The Conceptual Framework of the Impact of Cruelty-Free and Vegan Logos on Consumer Purchase Intention towards Cosmetics in the United States

The Conceptual Framework of the Impact of Cruelty-Free and Vegan Logos on Consumer Purchase Intention towards Cosmetics in the United States

Athira Inara Mahir Effendi., Ngau Duo Seng., Syahiru Shafiai

 Faculty of Business and Management, UiTM Melaka Branch, Alor Gajah Campus, 78000 Alor Gajah, Melaka, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000304

Received: 29 July 2025; Accepted: 03 August 2025; Published: 08 September 2025

ABSTRACT

The increasing demand for ethical and sustainable cosmetics by consumers has underlined the need for an understanding of the factors that influence purchase intentions in this market. This research will investigate the impact of cruelty-free and vegan certification, pro-environmental attitude, logo recognizability, and altruism on consumers’ purchase intentions within the United States market. Indeed, according to international studies’ findings, there is a strong indication that eco-labels are positively related to purchase behavior, focusing on credible certification as a means to strengthen consumers’ trust in products. Furthermore, pro-environment attitudes and altruistic values seem to drive ethical consumption importantly, while recognizable logos act as visual cues associated with the reinforcement of trust and brand preference. These results provide some useful implications for marketers to align their strategies with growing consumer interest in sustainability and ethical practices. In addition, recommendations for future research should be empirically conducted in the U.S. context and should examine other factors like cultural nuances, social media, and financial considerations in order to view ethical consumer behavior more comprehensively.

Keywords: Cruelty-free, Vegan, Consumer Purchase Intention, Eco-labels, Logo Recognizability, Altruism, Pro-Environmental Attitude, United States.

INTRODUCTION

The last few decades have seen the growing practice of sustainable and ethical consumerism, specifically within the cosmetics industry. The rise in consumer knowledge concerning cruelty towards animals in the name of testing cosmetic products, coupled with other ecological damage that these products can cause, has seen numerous cruelty-free and vegan cosmetics companies being certified in their appeal to this ethically concerned market segment (Cardoso, 2022). These certifications give assurance to consumers that products are not tested on animals and do not contain animal-derived ingredients. Cosmetics are to be externally applied to the body parts such as skin, hair, nails, and teeth for the purpose of cleaning, changing its appearance, or improving its odor (Brummer, 2006). With the cosmetics industry valued at billions of dollars in the United States, consumer interest in cruelty-free and vegan products is growing rapidly. For instance, it was found that 84% of consumers in the United States consider animal welfare when making purchasing decisions (Grappe et al., 2021). It has been suggested that although consumers are more likely to buy environmentally friendly and ethically produced products, their choices are often influenced by several factors, such as logo recognizability, perceived trustworthiness of certifications, and pro-environmental attitudes. However, how these factors interlink in the context of cruelty-free and vegan cosmetics has not been fully explored in the United States.

Problem Statement

While the consumer interest in cruelty-free and vegan-certified cosmetics is fast catching on, especially in the United States, how these logos influence the intentions of purchase by the consumers remains underexplored. There are studies that have already established in Portugal that eco-labels, including cruelty-free and vegan logos have a positive influence on purchase intentions towards skincare products, with a higher intention when these logos are present (Cardoso, 2022). However, the means by which these certifications influence consumer behaviour of cosmetics products, through the role of logo recognizability, the perceived credibility and altruism of the certifications, and the pro-environmental attitudes are not fully understood, especially within the U.S. context. Other countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines have shown that ethical concern factors, like animal welfare and environmental impact, contribute much to purchase intention (Wuisan & Februadi, 2022; Bonifacio et al., 2024). For instance, Generation Z consumers in the Philippines consider ethical and ecological concerns more than price and social influence when buying cruelty-free cosmetics (Bonifacio et al., 2024). Similarly, research in Canada has highlighted how both internal factors, like animal welfare concerns, and external factors, such as the credibility of the not tested on animals claims, influence attitudes and purchase intentions (Grappe et al., 2021). While these findings are indeed useful, research on specific effects of cruelty-free and vegan logos among U.S. consumers has still been scant. This research tries to fill the gap in understanding how cruelty-free and vegan logos influence consumer purchase intention in the United States cosmetics industry. It investigates the roles of eco-label recognizability, pro-environmental attitude, and altruistic motivation in shaping consumer decisions. Therefore it becomes a critical determinant to understand these factors in depth for brands and policy framers who are either seeking consumer trust or promoting sustainability within the cosmetics industry. Furthermore, this research will not only add to the academic literature but also provide practical implications for brands desiring to position their brands among ethically sensitive consumers to help the cosmetics industry march towards sustainability and humane practices while also increasing sales.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview Of The Cosmetics Industry In The United States

The cosmetics industry in the United States, similar to most countries, comprises skincare, haircare, makeup, fragrances, toiletries, and oral hygiene products (Petruzzi, 2024). The people in the U.S. see beauty and personal care items as an essential part of their daily lives (Petruzzi, 2024). Ever Since the early twentieth century, particularly in the U.S., some multinational companies such as L’Oréal, Unilever, and more, have been dominating the cosmetics and beauty industry. The considered most prominent geographic markets in this sector were North America and North Asia due to them holding about 28% of the cosmetics market in 2023 (Petruzzi, 2024). Purchase intention is often characterized as the predisposition, tendency, or likelihood to behave in a way that leads to a purchase, measured against the probability of actually acquiring the product (Belch & Belch, 2009). Purchase intent can also be conceived as when the consumer makes an on-purpose choice to exert the effort required to acquire the brand he or she had shown to be actively interested in (Spears & Singh, 2004). Satisfaction expectations are related to a product’s quality or utility and represent major determinants of this intention’s strength. Originally, the greater the satisfaction expectations, the stronger the purchase intentions that are formed (Kupiec & Revell, 2001).

From a psychological perspective, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) sees purchase intention as the immediate antecedent to actual behaviour, which is again influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control over the behaviour. More than a mere desire, purchase intention is an evaluation by an individual of him or  herself and social influences (Cardoso, 2022). However, there usually exists a discrepancy between intention and actual behaviour, what is known as the intention-behaviour gap (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001). Purchase intention is also categorized into three types based on the level of planning, unintended purchases or impulse buys, partially intended purchases, where the product category is decided but the brand is chosen in-store, and fully intended purchases, where both product and brand are pre-decided (Lee et al., 2019). This categorization indicates that purchase intention may be strong or weak based on the level of planning or decision-making by a consumer. Although purchase intention continues to be a useful tool in the prediction of consumer behaviour, it remains subject to several influences, both cognitive and situational. Bridging the intention-behaviour gap is, therefore, very important for improving the accuracy of prediction concerning purchase actions in future research (Zeithaml, 1988). Even though some studies have questioned its reliability, purchase intention remains in widespread use as a proxy for actual consumer behaviour and this study will assume it is valid at predicting purchase actions, as studied by Cardoso (2022).

Definition Of Cruelty-Free And Vegan Logos

Cruelty-free logos show that a product has not been tested on animals. Animal testing touches on a series of experiments done on living animals, where such procedures may cause pain, distress, or even harm. This is generally done to make certain of product safety before it is brought into the market (Chitrakorn, 2016). The term “cruelty-free” is not legally regulated in many countries, allowing some companies to use the term without verification. That might allow brands to mislead consumers with non-certified logos while continuing to conduct animal testing. Certified cruelty-free logos were established to protect consumers. The most well-known certifications include the Leaping Bunny, PETA, and Choose Cruelty-Free logos, which are given to companies that have pledged to eradicate animal testing throughout all product development phases (Sheehan & Lee, 2014).

Vegan logos identify the products, which are free from animal-derived ingredients and byproducts. By definition, veganism is a lifestyle excluding the use of animals for food, clothing, or other purposes, with the idea to eliminate exploitation and harm. However, there is no universally accepted legal definition of “vegan” (The Vegan Society, 2021). Third-party organizations, such as the Vegan Society and V-Label help customers in recognizing vegan products with their certification logos. Products bearing these logos have strictly followed guidelines that ensure they do not contain any animal-sourced ingredients (V-Label, n.d.). Other certifying bodies as PETA have clearly outlined a procedure by which brands can obtain the logos. For one to acquire the “Global Animal Test-Free” certification, proof has to be made by the company that it and its suppliers do not conduct or commission animal testing at whatever stage of production. To become certified as “animal test-free” and “vegan”, a company must meet the same requirements and ensure that its entire product line is free of animal-derived ingredients (PETA, n.d.).

Relationship Between Cruelty Free And Vegan Logos And Consumer Purchase Intention Towards Cosmetics

Studies underline that labels play a substantial role in helping consumers to differentiate between products and satisfy their own needs (Cardoso, 2022). As cited in a Nielsen report of an American survey, 57% of skincare consumers indicated that the claim “not tested on animals” holds the most relevant packaging claim for beauty products, hence scoring higher than other common attributes such as “SPF” or “natural” (Russo, 2015). The logo for cruelty-free products especially acts as a strong motivation for consumers who support animals’ rights since the logo signals that the company is socially conscious and responsible. Consumers perceive products bearing these logos to be socially more responsible and have higher purchase intention than conventional products do (Sheehan & Lee, 2014). Communicating eco-labels, such as cruelty-free or vegan logos, has been shown to have a significant influence on consumers’ purchase intention. Moreover, cruelty-free logos often create a greater impact compared to no-label products (Cardoso, 2022).

However, the term “cruelty-free” is not globally regulated enabling some brands to use the label without meeting strict standards. Still, consumers are more likely to choose products bearing certified logos rather than non-certified ones, since certification by independent and unbiased entities brings about faith and credibility (Cadete, 2021; Cardoso, 2022). The halo effect of cruelty-free logos also reinforces consumers with strong convictions in animal rights to believe that they are making purchases that are socially responsible (Sheehan & Lee, 2014). These logos are also used by consumers to express their ethical values, further increasing purchase intentions (Sheehan & Lee, 2014; Cadete, 2021). Furthermore, there is a group of consumers in Portugal who believe the concepts of vegan and cruelty-free go in tandem, that it is cruelty-free if vegan and vice versa. This perception underlines how important clear and credible labeling is to meet customer expectations (Cardoso, 2022). The aforementioned findings may suggest that cruelty-free and vegan logos maintain a positive relationship with purchase intention from consumers in the United States. Such logos may attract ethically and socially aware consumers, building trust through certification and credibility by showing the same values as them. Consumers will tend to feel more inclined to buying products carrying these labels in contrast to conventional products without them.

Definition Of Pro-Environmental Attitude

To put it differently, pro-environmental attitudes are variously defined, all reflecting the complexity of the relationship with nature that individuals assume. One common definition claims pro-environmental attitudes refer to an individual’s belief, emotions, and behavioral intentions concerning environmental issues and activities (Schultz et al., 2005). This broad perspective shows both the emotional and rational attitudes that guide behaviour in regard to nature and sustainability. Pro-environmental behaviour has also been defined by concrete actions toward environmental protection. For example, biodiversity conservation or adopting recycling efforts manifest an individual’s attitude in preserving the environment (Escario et al., 2020). Besides that, it is also commonly defined as an individual’s predisposition to hold the environment in a positive regard and act to protect it. This evaluation dimension of pro-environmental attitudes points toward a moral obligation towards environmental care (Hawcroft & Milfont, 2010). Moreover, pro-environmental behaviour involves the conscious effort to reduce the negative results of a person’s actions on the environment. In other words, much effort is exerted on one’s part to have the least possible harm minimized against the environment (Dono et al., 2010).

Relationship Between Pro-Environmental Attitudes And Consumer Purchase Intention Towards Cosmetics

Studies have indeed demonstrated how pro-environmental attitudes can influence consumers’ purchase intentions across a number of domains and with regard to specific ecological products. For example, studies in Australia show that individuals who have favorable environmental attitudes towards nature exhibit green behaviours in many aspects of life, including the likelihood of purchasing sustainable products (Bissing-Olson et al., 2013). On the other hand, research in the United Kingdom shows that eco-labels have a positive influence on consumers with a strong predisposition toward environmental beliefs as these people become more prone to selecting sustainable brands (Pickett-Baker & Ozaki, 2008).

However, it was also pointed out from a study in India that a pro-environmental attitude is not necessarily translated into green purchase behaviour. For example, a number of barriers, such as price, limited availability, and performance-based apprehensions, actually restrain consumers from buying sustainable products, though the same consumers may hold quite environmentally friendly attitudes (Joshi & Rahman, 2015). Nevertheless, this study may not apply to the United States due to significant cultural differences (Chelli, 2024). Yet, a study in Portugal also showed that consumers with stronger pro-environmental attitudes were in all likelihood to make green purchases, especially when the eco-labels were communicated effectively (Cardoso, 2022). This infers that clear communication of eco-certifications can improve purchase intention among environmentally concerned consumers.

Based on the preceding and these results, it can be assumed in the United States that a consumer with strong-environmental attitudes will also report a positive relationship with purchase intention towards cosmetics, more especially when eco-labels are present, and they perceive that the product is aligned with their values.

Definition Of Logo Recognizability

Logo recognizability has been defined in various ways, frequently in the context of eco-labels and their efficacy in influencing consumer behaviour. For an eco-label to be effective, consumers have to be aware of the logo, understand what the logo means, and trust the information conveyed by the logo (Horne, 2009). Recognizability refers to the fact that the person is aware of the existence of the logo and what it looks like. Better knowledge reduces uncertainty and builds trust (Thøgersen, 2000). Self-declared claims are those made by producers, retailers, or marketers, and they may be false or misleading (Delmas & Grant, 2010). Independent certification comes from independent bodies that have verified compliance with predetermined criteria and standards (Rashid, 2024). Logos are recognized more quickly than words as they are visual symbols designed for that, thus more effective as a communication tool (Edell & Staelin, 1983). There are two phases where logo recognition occurs. First, audiences correctly identify the logo, and second, they recall and associate it with its referent (Henderson & Cote, 1998). Labels as such are tools of communication that aim to enlighten consumers about the environmental implications of purchasing a product (Rex & Baumann, 2007).

Relationship Between Logo Recognizability And Consumer Purchase Intention Towards Cosmetics

Based on studies conducted in Italy, low consumer confidence in environmental claims consequently weakens the impact of green purchasing as consumers often encounter information overload and are unwilling to trust eco-labels due to greenwashing companies. Nevertheless, when a person is better informed and is aware of such logos, they may increase trust in the conveyed information, which in hand can be included into their purchasing decisions (Tetsa et al., 2015). A way to overcome distrust among consumers is by unifying and regulating labeling systems. Certifications issued by independent third parties over self-claimed labels are commonly preferred by consumers as these bodies provide better word of honor, assurance and claim validity (Taufique et al., 2017; Cardoso, 2022). Besides that, certifications are also useful to address risks by making sure that environmental claims are truthful and reliable which may increase consumer confidence at the same time (Cardoso, 2022).

Similarly, a study in Portugal showed that logo recognizability positively impacts consumer purchase intention, as when consumers recognize a label, they are more likely to show a higher willingness to purchase. To be in particular, certified logos certainly are more easily recognized than self-claimed logos, which explains the higher purchase intentions connected with certified eco-labels (Cardoso, 2022). Furthermore, logos act as an initial visual stimulus that bring out consumer responses at the point of purchase, and even before purchase, awareness of logos and their product categories may influence decision making process (Cadete, 2021). The existence of a logo also calls to mind a set of judgements about the brand image of the company. On top of that, logos can also create an impression of safety and social responsibility, which increases consumer trust and purchase intention (Heerden & Gustav, 1995; Sheehan & Lee, 2014). Apart from that, eco-labels serve as visual elements that escorts consumers towards sustainable consumption by differentiating products that are less harmful to the environment compared to alternatives (Tang et al., 2004).

Based on the findings above, it can be assumed that logo recognizability has a positive relationship with consumer purchase intention in the United States. This is because recognizable logos not only boost trust and lessens unreliability but also be of use to as influential cues at the point of purchase, thereby encouraging U.S. consumers to choose products presenting certified and credible eco-labels.

Definition Of Altruism

Altruism has generally been understood as the behaviour that benefits others at a personal cost to the person carrying out the action (Kerr et al., 2004). Generally, selfless behaviour is motivated by the desire to help others without any personal benefit accruing to oneself (Batson, 2011). Schwartz (1977) in his theory on altruism, posited that the behaviour of consumers becomes more pro-environmental as they become aware of the negative consequences of their actions. This awareness induces a feeling of responsibility to change towards a more ethical and sustainable behaviour. Additionally, altruism is characterized by voluntary actions whereby an individual does good things not to get paid or to be recognized but just for the benefit of others (Oh & Yoon, 2014).

Relationship Between Altruism Within The Context Of Cruelty-Free And Vegan Certifications And Consumer Purchase Intention Towards Cosmetics

Based on a study in Sweden, it was found that a high level of altruism positively influences purchase intention toward cruelty-free and vegan cosmetic products as those with higher altruistic levels are more motivated by the welfare of others, including animals (Taima et al., 2019). Again, in South Korea, it was found that altruism directly and positively influenced attitudes toward ethical purchasing and the intention to buy ethical products as altruism constitutes a positive attitude and pushes people to behave in a way that creates utility for others and, generally, for society (Oh & Yoon, 2014). Besides that, research in Portugal shows that altruism was positively correlated with consumer attitudes towards cruelty-free cosmetics, as well as with their actual buying behaviour (Magano et al., 2022). Consumers with strong altruistic values are in likelihood to act on their attitudes and purchase cruelty-free products. Furthermore, in the United Kingdom, a study has pointed to motivations of social guilt and self-satisfaction that compel altruistic consumers to make ethical consumption either due to peer pressure or a need to feel good about supporting ethical causes (Davies & Gutsche, 2016).

Hence, looking at such findings in other countries, it can be assumed that in the United States, altruism will be positively associated with consumers’ purchase intention toward cruelty-free, vegan and ethical cosmetics. Similarly, U.S. consumers with an altruistic learning are more likely to show a strong preference for those products that align with ethical values to support causes on behalf of animal welfare and social good.

Proposed Theoretical Framework

Figure 1.0: Proposed Theoretical Framework of The Impact of Cruelty-free and Vegan Logos on Consumer Purchase Intention Towards Cosmetics in The United States.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study investigates the determinants that influence consumer purchase intentions for cruelty-free and vegan cosmetics in the United States, based on findings from several international studies. This paper hypothesizes that the four variables which are, cruelty-free and vegan logos, pro-environmental attitudes, logo recognizability, and altruistic tendencies, have a positive relation with consumer purchase intentions toward cosmetics.

Findings from studies in Portugal and Sweden, besides other referenced research, provide strong evidence that eco-labels, such as cruelty-free and vegan certifications, do have substantial impact on consumer behaviour (Cardoso, 2022; Taima et al., 2019). In the case of Cardoso’s work, logo communication, especially when linked to credible certification, was seen to have a positive effect on purchase intention. In this respect, logo recognizability became relevant in allowing consumers to make sustainable and informed choices. Furthermore, pro-environmental behaviors moderated the relationship between eco-labels and buying intentions. In other words, people who are more environmentally conscious showed a greater likelihood of responding positively to eco-labels (Cardoso, 2022). In like manner, the study by Taima (2019), pointed out the role of altruism and knowledge about the environment in the formation of consumer attitudes, which then had an effect on their decision to purchase cruelty-free cosmetics. The study supported the idea that ethical values, such as altruism and environmental responsibility, drive consumer preferences (Taima et al., 2019).

These findings thus strongly suggest that the trends found internationally will probably replicate themselves within the United States. This prediction is supported by the comprehension that the consumer behaviour in the United States matches patterns seen in Portugal and Sweden, especially the finding of growing trends towards ethical and sustainable products. Like consumers in these countries, consumers in the U.S. have expressed increased concern for the ecosystem and animal welfare, which in hand makes them more likely to respond positively to certified eco-labels and are bound to move towards actions following ethical values. (Karimzadeh & Boström, 2024; Rahman et al., 2023).

In conclusion, this research supplies important information and awareness for marketers and companies in the ethical cosmetics market. The use of certified eco-labels and the connection with consumers’ pro-environmental and altruistic values, can substantially enhance their intention to buy. These strategies help in building trust with consumers and matching the growing demand for honesty and responsibility in the cosmetics industry. This consequently may result in increased sales and brand loyalty. (Taima, 2019; Cardoso, 2022).

To close off, a recommendation for future studies is that they could grow on these findings by driving empirical research in the United States to validate the proposed hypothesis. In addition to that, other factors such as social media influence, price sensitivity, and cultural nuances within diverse U.S. consumer demographics could also be explored as they could provide a more overarching understanding of purchase intentions in regards to the ethical cosmetics market. A clear and enforceable regulatory framework that govern environmental claims made by companies should be implemented by the policymakers. This is because consumers will be based on the cruelty-free and vegan logos issue by the authority will affect the purchase intention.

REFERENCES

1. Batson, D. C. (2011). Altruism in Humans. Altruism in Humans, 10(1), 336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341065.001.0001
2. Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. (2009). Advertising and Promotion. An Integrated Marketing Communication Perspective. Victoria University of Wellington.
3. Bissing-Olson, M., Iyer, A., Fielding, K., & Zacher, H. (2013). Relationships between Daily Affect and Pro-Environmental Behavior at Work: The Moderating Role of Pro-Environmental Attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2). 10.1002/job.1788
4. Bonifacio, R. A., Bauib, A. F. G., Uyc, M. Y. T. C., Bandojod, A. J., & Etrata, A. E. (2024). Generation Z’s Purchasing Intention of Cruelty-free Cosmetic Products: The Moderating Role of Environmental and Animal Welfare Concerns. International Business Education Journal, 17, 118-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.37134/ibej.Vol17.1.10.2024
5. Brummer, R. (2006). Rheology Essentials of Cosmetic and Food Emulsions. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-29087-7_12
6. Cadete. (2021). How cruelty-free logos influence Consumers’ Purchase Intention: the effects of Brand Image Logo Awareness and Moral Obligation. Universidade Católica Portuguesa.
7. Cardoso, B. M. F. (2022, January). The Role of Cruelty-free and Vegan logos on Purchase Intention: Investigating the effects of certification, logo recognizability and pro-environmental attitude.
8. Universidade Católica Portuguesa. http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/38362.
9. Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer–do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–577. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1108/07363760110410263
10. Chelli, S. L. (2024, June 7). 5 Must-Know Cultural Adaptation Tips for Indian Students in the
11. The WorldGrad. Retrieved January 1, 2025, from https://theworldgrad.com/study-resources/5-must-know-cultural-adaptation-tips-for-indian-students-in-the-usa/
12. Chitrakorn, K. (2016, January 13). Is the Global Cosmetics Market Moving Towards a Cruelty-Free Future? The Business of Fashion. https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/beauty/is-the-global-cosmetics-market-moving-towards-a-cruelty-free-future/
13. Davies, I. A., & Gutsche, S. (2016). Consumer motivations for mainstream “ethical” consumption. European Journal of Marketing, 50(7/8), 1326-1347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2015-0795
14. Delmas, M. A., & Grant, L. E. (2010). EcoLabeling Strategies and Price-Premium: The Wine Industry Puzzle. Business & Society – BUS SOC, 49(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650310362254
15. Dono, J., Webb, J., & Richardson, B. (2010). The relationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 178-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.006
16. Edell, J., & Staelin, R. (1983). The Information Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 45-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208944
17. Escario, J., Rodriguez-Sanchez, C., & Casaló, L. (2020). The influence of environmental attitudes and perceived effectiveness on recycling, reducing, and reusing packaging materials in Spain. Waste Manag, 15(113), 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.043
18. Grappe, C. G., Lombart, C., Louis, D., & Durif, F. (2021). “Not tested on animals”: how consumers react to cruelty-free cosmetics proposed by manufacturers and retailers? International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 49(11). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-12-2020-0489
19. Hawcroft, L., & Milfont, T. (2010). The Use (and Abuse) of the New Environmental Paradigm Scale Over the Last 30 Years: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 143-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003
20. Heerden, C. v., & Gustav, P. (1995). Factors that determine the corporate image of South African banking institutions. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 13(3), 12-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652329510082979
21. Henderson, P. W., & Cote, J. A. (1998). Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 14-30. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/1252158
22. Horne, R. E. (2009). Limits to labels: The role of eco‐labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(2), 175-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00752.x
23. Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behaviour and Future Research Directions. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 3(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ism.2015.04.001
24. Karimzadeh, S., & Boström, M. (2024). A study of Swedish and Iranian citizens. Journal of Consumer Culture, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14695405241290920
25. Kaufmann, H. R., Panni, M., & Orphanidou, Y. (2012). Factors Affecting Consumers’ Green Purchasing Behavior: An Integrated Conceptual Framework. The Amifiteatru Economic Journal, 14(31), 50-69.
26. Kerr, B., Godfrey-Smith, P., & Feldman, M. W. (2004). What is altruism? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(3), 135-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.10.004
27. Kupiec, & Revell. (2001). Measuring consumer quality judgments. British Food Journal, 103(7), 22. 10.1108/00070700110382911
28. Lee, J. E., Goh, M. L., & Nadzri, M. (2019). Understanding purchase intention of university students towards skin care products. PSU Research Review, 3(3), 161-178. https://doi.org/10.1108/PRR-11-2018-0031
29. Magano, J., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., & Ferreira, B. (2022). A Cross-Sectional Study on Ethical Buyer Behavior towards Cruelty-Free Cosmetics: What Consequences for Female Leadership Practices? Understanding Sustainable Human Resource Management, 14(13), 7786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137786
30. Oh, J.-C., & Yoon, S.-J. (2014, 04 16). International Journal of Consumer Studies. Theory-based approach to factors affecting ethical consumption, 38(3), 278-288.
31. PETA. (n.d.). PETA’s ‘Global Beauty Without Bunnies’ Program. PETA. Retrieved December 31, 2024, from https://www.peta.org/living/personal-care-fashion/beauty-without-bunnies/
32. Petruzzi, D. (2024, July 10). Cosmetics industry in the U.S. – statistics & facts. Statista. Retrieved January 2, 2025, from https://www.statista.com/topics/1008/cosmetics-industry/#topicOverview
33. Pickett-Baker, J., & Ozaki, R. (2008). Pro-environmental products: Marketing influence on consumer purchase decision. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(5), 281-293. 10.1108/07363760810890516.
34. Rahman, S. U., Chwialkowska, Hussain, N., Bhatti, W. A., & Luomala. (2023). Cross-cultural perspective on sustainable consumption: implications for consumer motivations and promotion. Environ Dev Sustain, 25, 997–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02059-8
35. Rashid, N. R. (2024). Awareness of Eco-label in Malaysia’s Green Marketing Initiative. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(8), 132-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v4n8p132
36. Rex, E., & Baumann, H. (2007). Beyond ecolabels: what green marketing can learn from conventional marketing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(6), 567-576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.013
37. Russo, J. (2015). Package this: Beauty consumers favor ‘cruelty free’ and ‘natural’ product claims. faunalytics. https://faunalytics.org/package-this-beauty-consumers-favor-cruelty-free-and-natural-product-claims/
38. Schultz, P., Gouveia, V., Cameron, L., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franěk, M. (2005). Values and Their Relationship to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology – J CROSS-CULT PSYCHOL, 36(4), 457-475. 10.1177/0022022105275962
39. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative Influences on Altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5
40. Sheehan, K. B., & Lee, J. (2014). What’s Cruel About Cruelty Free: An Exploration of Consumers, Moral Heuristics, and Public Policy. Journal of Animal Ethics, 4(2), 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.5406/janimalethics.4.2.0001
41. Spears, N., & Singh, S. (2004). Measuring Attitude toward the Brand and Purchase Intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164
42. Taima, A., Robin, G., & Nathalie, S. (2019). Factors Driving Purchase Intention for Cruelty-free Cosmetics. A study of female millennials in Jönköping, Sweden. Jönköping International Business School.
43. Tang, E., Fryxell, G. E., & Chow, C. S.F. (2004). Visual and Verbal Communication in the Design of EcoLabel for Green Consumer Products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 16(4), 85-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J046v16n04_05
44. Taufique, K., Vocino, A., & Polonsky, M. (2017). The influence of eco-label knowledge and trust on pro-environmental consumer behaviour in an emerging market. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 25(7), 511-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2016.1240219
45. Teisl, M. F., Roe, B., & Hicks, R. L. (2002). Can Eco-Labels Tune a Market? Evidence from Dolphin-Safe Labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43(3), 339-359. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2000.1186
46. Tetsa, F., Iraldo, F., Vaccari, A., & Ferrari, E. (2015). Why Eco-labels can be Effective Marketing Tools: Evidence from a Study on Italian Consumers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(4), 252-265. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1821
47. Thøgersen, J. (2000). Psychological Determinants of Paying Attention to Eco-Labels in Purchase Decisions: Model Development and Multinational Validation. Journal of Consumer Policy, 23(3), 285-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007122319675
48. The Vegan Society. (2021). Go Vegan | What is Veganism? | Understanding Veganism. The Vegan Society |. Retrieved December 31, 2024, from https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
49. V-Label. (n.d.). The seal of quality for vegan and vegetarian products. V-Label: Home Page. Retrieved January 1, 2025, from https://www.v-label.com/
50. Wuisan, E. C., & Februadi, A. (2022). Consumers’ Attitude towards the Cruelty-Free Label on Cosmetic and Skincare Products and Its Influence on Purchase Intention. Journal of Marketing Innovation (JMI), 2, 33-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.35313/jmi.v2i2.35
51. Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 22. 10.1177/002224298805200302