Symbols, Sustainability and Consumer Responsibility: Investigating Consumer Responses to Waste Disposal and Recycling Labels in an Emerging Market
Stephen Ukenna et al.
Abstract
Growing concerns over littering and the persistent intention–action gap in sustainable consumption have renewed interest in how consumers respond to waste disposal symbols (WDS), particularly in emerging market contexts. Drawing on survey data from 791 tertiary-educated consumers in southern Nigeria, this study employs partial least squares structural equation modelling to examine the extent to which these symbols influence responsible environmental behaviour. Three key insights emerge. First, limited comprehension of ecosymbols constrains consumers’ ability to engage in appropriate waste disposal and recycling practices. Second, awareness of waste disposal symbols (AWDS) alone does not consistently translate into responsible behaviour, with its effects contingent on demographic factors such as age and education. Third, the study introduces and empirically contextualizes reverse consumer greenwashing, defined as consumers’ tendency to symbolically claim environmentally responsible behaviour without consistently enacting it, which—together with situational constraints—undermines the behavioural effectiveness of WDS. The findings further indicate that firms have underutilized the behavioural and strategic potential of WDS within sustainability communication. To address this limitation, the study proposes the Sustainable Waste Disposal Symbols Management Framework, which emphasizes two-way communication and feedback mechanisms to align symbolic cues with contextual realities. Overall, the study advances theory and practice by demonstrating that effective WDS management, coupled with consumer education and contextual support, is critical for promoting sustainable post-consumption behaviour in emerging markets.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.