The world's population is growing quite significantly every year. According to statistics from the World Population Review (2023), 8 billion people live on Earth in February 2023, a threefold increase from the 2.7 billion people living in 1955. Indonesia occupies the fourth population globally, with a population of 282.09 million (Worldometer, 2023). The carrying capacity of nature becomes increasingly heavier due to this continuously increasing population growth. People engage in various consumption activities to produce goods that cater to their needs and wants, exploiting natural resources and increasing air pollution (Chan & Yao, 2008). Indonesia is reported to have the highest concentration of PM 2.5 (fine particulate matter), reaching 30.4 micrograms/m3, making Indonesia the most polluting country in the Southeast Asian region (Kompasid, 2023). According to that explanation, a large human population, excessive consumption, and high air pollution are the three main factors that reduce environmental quality (Rizkalla & Setiadi, 2020).

Reducing environmental quality leads to various environmental issues that become a global concern, including in Indonesia. One of the environmental issues that concerns many parties is the increased waste generated (Suhartien & Hapsari, 2020). Based on data from (Programme, 2017), Indonesia has the highest total solid waste production in Southeast Asia. Indonesia’s total waste production per year reaches 64 million tons, followed by Thailand with 26.77 million tons, Vietnam with 22 million tons, Philippines with 14.66 million tons, and Malaysia with 12.84 million tons. The graph of the waste generated in 5 Southeast Asia’s countries is presented in Figure 1:

The vast amount of waste produced, especially in Indonesia, must be a concern to start taking care of the environment. Humans, as individuals, who contribute to causing environmental damage must be included in environmental preservation as one of the solutions to overcome these environmental issues (Rizkalla & Erhan, 2019) by adjusting consumption patterns, changing preferences, and choosing more environmentally friendly lifestyle such as saving energy, recycling, and consuming green products (Baktash & Abdul, 2019).

Green products are products which not harm the environment and natural resources or cause any environmental pollution (Firmansyah et al., 2019). The behavior of consuming green products is a voluntary action to engage in environmentally friendly consumption practices (Landrigan et al., 2018). Many people still believe that green products are more expensive and having lower quality than conventional ones (White et al., 2019) That perception becomes a Generation Z to Enhance Awareness of Green Products Consumptions barrier for companies or industries in identifying how to develop marketing strategies for green products. To clarify how consumers construct purchase intentions for green products, this research examine the impact of consumption value and the mediating effect of utility.

Consumption value shows that consumers have different values for a product which will become a consideration before making a purchase (Afifudin et al., 2022). According to (Yuan et al., 2022), utility is the main relationship between perceived value, perceived financial sacrifice, and behavioral intention. The different values of consumption are part of the utility that drives purchase intention.

The consumption value used in this study is consumption value theory by (Sheth et al., 1991). This theory describes consumption value into five values: conditional value, functional value, social value, experiential value, and epistemic value. Based on research by (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001), to describe the consumption value used for green products, only three of the five values are taken: functional value, social value, and experiential value.

The utility used in this research is the utility theory by (Thaler, 1985). Thaler's states that consumers obtain two different types of utility from a purchase; acquisition utility and transaction utility. This study uses the mediating effect of utility to examine how customers construct the meanings of green products and apply these perceptions to their consumption practices.

This study also investigates the effectiveness of the value-transaction utility relationship relying on individual characteristics in price-related judgments by looking at the impact of transaction utility between two moderators: materialism and value consciousness. According to research by (Dutta & Biswas, 2005) and (Lichtenstein et al., 1990), price-related judgments guide consumers' behaviors to maximize utility in a transaction. As a result, by investigating the related customers' price concerns (here, materialism orientation and value consciousness), this study contributes to the current understanding of utility theory's boundary conditions that would promote or hinder the translation of a consumer's value perception into green decision-making.

Green Products

Green or environmentally friendly, refers to the term of any product, service or policy that does not harm nature or minimizes the impact on the environment (Durif et al., 2010). Green products are non-chemicals products that do not harm users or the surrounding environment (Alamsyah et al., 2020).

Green Purchase Intention

Intentions motivate individuals and influence their behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Green purchase intention is the possibility and willingness of a consumer who put interest in environmentally friendly issues and is aware of choosing products that are more environmentally friendly compared to current conventional products, which in the production process tend to override the impact and influence on the environment (Ali & Ahmad, 2012). One of the factors for consumers to purchase green products is consumption value (Yulia & Untoro, 2016)(Amin & Tarun, 2021) Generation Z to Enhance Awareness of Green Products Consumptions (Jain & Kabia, 2022) through the mediating effect of utility ((Yuan et al., 2022);(Syaripudin & Kurniawati, 2023).

Consumption Value Theory

Consumption Value Theory explains why a consumer chooses to buy or not buy a product, chooses one type of product over another, and chooses one brand over another (Sheth et al., 1991). In describing the consumption value used for green products, only three of five consumption values are used: functional value, social value, and experiential value (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).

Functional Value

Functional value refers to rational and economic evaluations made by consumers (Carlson et al., 2019) or the practical benefits consumers get when using a product or service (Hur et al., 2013). If we connect with green products, functional value is the main driver in consumer purchasing decisions (Zailani et al., 2019).

According to (Yuan et al., 2022), the more significant benefits consumer get when using green products will increase the acquisition utility because consumers believe that the transactions made for green products are more valuable. When the product has high quality, expectations for prices will also be high, making it possible to increase the perceived transaction utility due to the gains from the deal (Yuan et al., 2022). Based on the description above, the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H1: Functional value affects acquisition utility

H1: Functional value affects acquisition utility

H2: Functional value affects transaction utility

Social Value

Social value comes from the ability of a product or service to strengthen or enhance consumers' social self-concept (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2020). Consumers buy green products to gain self-image and approval from others or to obtain social value (Finch, 2008). Customers' thoughts of positive evaluations towards the purchase will be boosted if purchasing a green product, such as a hybrid car, may offer them what they consider to be an excellent identity and worthy social membership. Based on the description above, the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H3: Social value affects acquisition utility

H3: Social value affects acquisition utility

Experiential Value

Experiential value is the utility resulting from feelings or emotions when consuming a particular product (Sheth et al., 1991). According to (Chuang & Lin, 2007), emotions are the most influential in forming consumer preferences and choices. Experiential value refers to Generation Z to Enhance Awareness of Green Products Consumptions meeting the consumers' psychological needs for a product or service (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). According to (Gelbrich, 2011), the price advantage gained from product consumption can make consumers happy because they get a price comparable to the benefits obtained (acquisition utility). When consumers feel happy and fulfill their psychological needs when using products, it will also increase their satisfaction from getting a good deal (transaction utility) (Hur et al., 2013). Based on the description above, the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H4: Experiential value affects acquisition utility H5: Experiential value affects transaction utility Thaler's Utility Theory

H4: Experiential value affects acquisition utility

H5: Experiential value affects transaction utility

Thaler’s Utility Theory

In utility theory (Thaler, 1985), the perceived utility of product consumption can be obtained from two cognitive processes: acquisition utility and transaction utility. Consumers receive utility from exchanges through financial gains (acquisition utility) and the psychological advantages of the transaction itself (transaction utility).

Acquisition Utility

Acquisition utility is a function that compares the value obtained with the consumers' cost when obtaining the product (Lichtenstein et al., 1990). Acquisition utility is a significant factor in willingness to pay (Urbany et al., 1997)consumer loyalty (Audrain-Pontevia et al., 2013). Acquisition utility is a factor that causes consumers to feel that they are getting more benefits from a product and increases individual expectations of price. Price expectations can change according to the consumers' judgment of a product (Biswas & Blair, 1991). Individual judgments about the benefits that consumers will obtain from purchasing a product can increase individual prices' sensitivity (acquisition utility) and thus can influence individual perceptions of getting a good deal (transaction utility) (Yuan et al., 2022). Based on the description above, then the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H6: Acquisition utility affects transaction utility H7: Acquisition utility affects green purchase intention

H6: Acquisition utility affects transaction utility

H7: Acquisition utility affects green purchase intention

Transaction Utility

Transaction utility is the difference between the actual price and the individuals' expected price (Lichtenstein et al., 1990). The lower the expectation of the actual price, the higher the behavioral intention to buy (Grewal et al., 1998) and the prediction of product choice (Kalwani et al., 1990). Customers who receive a product at a lesser price may feel "smart" because of positive transaction utility and are more likely to buy a product because the transaction made is worth it. Based on the description above, the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H8: Transaction utility affects green purchase intention

H8: Transaction utility affects green purchase intention

Materialism Orientation

Materialism is a set of beliefs that emphasize property ownership in life (Richins & Dawson, 1992). According to (Polonsky et al., 2014), materialism influences the type, quality, and quantity of goods individual purchase. Materialists are the behavior of purchasing higher quality products and services to please themselves intrinsically (Siahtiri & Lee, 2019) and communicate their riches and success in life because higher quality products have greater prices (Eastman & Eastman, 2011). Materialistic consumers are more prone to value functional deals (Tang & Hinsch, 2018). Functional value has a more substantial effect on transaction utility when customers are high in materialism orientation (Yuan et al., 2022). On the other hand, less materialist consumers who focus on developing their opinions, such as personal experiences or feelings, may value experience and provide pleasurable outcomes because they believe getting a good deal may result more from fun and playfulness rather than from task completion. Experiential value has a more substantial effect on transactions utility when customers have less materialism (Yuan et al., 2022). Based on the description above, the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H9: Materialism orientation moderate functional value on green purchase intention H10: Materialism orientation moderate experiential value on green purchase intention

H9: Materialism orientation moderate functional value on green purchase intention

H10: Materialism orientation moderate experiential value on green purchase intention

Value Consciousness

Value consciousness is a judgment to buy a product with its price cheap on some quality (Lichtenstein et al., 1990). Value consciousness focus on low prices and product quality, so it more likely consumers check the goods' price and compare it to another brand to get a good deal (Sharma, 2011). According to (Yuan et al., 2022), because consumers' fundamental objective is to be "smart shoppers" by maximizing the value for money of their purchases, the functional value of transaction utility is more substantial on highly value-sensitive consumers. Green products' symbolic identity and emotional feelings (such as compatibility, pleasure, fun, and innovativeness) may have a more significant influence on internal reference prices among less value consciousness consumers because they rely more on heuristic information processing to make their decisions (Delgado-Ballester et al., 2014). Based on the description above, the hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H11: Value consciousness moderate functional value on green purchase intention H12: Value consciousness moderate social value on green purchase intention H13: Value consciousness moderate experiential value on green purchase intention

H11: Value consciousness moderate functional value on green purchase intention

H12: Value consciousness moderate social value on green purchase intention

H13: Value consciousness moderate experiential value on green purchase intention

This study uses a quantitative approach method. The population in this study is Generation Z in Indonesia, which according to data from the Indonesia Central Bureau of Statistics 2022, reach 66,742,600,000 people. To determine the sample in this study, we use the Slovin formula as follows:

The sampling technique in this study uses a purposive sampling technique. The sampling criteria used are 1) Age of respondents 15-24 years; 2) Purchasing green products in the last three months.

Data collection in this study is carried out by distributing online questionnaires using Google Forms. Questionnaires are distributed online via Twitter by sending menfess (mention and confess) to the @collegemenfess community, which is an Indonesian student community on Twitter with more than one million followers, Telegram by sending broadcast messages to the Mahasiswiid group which is an Indonesian student community on Telegram that has more than 20,000 group members, WhatsApp and Instagram by uploading pamphlet on stories.

The data collection process takes one month long. The total number of respondents who fill out the questionnaire is 278, and only 266 valid respondents use for the final sample data. Final sample data is processed and analyzed by using Smart PLS 4.0 application. First, we analyzed the respondent profile data. Second, we process data using SEM-PLS method by testing the outer model and inner model.

Based on respondent profile data, the types of green products often purchased are foods 26.7%, cutleries 23.7%, cosmetics 19.5%, and others 30.1%. Regarding gender, most respondents are female, 71.1%, and the rest are male, 31.7%. Based on their age demographics, the majority of respondents aged 22-24 are 50%, aged 19-21 are 28.9%, and aged 15-18 are 10.5%. Regarding occupation, most respondents are students 72.6%, private employees 16.2%, self- employed 3.8%, civil servant 0.8% and others 6.8%. Moreover, regarding monthly income, 39.5% earn 500.000 IDR-2.000.000 IDR, 38% of respondents earn more than 2.000.000 IDR, and the remaining 22.6% earn below 500.000 IDR. Respondent profile data is shown on Table 1 below:

To analyze the outer model measurement using convergent validity, consistency reliability, and discriminant validity test by looking at the loading factor, AVE, Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and cross-loading values. Based on convergent validity and reliability test, the result shows that all the indicators in this study have a loading factor value > 0.7, meaning that all indicators meet the convergent validity criteria. Each construct has an AVE value > 0.5, which means that each construct is valid and a latent variable can explain the variance of its indicators. Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability values of each construct are > 0.7, which means that all constructs in this study are reliable. Table 2 shows convergent validity and reliability :

Discriminant validity is tested by looking at the Fornell-Larcker criterion value. All constructs in this study have higher Fornell-Larcker criterion value for their indicators than others and the values are < 0.9, meaning that all indicators meet discriminant validity criteria. Table 3 shows the discriminant validity test result:

To analyze the inner model measurement using the R-Square test by looking at the Adjusted R-square value. The result shows: AU and TU variables can explain GPI variable of 0.243 or 24.3%, while the rest 75.7% is explained by other variables not included in this study; FV, SV, and EV variables can explain AU variable of 0.456 or 45.6%, while the rest 54.4% is explained by other variables not included in this study; FV, EV, and AU variables can explain TU variable of 0.473 or 47.3%, while the rest 52.7% is explained by other variables not included in this study.Table 4 shows the R-Square tests' result:

Discussion

Based on the results of hypothesis testing that has been done, as seen in Table 6, it is known that from ten hypotheses constructed, eight hypotheses are supported: H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H8, and H12. Meanwhile, other four hypotheses are not supported: H9, H10, H11, and H13.

Hypothesis 1 shows a p-value of 0.000 < 0.05 and a t-value of 3.866 > 1.96. These results indicate that functional value positively and significantly affects acquisition utility, which means H1 is accepted. It means that the higher benefits consumers get when using a product increase individuals' judgments of the benefits they will obtain from purchasing the product and vice versa. This result aligns with the research of (Yuan et al., 2022) and (Syaripudin & Kurniawati, 2023), which shows a significant positive affect of functional value on acquisition utility.

Hypothesis 2 shows a p-value of 0.029 < 0.05 and a t-value of 2.188 > 1.96. These results indicate that functional value has a positive and significant affect on transaction utility, and H3 is accepted. It means higher benefits consumers get when using a product, increasing consumer satisfaction with the transactions' deal and vice versa. This result is in line with the research of (Yuan et al., 2022), which shows that there is a significant positive affect of functional value on transaction utility, but differs from the research of Syaripudin dan (Syaripudin & Kurniawati, 2023) which shows that there is no significant effect of functional value on transaction utility.

Hypothesis 3 shows a p-value of 0.006 < 0.05 and a t-value of 2.754 > 1.96. These results indicate that social value positively and significantly affects acquisition utility, which means H3 is accepted. It means that the higher consumers' views about green products can improve their social self-image, increasing individuals' judgments of the benefits they will obtain from purchasing the product and vice versa. This result is in line with the research from (Yuan et al., 2022), which shows a significant positive affect of social value on acquisition utility, but differs from the research of (Syaripudin & Kurniawati, 2023), which shows no significant affect of social value on acquisition utility.

Hypothesis 4 shows a p-value of 0.000 < 0.05 and a t-value of 5.979 > 1.96. These results indicate that experiential value positively and significantly affects acquisition utility, which means H4 is accepted. It means higher pleasure and cognitive stimulation when consuming a product, increasing the individuals' judgments of the benefits they will obtain from purchasing the product and vice versa. This result is in line with the research of (Syaripudin & Kurniawati, 2023), which shows that experiential value has a positive and significant effects on acquisition utility.

Hypothesis 5 shows a p-value of 0.42 < 0.05 and a t-value of 2.030 > 1.96. These results indicate that experiential value positively and significantly affects transaction utility, which means H5 is accepted. It means higher pleasure and cognitive stimulation when consuming a product, increasing consumer satisfaction with the transactions' deal. This result is in line with the research of (Yuan et al., 2022) which shows that experiential value has a positive and significant effect on transaction utility, but differs with the research of (Syaripudin & Kurniawati, 2023) which shows that there is no significant effect of experiential value on transaction utility.

Hypothesis 6 shows a p-value of 0.000 < 0.05 and a t-value of 4.435 > 1.96. These results indicate that acquisition utility positively and significantly affects transaction utility, which means H6 is accepted. It means higher individual judgments about the benefits obtained from Generation Z to Enhance Awareness of Green Products Consumptions purchasing a product, increasing individual sensitivity to a product's price and influences individual perceptions of getting a good deal. This result is in line with the research of (Audrain-Pontevia et al., 2013), which shows that there is a positive effect of acquisition utility on transaction utility.

Hypothesis 7 shows a p-value of 0.014 < 0.05 and a t-value of 2.456 > 1.96. These results indicate that acquisition utility does not affect green purchase intention, which means H7 is accepted. It means that the individuals' judgments of the benefits they will obtain from purchasing the product, increasing their purchase intentions toward green products. This result is in line with the research of (Yuan et al., 2022), which shows that acquisition utility positively and significantly affects green purchase intention.

Hypothesis 8 shows a p-value of 0.000 < 0.05 and a t-value of 5.952 > 1.96. These results indicate that transaction utility positively and significantly affects green purchase intention, which means H8 is accepted. It means higher consumer satisfaction with the transactions' deal, increasing consumer intentions to buy green products and vice versa. This is in line with the research of (Yuan et al., 2022) and (Syaripudin & Kurniawati, 2023), which shows a significant positive effect of transaction utility on green purchase intention.

Hypothesis 9 shows a p-value of 0.902 > 0.05 and a t-value of 0.123 < 1.96. These results indicate that materialism orientation does not moderate functional value on transaction utility, which means H9 is rejected. It means that the influence of functional value on transaction utility does no effect the high or low in materialism orientation. This is in contrast with the research of (Yuan et al., 2022), which shows a significant positive moderate effect of materialism orientation on functional value and transaction utility.

Hypothesis 10 shows a p-value of 0.202 > 0.05 and a t-value of 1.276 < 1.96. These results indicate that materialism orientation does not moderate experiential value on transaction utility, which means H10 is rejected. It means that the influence of experiential value on transaction utility does no effect the high or low in materialism orientation. This is in line with the research of (Yuan et al., 2022), which shows no moderating effect on materialism orientation on experiential value and transaction utility

Hypothesis 11 shows a p-value of 0.131 > 0.05 and a t-value of 1.511 < 1.96. These results indicate that value consciousness does not moderate functional value on transaction utility, which means H11 is rejected. It means that the influence of functional value on transaction utility does no effect the high or low in value consciousness. This is in contrast with the research of (Yuan et al., 2022), which shows a significant positive moderate effect of value consciousness on functional value and transaction utility.

Hypothesis 12 shows a p-value of 0.047 < 0.05 and a t-value of 1.990 > 1.96. These results indicate that value consciousness moderate social value on transaction utility, which means H12 is accepted. It means that the effect of social value on transaction utility is stronger for consumers low in value consciousness. This is in line with the research of (Yuan et al., 2022), which shows a significant positive moderate effect of value consciousness on social value and transaction utility.

Hypothesis 11 shows a p-value of 0.526 > 0.05 and a t-value of 0.635 < 1.96. These results indicate that value consciousness does not moderate experiential value on transaction utility, which means H13 is rejected. It means that the influence of experiential value on transaction utility does no effect the high or low in value consciousness. This is in contrast with the research Generation Z to Enhance Awareness of Green Products Consumptions of (Yuan et al., 2022), which shows a significant positive moderate effect of value consciousness on experiential value and transaction utility.

Based on the test result and discussion on the previous chapter, it can be concluded that from 13 hypotheses constructed, eight hypotheses significantly have a positive effect: functional value on acquisition utility, functional value on transaction utility, social value on acquisition utility, experiential value on acquisition utility, experiential value on transaction utility, acquisition utility on transaction utility, acquisition utility on green purchase intention, transaction utility on green purchase intention, and one hypotheses has a moderating effect: positive moderates effect value consciousness of social value on transaction utility, while materialism orientation and value consciousness does not give moderate effect of functional value and experiential value on transaction utility.

Based on this research analysis, the researchers suggest that companies which produce green products can optimize things that interest Indonesian Generation Z in building purchase intentions for green products. Aspects of consumption value that should concern production and marketing are functional value, social value, and experiential value, where consumers hope to get high quality with lower price, extrinsic value and pleasure from consuming green products. In addition, companies must also carry out systematic utility analysis in designing strategies and give attention to consumers' value consciousness.

We are deeply grateful to the Muhammadiyah Council of Higher Education, Research, and Development (Ditlitbang PP Muhammadiyah) for providing us with the facilities and resources for the Muhammadiyah National Research Grant (RisetMu) Batch VII 2024. Their support enabled the successful completion of the research and its publication in a reputable national journal.