Promoting a green luxury product to belong or to stand out: a concept comparison test approach
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2026.24972Abstract
Literature on luxury products reveals that product promotion involves two status-signaling goals as psychological mechanisms of social adaptation: the value-expressive function (to stand out: status enhancement) and the social-adjustive function (to be accepted: status affirmation). Traditionally, the value-expressive mechanism has been the most effective in promoting luxury goods. However, how these mechanisms operate for sustainable products, given the common assumption that luxury customers tend to disregard sustainability attributes, remains underexplored. This study challenges the aforementioned assumption by assessing how status-signaling goals influence willingness to pay for luxury products with sustainability attributes. Findings indicate that brand promotion that uses the social-adjustive function can be effective. This study recruits 464 participants and adopts an experimental approach involving concept comparison testing to explore the differences in consumers’ willingness to pay for a green luxury car. The car is presented with two distinct claims related to the above-mentioned luxury mechanisms and the absence or presence of a sustainable feature. Across all combinations of stimuli, participants perceive the sustainable luxury car as more appealing. This study shows that introducing a sustainability attribute in luxury brand communications can enhance consumers’ willingness to pay under either of the two status-signaling mechanisms.
Keywords:
green luxury products, status goals, social-adjustive needs, value-expressive needs, sustainable behavior, concept comparison testHow to Cite
Share
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Adıgüzel, F., & Donato, C. (2021). Proud to be sustainable: Upcycled versus recycled luxury products. Journal of Business Research, 130, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.033
Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., & Donato, C. (2021). The atypicality of sustainable luxury products. Psychology and Marketing, 38(11), 1990–2005. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21559
Barrera, G. A., & Ponce, H. R. (2021). Personality traits influencing young adults’ conspicuous consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(3), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12623
Braun, M., & Schwartz, E. M. (2024). Where AB testing goes wrong: How divergent delivery affects what online experiments cannot (and can) tell you about how customers respond to advertising (SMU Cox School of Business Research Paper No. 21-10). SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3896024
Canavari, M., Drichoutis, A., Lusk, J., & Nayga, R. (2019). How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 46(5), 862–922. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz038
Cristini, H., & Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2020). Managing the transformation of the global commons into luxuries for all. Journal of Business Research, 116, 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.002
Cui, G., Peng, L., & Florès, L. P. (2015). Selecting ideas for new product development: Comparison of monadic test and adaptive concept screening under the G theory framework. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(3), 380–396. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-04-2014-0046
Davies, I. A., Lee, Z., & Ahonkhai, I. (2012). Do consumers care about ethical-luxury?. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1071-y
Dubois, D. (2020). Fulfilling social needs through luxury consumption. In Research handbook on luxury branding (pp. 75–91). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786436351.00015
Dubois, D., Jung, S. J., & Ordabayeva, N. (2021). The psychology of luxury consumption. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.011
Eastman, J. K., Iyer, R., & Dekhili, S. (2021). Can luxury attitudes impact sustainability? The role of desire for unique products, culture, and brand self-congruence. Psychology and Marketing, 38(11), 1881–1894. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21546
Edinger‐Schons, L. M., Sipilä, J., Sen, S., Mende, G., & Wieseke, J. (2018). Are two reasons better than one? The role of appeal type in consumer responses to sustainable products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(4), 644–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1032
Fallis, D., Lewis, P. J. (2019). Toward a formal analysis of deceptive signaling. Synthese, 196, 2279–2303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1536-3
Friedman, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2012). Order and quality effects in sequential monadic concept testing: Methodological details matter in concept-testing practice. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(4), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200402
Fuentes, H., Vera‐Martinez, J., & Kolbe, D. (2023). The role of intangible attributes of luxury brands for signalling status: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 47(6), 2747–2766. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12852
Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., & Chen, P. (2019). The status signals paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(5), 690–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618783712
Gaur, S. S., Bathula, H., & Diaz, C. V. (2015). Conceptualising the influence of the cultural orientation of Latin Americans on consumers’ choice of US brands. European Business Review, 27(5), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-03-2013-0061
Goenka, S., & Thomas, M. (2019). The malleable morality of conspicuous consumption. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(3), 562–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000237
Goor, D., Ordabayeva, N., Keinan, A., & Crener, S. (2020). The impostor syndrome from luxury consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(6), 1031–1051. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz044
Grewal, R., Mehta, R., & Kardes, F. R. (2004). The timing of repeat purchases of consumer durable goods: The role of functional bases of consumer attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.1.101.25090
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van Den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017346
Han, J., Seo, Y., & Ko, E. (2017). Staging luxury experiences for understanding sustainable fashion consumption: A balance theory application. Journal of Business Research, 74, 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.029
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.4.15
Hemonnet-Goujot, A., Kessous, A., & Magnoni, F. (2022). The effect of sustainable product innovation on the consumer–luxury brand relationship: The role of past identity salience. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1513–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.070
Johnson, C. M., Tariq, A., & Baker, T. L. (2018). From Gucci to green bags: Conspicuous consumption as a signal for pro-social behavior. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 26(4), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2018.1487769
Kapferer, J.-N., & Michaut-Denizeau, A. (2014). Is luxury compatible with sustainability? Luxury consumers’ viewpoint. Journal of Brand Management, 21(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2013.19
Kong, H. M., Witmaier, A., & Ko, E. (2021). Sustainability and social media communication: How consumers respond to marketing efforts of luxury and non-luxury fashion brands. Journal of Business Research, 131, 640–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.021
Kunz, J., May, S., & Schmidt, H. J. (2020). Sustainable luxury: Current status and perspectives for future research. Business Research, 13(2), 541–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00111-3
Kwon, J. H., Seo, Y., & Ko, D. (2016). Effective luxury-brand advertising: The ES–IF matching (entity–symbolic versus incremental–functional) model. Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1226995
Lee, J., Ko, E., & Megehee, C. M. (2015). Social benefits of brand logos in presentation of self in cross and same gender influence contexts. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1341–1349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.004
Li, J., & Kang, J. (2024), Sustainable luxury brands: The moderating effects of salient identity-based goals. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 33(2), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-04-2023-4452
Lusk, J., Alexander, C., & Rousu, M. (2007). Designing experimental auctions for marketing research: The effect of values, distributions, and mechanisms on incentives for truthful bidding. Review of Marketing Science, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1546-5616.1059
Nelissen, R. M. A., & Meijers, M. H. C. (2011). Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(5), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.12.002
Ngo, L. V., Northey, G., Tran, Q., & Septianto, F. (2020). The devil might wear Prada, but Narcissus wears counterfeit Gucci! How social adjustive functions influence counterfeit luxury purchases. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, Article 101671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.09.003
Niskala, M., & Tarna, K. (2003). Yhteiskuntavastuuraportointi (social responsibility reporting). KHT Media.
Noussair, C., Robin, S., & Ruffieux, B. (2004). Revealing consumers’ willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(6), 725–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2003.06.004
Palomo-Vélez, G., Tybur, J. M., & van Vugt, M. (2021). Is green the new sexy? Romantic benefits of conspicuous conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 73, Article 101530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101530
Panwar, R., Rinne, T., Hansen, E., & Juslin, H. (2006). Corporate responsibility: Balancing economic, environmental, and social issues in the forest products industry. Forest Products Journal, 56(2), 4–12.
Park, J., Eom, H. J., & Spence, C. (2022). The effect of perceived scarcity on strengthening the attitude-behavior relation for sustainable luxury products. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 31(3), 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbm-09-2020-3091
Peng, L., & Finn, A. (2008). Concept testing: The state of contemporary practice. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(6), 649–674. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500810902884
Schade, M., Hegner, S., Horstmann, F., & Brinkmann, N. (2016). The impact of attitude functions on luxury brand consumption: An age-based group comparison. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 314–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.08.003
Sekhon, T. S., & Armstrong Soule, C. A. (2020). Conspicuous anticonsumption: When green demarketing brands restore symbolic benefits to anticonsumers. Psychology and Marketing, 37(2), 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21299
Septianto, F., Seo, Y., & Errmann, A. C. (2021). Distinct effects of pride and gratitude appeals on sustainable luxury brands. Journal of Business Ethics, 169, 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04484-7
Septianto, F., Seo, Y., & Zhao, F. (2022). The effects of competence and warmth appeals on luxury and sustainable brand advertising: The moderating role of construal level. Journal of Advertising, 51(3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1921633
Shao, W., Grace, D., & Ross, M. (2019). Investigating brand visibility in luxury consumption. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 49, 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.04.017
Sundie, J. M., Pandelaere, M., Lens, I., & Warlop, L. (2020). Setting the bar: The influence of women’s conspicuous display on men’s affiliative behavior. Journal of Business Research, 120, 569–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.039
Szaban, M., Szymkowiak, A., & Caniëls, M. C. J. (2023). Unraveling green personal care: Exploring the shift in consumer values and stages of change toward green consumption. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 43(4), 45–64. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22244
Thomsen, T. U., Holmqvist, J., von Wallpach, S., Hemetsberger, A., & Belk, R. W. (2020). Conceptualizing unconventional luxury. Journal of Business Research, 116, 441–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.058
Torelli, C. J., Özsomer, A., Carvalho, S. W., Keh, H. T., & Maehle, N. (2012). Brand concepts as representations of human values: Do cultural congruity and compatibility between values matter? Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0400
Vanhamme, J., Lindgreen, A., & Sarial-Abi, G. (2023). Luxury ethical consumers: Who are they? Journal of Business Ethics, 183(3), 805–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04981-3
Varnes, C. (2019). Concept testing: The role of concept formulation for new product success [Master’s thesis]. Copenhagen Business School. https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/59751535/609053_CianfroneGiorgia_MasterThesis.pdf
Vera-Martínez, J., Fuentes, H., & Kolbe, D. (2024). Sustainable behaviors and personality moderating the status goal and purchase intention relationship of luxury brands. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 25(2), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2024.21062
Wang, P., Kuah, A. T. H., Lu, Q., Wong, C., Thirumaran, K., Adegbite, E., & Kendall, W. (2021). The impact of value perceptions on purchase intention of sustainable luxury brands in China and the UK. Journal of Brand Management, 28(3), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-020-00228-0
Wang, Y., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Conspicuous consumption, relationships, and rivals: Women’s luxury products as signals to other women. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 834–854. https://doi.org/10.1086/673256
Wei, S., Ang, T., & Jancenelle, V. E. (2018). Willingness to pay more for green products: The interplay of consumer characteristics and customer participation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 45, 230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.08.015
Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.2.247
Yeoman, I., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2018). The future of luxury: Mega drivers, new faces and scenarios. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 17(4), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41272-018-0140-6
View article in other formats
CrossMark check
Published
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.