Pollution

Pollution

Beyond Environmental Transparency: Brand Credibility as a Key Driver of Willingness to Pay for Low Global Warming Potential Construction Materials

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors
Shahrbanoo Golchoobi Diva
Hamidreza Jafari
Graduate Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, P.O.Box 14155-6135, Tehran, Iran
10.22059/poll.2026.410414.3279
Abstract
The construction sector accounts for a substantial share of global energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, with embodied carbon from building materials increasingly recognized as a critical contributor. In response, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) have been promoted to enhance environmental transparency and support environmentally informed material selection. However, empirical evidence remains inconclusive as to whether standardized environmental information alone is sufficient to influence professionals’ willingness to pay (WTP).
This study investigates how environmental attitude, environmental knowledge, and perceived brand credibility jointly shape construction professionals’ willingness to pay a price premium for green certified, low Global Warming Potential (low GWP) wall materials when standardized EPD based environmental information is provided. A quantitative cross sectional survey was conducted among 136 construction professionals. Simplified LCA results were used to develop uniform EPD style environmental profiles presented consistently across material alternatives. Data were analyzed using Spearman’s rank correlation and multiple linear regression.
The results show that environmental attitude and environmental knowledge are positively associated with willingness to pay at the bivariate level. However, in the multivariate regression model, only perceived brand credibility remains a statistically significant predictor of WTP (β = 0.497, p < 0.001), while the effects of environmental attitude (β = 0.155, p = 0.184) and environmental knowledge (β = −0.042, p = 0.655) are non significant. The model explains approximately 36% of the variance in willingness to pay (R² = 0.359).
These findings indicate that even under standardized and transparent environmental information, professionals’ economic decisions are primarily shaped by credibility based considerations. EPDs function as necessary informational background conditions, whereas brand credibility—closely linked to trust, risk management, and professional accountability—emerges as the dominant driver of willingness to pay for low GWP construction materials.
Keywords
Willingness to Pay
Environmental Attitude
Brand Credibility
Low-Gwp Materials
Environmental Product Declarations (EPD)
Subjects
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431
Akturan, U. (2018). How does greenwashing affect green brand equity and purchase intention? Journal of Global Responsibility, 9(3), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-12-2017-0041
Barber, N., Taylor, D. C., & Strick, S. (2009). Wine consumers’ environmental knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Wine Research, 20(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571260902978537
Boström, M., Jönsson, A. M., Lockie, S., Mol, A. P. J., & Oosterveer, P. (2019). Sustainable and responsible supply chain governance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.086
Buyle, M., Braet, J., & Audenaert, A. (2013). Life cycle assessment in the construction sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 26, 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.001
Del Borghi, A. (2013). LCA and communication: Environmental Product Declarations. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(2), 293–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0513-9
Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-Alemán, J. L. (2005). Does brand trust matter? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601058
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility and its role in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1086/383434
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
Giesekam, J., Barrett, J., Taylor, P., & Owen, A. (2016). The greenhouse gas emissions of construction materials. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(1), 5–17. 
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
Hertwich, E. G., et al. (2019). Material efficiency strategies. Nature Climate Change, 9, 335–340. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0459-0
Hoxha, E., Habert, G., Lasvaux, S., Chevalier, J., & Le Roy, R. (2020). Influence of system boundaries on EPD comparability. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25, 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01698-7
IPCC. (2022). AR6 Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch
ISO. (2006). ISO 14025: Environmental labels and declarations. International Organization for Standardization.
Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. (2000). No pain, no gain. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.2.66.18078
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006155
Palumbo, E., et al. (2020). Environmental performance of building materials. Sustainability, 12(2), 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020639
Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2
Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for construction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.037
Rex, E., & Baumann, H. (2007). Beyond ecolabels. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(6), 567–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.012
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
Testa, F., Iraldo, F., Vaccari, A., & Ferrari, E. (2016).Why eco‑labels can be effective marketing tools: Evidence from a study on Italian consumers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(4), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1866
Testa, F., Iraldo, F., Vaccari, A., & Ferrari, E. (2018). Why eco-labels can be effective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(7), 1019–1030. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2056
Thøgersen, J., et al. (2010). Consumer responses to ecolabels. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12), 1787–1810. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011079882
UNEP. (2020). 2020 Global status report for buildings and construction. https://www.unep.org
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3
Wang, H., Ma, B., & Bai, R. (2020). The role of trust and credibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119816
White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to shift consumer behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649
Young, W., et al. (2010). Sustainable consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0186-0
Pollution
Volume 12, Issue 3
Summer 2026
Pages 874-885