From: Why do consumers respond to eco-labels? The case of Korea
Latent variables | Cronbach’s alpha | CR | AVE | Std. factor loading | SE | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived social value (SV) | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.87 | Â | Â | Â |
 Climate change mitigation (SV1) |  |  |  | 0.93 |  | 0.00 |
 Reduction in energy consumption (SV2) |  |  |  | 0.96 | 0.026 | 0.00 |
 Reduction in environmental pollutants (SV3) (e.g., chemicals harmful to the ozone layer) |  |  |  | 0.90 | 0.032 | 0.00 |
Perceived private value (PV) | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.80 | Â | Â | Â |
 Economic benefit (PV1) |  |  |  | 0.90 |  | 0.00 |
 Usefulness (PV2) (e.g., safety) |  |  |  | 0.93 | 0.037 | 0.00 |
 Ease of use (PV3) |  |  |  | 0.86 | 0.044 | 0.00 |
Label Attitude (LA) | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.74 | Â | Â | Â |
 Interest of eco-label information (LA1) |  |  |  | 0.88 |  | 0.00 |
 Usefulness of eco-label information (LA2) |  |  |  | 0.92 | 0.038 | 0.00 |
 Reliability of eco-label information (LA3) |  |  |  | 0.78 | 0.047 | 0.00 |
Purchasing intention (PI) | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.78 | Â | Â | Â |
 Purchasing (PI1) |  |  |  | 0.92 |  | 0.00 |
 Replacement (PI2) |  |  |  | 0.84 | 0.040 | 0.00 |
 Recommendations (PI3) |  |  |  | 0.88 | 0.038 | 0.00 |