVE of the two variables are less than the threshold value. Still, we continued the analysis
as the correlation coefficient was less than 0.9, and discriminant validity was achieved. We
checked the square root of AVE with the correlation coefficient. We achieved discriminant
validity as Table 3 shows that the square root of AVE is greater than the related correlation
coefficient, and the correlation coefficient was less than 0.9.
Table 2: Reliability and convergent validity
VARIABLES
FACTOR
CRONBACH
AVE
CR
0.627
0.37342
0.635159
0.737
0.504583
0.75043
0.755
0.513136
0.759723
LOADING
Environmental Norms
EN1
0.669
EN2
0.463
EN3
0.677
Social Norms
SN1
0.765
SN2
0.771
SN3
0.578
Personal Norms
PN1
0.714
PN2
0.718
PN3
0.717
Functional
Value
0.775
0.539483
0.777312
0.803
0.579134
0.804995
0.744
0.502674
0.7513
0.668
0.398818
0.663078
(Willingness to Pay)
WTP1
0.656
WTP2
0.736
WTP3
0.804
Functional
Value
(Quality)
Q1
0.766
Q2
0.758
Q3
0.759
Health Consciousness
HC1
0.769
HC2
0.678
HC3
0.676
Perceived
Behavioural
Control
PBC1
0.538
PBC2
0.649
PBC3
0.697
Knowledge
Sustainability
of
0.818
0.605989
0.821703
0.787
0.552762
0.787372
related
issues
K1
0.741
K2
0.791
K3
0.802
Purchase Intention
PI1
0.755
PI2
0.706
PI3
0.768
Table 3: Discriminant validity
1
1.
2
3
4
0.61
Environmenta
l Norms
Social 0.60
0.71
Personal 0.85
0.58
0.72
0.59
0.40
2.
Norms
3.
Norms
4.
Functional 0.30
Value
(Willingness to
Pay)
0.73
5
6
7
8
9
5.
Functional 0.28
0.57
0.37
0.74
0.76
0.74
0.66
0.53
0.49
0.71
0.63
0.49
0.61
0.65
0.78
0.63
0.51
0.46
0.49
0.49
0.75
0.67
0.78
0.45
0.66
0.38
0.48
0.60
0.53
0.45
Value
(Quality)
Health 0.57
6.
Consciousness
7
Perceived 0.47
Behavioural
Control
8. Knowledge 0.36
of
Sustainability
9.
Purchase 0.78
0.74
Intention
4.2 PATH ANALYSIS
We have done path analysis in structural equation modeling to check the hypothesis. And
finding indicates that some values are below the threshold of good model fit. CMIN/DF=1.895,
CFI (comparative fit index) =0.887, GFI (goodness-of-fit index) =0.835, AGFI (adjusted
goodness of fit index) =0.784, NFI (normed fit index) =0.793, (Tucker-Lewis index) =0.862,
RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) =0.067. Results suggested that
environmental norms significantly impact the purchase intention of sustainable food packaging
(ß = 1.047, P< 0.05), and Functional Value (Quality) has a significant impact on purchase
intention (ß = 0.477, P< 0.05). Social norms do not significantly impact purchase intention (ß
= -0.523, P> 0.05). Personal norms do not significantly impact purchase intention (ß = -0.361,
P> 0.05). Functional Value (Willingness to Pay) has no significant impact on the on-purchase
intention (ß =-0.009, P> 0.05). Perceived Behavioural Control does not significantly impact
the on-purchase intent (ß = -0.175, P> 0.05). Health consciousness does not significantly impact
purchase intention (ß = 0.527, P> 0.05). Knowledge of Sustainability does not significantly
impact purchase intention (ß = 0.008, P> 0.05). This model shows that the squared multiple
correlation value is 0.796, which is R2 value. It explains that input variables explain 79.6 % of
the output variable.
Table 4: Path Analysis
Beta
Environmental
Norms----->
SE
p
Hypothesis
Purchase 1.047
0.564
0.031
supported
Purchase -0.523
0.226
0.064
Not
Intention
Social
Norms------------>
supported
Intention
Personal
Norms--------->
Purchase -0.361
0.475
0.427
supported
Intention
Functional value (Willingness to Pay)---- -0.009
0.184
0.962
value
Not
supported
----> Purchase Intention
Functional
Not
(Quality)------------> 0.477
0.18
0.031
supported
0.407
0.571
Not
Purchase Intention
Perceived
Behavioural
Control-----> -0.175
supported
Purchase Intention
Health
consciousness----------------> 0.527
0.317
0.194
supported
Purchase Intention
Knowledge
-------------->
Not
Purchase 0.008
Intention
β = Standardized coefficient; SE = standard error.
0.142
0.965
Not
supported
4.3 MODERATION EFFECT
We have conducted a moderation test in the PROCESS macro using model number 1, which
shows the effect of moderators between the dependent and independent variables. The result
shows that the relationship between functional value (quality) and purchase intention is
significantly affected by gender ( ß= 0.3141, P<0.05). As the coefficient is positive, the effect
of quality is higher for males than females. However, income and education qualifications do
not show any moderation effect on purchase intention ( P > 0.05).
Figure 2: Moderation effect of gender on the relationship between quality and purchase
intention
5. DISCUSSION
Analysis of the study suggested that environmental norms and functional value (quality)
significantly impact sustainable/reusable food packaging. From the result, people greatly
respect ecological conditions and are very sensitive to environmentally friendly products.
Sustainable food packaging can reduce the large amount of waste generated because of singleuse plastic, and society may accept and purchase food delivery in sustainable packaging to
reduce plastic waste. People are becoming aware of environmental issues and waste generation
and seeking sustainable food packaging options. People also look for the food delivery
company's quality of food packaging. They are susceptible to the consistency of the packaging
quality as people prioritize health. People will accept sustainable food packaging if it meets
quality requirements such as durability, the feasibility of storing food for a longer time, and
shelf life. As people are very selective, maintaining separate containers of products will be a
very difficult task. For example, people are susceptible to maintaining different containers for
vegetarians and non-vegetarians. So, quality and consistency are essential in selecting
sustainable food packaging. It must meet the quality and functional requirements while
minimizing the environmental impact.