42 The Role of Religiosity in Shaping Sustainable Behavior: A Global Perspective S A H I B Z A D A M U H A M M A D H A M Z A & N A S I M S H A H S H I R A Z I Sahibzada Muhammad Hamza is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Islamic Finance and Economy at Hamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU), Qatar, where he also completed an M.Sc in Islamic Finance. He has also completed an MBA and B.Sc (Hons) in Accounting and Finance from Anglia Ruskin University, UK. Nasim Shah Shirazi is a Professor of Economics and Finance with over 36 years of experience in teaching, research, consultancy, and administration. With more than 76 publications, his research focuses on development economics, public finance, and Islamic finance for social development. Shirazi has also consulted for the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Pakistan Poverty Al- leviation Fund, and private organizations, and serves on the editorial boards of Islamic Economic Studies, Pakistan Journal of Contemporary Sciences, and Pakistan Journal of Management & Social Sciences. Hamza, Sahibzada Muhammad and Shirazi, Nasim Shah. 2025. “The Role of Religiosity in Shaping Sustainable Behavior: A Global Perspective.” American Journal of Islam and Society 42, nos. 1-2: 42–83 • doi: 10.35632/ajis.v42i1-2.3604 Copyright © 2025 International Institute of Islamic Thought HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  43 Abstract This study investigates the complex interplay between religiosity and sustainable behavior within the broader context of global sustainability, with a particular focus on income as a moderating factor. Utilizing a comprehensive dataset encompassing 46 coun- tries and 53,000 respondents, we introduce income as a crucial socio-demographic variable, thereby illuminating an unexplored facet of this multifaceted relationship. Our methodological approach employs Pooled OLS regression with robust standard errors to address the central research question. The empiri- cal findings reveal a nuanced relationship: while religiosity in isolation appears to exert a negative influence on sustainable behaviors, its interaction with income paradoxically enhances pro-sustainability tendencies. This study posits that the achieve- ment of sustainability is contingent upon the intricate interplay of personal beliefs, societal norms, environmental attitudes, and economic factors. Our research contributes to the existing literature by elucidating the moderating role of income in the religiosity-sustainability nexus. The findings underscore the importance of addressing basic economic needs and integrating religious values in fostering responsible environmental behavior. These insights have significant implications for policymakers and environmental advocates in designing effective strategies to promote sustainable practices across diverse socio-economic and cultural contexts. Keywords: religiosity, sustainable behavior, individual income, sustainability and religion Introduction In the contemporary era, our world confronts many pressing envi- ronmental challenges including, but not limited to, issues such as air pollution, water scarcity, and the ominous specter of global warming. 44  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 These concerns seriously threaten our planet’s overall well-being and security (Kahle and Gurel-Atay, 2014). A recent survey conducted by Nielsen and D’haen (2014), encompassing 25,000 individuals from 51 different countries, has highlighted a noteworthy trend. It reveals that a substantial 66% of consumers worldwide harbor genuine apprehensions regarding climate change and global warming. Among these concerns, some of the most prominent are anxieties related to water scarcity, exces- sive packaging waste, and the use of pesticides in food production and agriculture. Furthermore, a staggering three-quarters of the survey’s respondents expressed apprehension about the adverse impacts of air and water pollution (Frighetto, 2011). Given the concerns around sustain- ability within the consciousness of consumers, and the recognition that excessive consumption is a pivotal threat to the sustainability paradigm, comprehending the fundamental drivers of consumer behavior, such as core values, becomes an imperative prerequisite for fostering widespread adoption of sustainable practices. The proliferation of environmental predicaments and their detrimen- tal impacts worldwide underscores the urgent need for swift and effective solutions. Given that the bulk of today’s environmental issues can be traced back to human activities and conduct, the effective deployment of remedies for these burgeoning problems necessitates a fundamen- tal shift in behavior and the active engagement of entire populations (Onel and Mukherjee, 2015). Therefore, the effective resolution of these issues is contingent upon the alteration of said behaviors and the dis- cernment of behavioral remedies, as noted by scholars such as Hirsch (2010), Ramkissoon et al. (2013), and Steg et al. (2014). Thus, it becomes evident that identifying and comprehensively analyzing the determinants influencing individuals’ pro-environmental behaviors hold paramount significance (Mancha and Yoder, 2015; Bergek and Mignon, 2017; Ramkissoon et al., 2013; Karimi, 2019). Researchers have explored a range of external, individual, psychological, and societal factors (Gifford and Nilsson, 2014; Karimi, 2019; Kumar, 2019; Karimi and Saghaleini, 2021). However, it is noteworthy that one pivotal factor, namely religiosity, has been relatively underexplored within this con- text (Ghazali et al., 2018). Religion stands as one of the most pervasive HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  45 and influential social institutions, intricately interwoven within the tap- estry of nearly every culture and society, as emphasized by Ives and Kidwell (2019). A report issued by the Pew Research Center reveals that a remarkable 84% of the global populace subscribe to one of the established religions (Pew Research Center, 2017). Another estimate reinforces this overarching influence, indicating that approximately 68% of the world’s inhabitants acknowledge the substantial role of religion in shaping their daily lives (Diener et al., 2011). Religiosity, in this context, forms a foun- dational pillar, giving rise to social norms, molding individual behaviors, and underpinning the very cornerstones of social structures, ethical prin- ciples, and legal systems, as shown by Cohen (2009). Considering the environmental context, then, it is reasonable to anticipate that religiosity wields a profound impact on individuals’ pro-environmental behaviors, environmental concerns, and attitudes, as indicated by Greeley (1993), Stern et al. (1999), Bhuian and Sharma (2017), and Hwang (2018). Religiosity, characterized by the belief in the existence of a divine entity and adherence to a set of divine principles that guide human conduct and earthly actions, as defined by McDaniel and Burnett (1990), emerges as a significant wellspring of environmental ethics, as affirmed by Rice (2006) and Vitell (2009). This research builds upon the work of Karimi et al. (2022), who investigated the effect of religiosity on pro-environmental behavior (PEB) among Iranian rural female facilitators. While Karimi et al. (2022) provided valuable insights into the relationship between religiosity and PEB in a specific context, our study aims to broaden this perspective and address a critical gap in the literature by examining the phenomenon on a global scale and introducing an additional crucial factor: income. Specifically, this research investigates the causal relationship between religiosity and sustainable behavior (analogous to PEB in Karimi et al.’s study) in 46 countries, encompassing 53,877 respondents worldwide. Unlike previous studies, including Karimi et al. (2022), which focused on specific populations or regions, our study examines the phenome- non from a broader perspective, which helps generalize the findings. Furthermore, this study extends the framework by considering religi- osity in relation to income to offer insights into how religiosity can 46  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 complement income in shaping sustainable behavior amongst the studied individuals. This interaction between religiosity and income represents a novel contribution to the field, addressing a gap in our understanding of how these factors jointly influence sustainable behaviors. This study pooled data from World Value Surveys conducted by the World Value Survey Association during seven-time periods (1981 – 1984, 1990 – 1994, 1995 – 1998, 1999 – 2004, 2005 – 2009, 2010 – 2014, and 2017 – 2022). This extensive dataset allows for a comprehensive analysis of trends and patterns over time, further enhancing the robustness of our findings. By expanding upon Karimi et al.’s (2022) work and incorporat- ing the income factor, our research aims to provide a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between religi- osity, income, and sustainable behavior on a global scale. This approach not only builds upon existing knowledge but also addresses a significant gap in the literature, offering valuable insights for policymakers, envi- ronmental advocates, and researchers alike. Our paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the academic literature that substantiates the potential causal relationship between religiosity and sustainable behavior. Section 3 examines the data, empirical models, summary statistics, and the employed estimation strategy. Moving on to Section 4, we discuss the results pertaining to how religiosity influences sustainable behaviors. Finally, Section 5 encapsulates our study with concluding remarks. Literature Review In an era characterized by burgeoning population growth and diminish- ing resources, the imperative to foster sustainable behavior has garnered significant attention within the academic discourse. This study builds upon the work of Karimi et al. (2022), extending their research by intro- ducing income as a moderating variable in the relationship between religiosity and sustainable behavior. Grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985), this investigation seeks to elucidate the complex interplay of factors influencing sustainable practices. Before delving into the determinants of sustainable behavior, it is crucial to establish a clear conceptualization of sustainability. Originally denoting longevity, HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  47 the term has evolved to encompass notions of long-term support, accep- tance, and assurance. Across various domains—political, technological, economic, and environmental—sustainability entails striking a balance between present and future objectives without compromising future via- bility (Di Fabio and Maree, 2016). The United Nations’ seminal definition, articulated in the Brundtland Report (1987), encapsulates sustainability as “development that meets the needs of the present without compro- mising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Empirical research has explored both extrinsic and intrinsic motiva- tors for sustainable behavior. Extrinsic factors include cost savings and policy-driven incentives, while disincentives encompass penalties for non-sustainable practices (Thøgersen, 2005). Intrinsic motivators, such as personal satisfaction derived from environmental conservation, have also been examined (Kahle, 1996; Kahle and Xie, 2008; Sheth, 1983). However, it is noteworthy that many studies in this domain rely on student sam- ples or experimental designs, potentially introducing bias and obscuring genuine intrinsic motivations. Stern’s (2000) Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory posits that the adoption of environmentally friendly behaviors is underpinned by a strong moral obligation. This comprehensive frame- work synthesizes value theory (Schwartz, 1992), the New Environmental Paradigm (Dunlap et al., 2000), and norm-activation theory (Schwartz, 1977). The VBN theory delineates a sequential process wherein individuals progress from fundamental values and general environmental concerns to specific beliefs about adverse consequences and personal responsibility, ultimately triggering norms that endorse sustainable behavior. Numerous studies have provided substantial support for the utility of the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory in predicting a range of sustainable behaviors, as posited by Steg and Vlek (2009). For example, an empirical inquiry involving 112 residents of the Dutch city of Groningen illumi- nated the efficacy of the VBN model in demonstrating the acceptability of energy policies aimed at reducing household CO2 emissions, as demon- strated by Steg et al. (2005). Similarly, De Groot and Steg (2009) reported that the VBN theory-based model exhibited a commendable fit with the observed data. The VBN framework has also proven instrumental in forecasting attitudes and behaviors related to choices in transportation 48  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 modes. De Groot and Steg (2009) disclosed that individuals’ recognition of the environmental ramifications stemming from their transportation choices and their sense of responsibility for these outcomes were closely tied to a moral imperative to curtail car usage. This study is grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985). TPB posits that behavioral intentions are influenced by attitudes toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. These intentions, in turn, are the immediate antecedents for behavior itself. By incorporating the TPB framework, this research shows the complex interplay between religiosity, income, and sustain- able behavior, offering a nuanced understanding of the factors that drive environmentally conscious actions. In a comparative analysis, which integrated variables from the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985) and Norm Activation Theory, Abrahamse et al. (2009) revealed that com- muters’ car selections were shaped by perceived behavioral control and attitudes, while intentions to diminish car usage were strongly associated with personal norms. Moreover, the cross-cultural applicability of the VBN theory was substantiated by its suitability in predicting sustainable behaviors in Argentina, underscoring its cross-cultural pertinence, as demonstrated by Jakovcevic and Steg (2013). Religion, as one of the most pervasive and influential social institu- tions, delineates social norms, shapes individual behaviors, and lays the groundwork for ethical principles and legal frameworks (Christopher and Kidwell, 2019; Cohen, 2009). Within the environmental context, religion and religiosity assume pivotal roles, wielding considerable sway over individuals’ pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs), environmental con- cerns, and attitudes (Greeley, 1993; Stern et al., 1999; Bhuian and Sharma, 2017; Hwang, 2018). Contemporary psychosocial research has also illumi- nated the interplay between religiosity and sustainable behavior (Pihkala, 2018; Shin and Preston, 2019). Individuals’ stances on social and political issues often align with the prevailing viewpoints advocated by religious authorities (Djupe and Hunt, 2009; Wald et al., 1988). When religious insti- tutions sanctify and endorse particular beliefs, they can exert considerable influence over a range of matters (Huckfeldt and Sprague, 1995; Wald et al., 1988; Djupe and Hunt, 2009; Mathras et al., 2015). HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  49 Here, the introduction of income as a moderating variable in the relationship between religiosity and sustainable behavior represents a significant advancement in understanding the complex dynamics of environmental stewardship. Income levels can substantially influence an individual’s capacity to engage in sustainable practices, potentially altering the nature and strength of the religiosity-sustainability con- nection (Gifford and Nilsson, 2014). Higher income often correlates with increased access to resources and information, which may facili- tate the adoption of environmentally friendly behaviors (Panzone et al., 2016). Conversely, lower-income individuals may face structural bar- riers to sustainability, regardless of their religious convictions (Büchs and Schnepf, 2013; Beck and Gunderson, 2016). The moderating role of income is further supported by the concept of post-materialist values, which suggests that as societies become more affluent, they tend to pri- oritize quality-of-life issues, including environmental concerns, over economic and physical security (Inglehart, 1995). In the context of reli- giosity, income may influence how individuals interpret and act upon religious teachings related to environmental stewardship. For instance, higher-income religious individuals might have the means to align their faith-based environmental values with concrete actions, such as invest- ing in renewable energy or purchasing eco-friendly products (Minton et al., 2015). Conversely, lower-income religious individuals might prioritize immediate economic needs over long-term environmental considerations, despite potential religious motivations for sustainabil- ity (Hope and Jones, 2014). By examining income as a moderator, this study provides a more nuanced understanding of how socioeconomic factors interact with religious beliefs to shape sustainable behaviors, contributing to the growing body of literature on the determinants of pro-environmental actions (Stern, 2000; Steg & Vlek, 2009; Bettendorf and Dijkgraaf, 2009). This literature review underscores the complex interplay of factors influencing sustainable behavior, with a particular focus on the role of religiosity. Our findings underscore the multifaceted relationship between religion, belief systems, and sustainable behavior, inviting further exploration into how faith and spirituality can be har- nessed to promote a more sustainable future. 50  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 Table 1. Summary of the Academic Literature on Religiosity and Sustainable Behaviour A ut ho r( s) M et ho do lo gy M ea su re s Fi nd in gs C on tr ol V ar ia bl es Sa m pl e Si ze Sa m pl e Pe ri od C ou nt ry A gu de lo an d C or te s – G om ez (2 02 1) 1 C ou nt ry (C ol um bi a) 45 0 In di vi du al s 19 97 - 20 18 C ol um bi a R el ig io si ty (D eg re e of R el ig io us C om m it m en t) . Pr os oc ia l C on du ct . En vi ro nm en ta l A w ar en es s an d K no w le dg e. Su st ai na bl e Pr ac ti ce s. Th is r es ea rc h su gg es ts th at b el ie f sy st em s, p ro so ci al te nd en ci es , an d en vi ro nm en ta l a w ar en es s in flu en ce s us ta in ab le b eh av io r. A ge G en de r Ed uc at io na l A tt ai nm en t In co m e St at us N um be r of D ep en de nt s M ar it al S ta tu s R es id en ti al L oc at io n. M in to n, K ah le , a nd K im (2 01 5) 38 8 C on su m er s 19 94 – 20 12 So ut h K or ea an d U SA Le ve l o f r el ig io si ty . Ec o- fr ie nd ly pu rc ha se a nd di sp os al b eh av io rs . In di re ct s us ta in ab le be ha vi or s. Lo w -c ar bo n di et be ha vi or s. Th e re su lt s sh ow th at r el ig io si ty pl ay s a m od er at in g ro le , w it h co ns um er s w it h st ro ng er r el ig io us be lie fs b ei ng m or e in cl in ed to en ga ge in s us ta in ab le b eh av io rs , su ch a s bu yi ng e co -f ri en dl y cl ea ni ng p ro du ct s, r ec yc lin g, a nd pu rc ha si ng o rg an ic fo od s. A ge G en de r Em pl oy m en t S ta tu s H ou se ho ld In co m e Ed uc at io n M ar it al S ta tu s St at us a s a Pr im ar y Sh op pe r HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  51 A ut ho r( s) M et ho do lo gy M ea su re s Fi nd in gs C on tr ol V ar ia bl es Sa m pl e Si ze Sa m pl e Pe ri od C ou nt ry K ar im i, Li ob ik ie ne , an d A lit av ak ol i (2 02 2) 11 0 R ur al Fe m al e Fa ci lit at or s 20 22 Ir an R el ig io si ty . A tt it ud es . Su bj ec ti ve N or m s. Pe rc ei ve d B eh av io ra l C on tr ol . In te nt io ns . Pr o- en vi ro nm en ta l B eh av io r. Th e re se ar ch fi nd in gs r ev ea le d th at r el ig io si ty h ad a d ir ec t an d in di re ct im pa ct o n pr o- en vi ro nm en ta l b eh av io rs w it hi n th e co ho rt o f r ur al fe m al e fa ci lit at or s in Ir an . Th es e eff ec ts w er e m ed ia te d th ro ug h fa ct or s in cl ud in g pe rc ei ve d be ha vi or al co nt ro l, su bj ec ti ve n or m s, a nd en vi ro nm en ta l a tt it ud es . R el ig io si ty e m er ge d as a si gn ifi ca nt d et er m in an t i n m ol di ng th ei r pr o- en vi ro nm en ta l in te nt io ns a nd s ub se qu en t a ct io ns . A ge Ed uc at io na l Qu al ifi ca ti on s Fa m ily S iz e M ar it al S ta tu s Le on id ou , G ru be r, an d Sc hl eg el m ilc h (2 02 2) 54 1 In di vi du al s (U SA ) 30 5 In di vi du al s (C hi na ) 20 00 U SA a nd C hi na G en er at iv it y. M at er ia lis m . R el ig io si ty . Fa m ily V al ue s. In te rd ep en de nc e. En vi ro nm en ta l Su st ai na bi lit y B el ie fs . En vi ro nm en ta l Su st ai na bi lit y A ct iv is m . Th e au th or s es ta bl is h a co rr el at io n be tw ee n re lig io si ty , in te rd ep en de nc e, a nd b el ie fs in en vi ro nm en ta l s us ta in ab ili ty . G en de r A ge O cc up at io n Ed uc at io n R el ig io n D en om in at io n M ar it al S ta tu s N um be r of C hi ld re n 52  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 A ut ho r( s) M et ho do lo gy M ea su re s Fi nd in gs C on tr ol V ar ia bl es Sa m pl e Si ze Sa m pl e Pe ri od C ou nt ry Le ar y, M in to n, a nd M it te ls ta ed t (2 01 6) 1, 10 1 In di vi du al s. 20 16 U SA R el ig io si ty . St ew ar ds hi p. D om in io n. W ill in gn es s to P ay fo r Ec o– Fr ie nd ly Pr od uc ts . Ec o – C on sc io us B uy er B eh av io ur . Po st -C on su m pt io n be ha vi or . R el ig io us in di vi du al s ty pi ca lly em br ac e “d om in io n” b el ie fs , w he re as th ei r no n- re lig io us co un te rp ar ts te nd to g ra vi ta te to w ar d “s te w ar ds hi p” b el ie fs . St ew ar ds hi p be lie fs e xh ib it a po si ti ve c or re la ti on w it h in vo lv em en t i n su st ai na bl e be ha vi or s, w he re as d om in io n be lie fs d o no t d em on st ra te s uc h a co nn ec ti on . F ur th er m or e, th es e be lie f s ys te m s se rv e as m ed ia to rs in th e re la ti on sh ip be tw ee n re lig io si ty a nd b eh av io r, w it h do m in io n be lie fs e xe rt in g a w ea ke r an d ad ve rs e in flu en ce co m pa re d to th e po si ti ve im pa ct o f st ew ar ds hi p be lie fs . A ge G en de r Po lit ic al A ffi lia ti on Po lit ic al P er sp ec ti ve H ou se ho ld In co m e M ar it al S ta tu s Ed uc at io n. M uñ oz - G ar ci a an d V ill en a- M ar ti ne z (2 02 0) 72 0 In di vi du al St ud en ts . 20 19 Sp ai n Ex pr es si on o f R el ig io n/ Sp ir it ua lit y R el ig io us O ri en ta ti on . Im ag e of G od . Su st ai na bi lit y. Th e fin di ng s su pp or t t he id ea th at re lig io n an d le ss c on ve nt io na l fo rm s of s pi ri tu al it y ar e co nn ec te d to e nv ir on m en ta lly fr ie nd ly ac ti on s. A ge Se x Ed uc at io na l L ev el In co m e Le ve l HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  53 A ut ho r( s) M et ho do lo gy M ea su re s Fi nd in gs C on tr ol V ar ia bl es Sa m pl e Si ze Sa m pl e Pe ri od C ou nt ry W ah ab (2 01 7) 26 4 M us lim Em pl oy ee s 20 17 M al ay si a R el ig io us W or k V al ue s. Su st ai na bl e W or k B eh av io rs . Su st ai na bl e En er gy C on su m pt io ns . Th e fin di ng s in di ca te d a no ta bl e co nn ec ti on b et w ee n re lig io us va lu es , r ep re se nt ed a s IW V s, an d bo th s us ta in ab le w or k be ha vi or s an d su st ai na bl e en er gy co ns um pt io n. G ov er nm en t Sp en di ng o n St at e Pe rs on al In co m e Ed uc at io n Em pl oy m en t El sh ae r, So ba ih , A ly ah ya , a nd El na sr (2 02 1) 1, 13 5 In di vi du al R es po nd en ts . 20 21 Sa ud i A ra bi a C ul tu ra l P att er ns o f Fo od C on su m pt io n. R el ig io us C om m it m en t. In te nt io ns to R ed uc e Fo od W as te . Th e re su lt s su gg es te d a sl ig ht ad ve rs e in flu en ce o f r el ig io si ty o n th e in cl in at io n to w as te fo od . In c on tr as t, a ro bu st a nd st at is ti ca lly s ig ni fic an t p os it iv e lin k w as o bs er ve d be tw ee n fo od co ns um pt io n cu lt ur e an d th e pr op en si ty to w as te fo od . G en de r M ar it al S ta tu s A ge Ed uc at io n 54  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 Empirical Methodology and Data In this segment, we delve into our data, outline the empirical model, present summary statistics, and provide a rationale for our estimation approach. Data The data utilized for this study is sourced from the World Values Survey (WVS) conducted by the World Value Survey Association. This dataset encompasses seven time periods: 1 Cohort 1 (1981 - 1984): 14,840 respondents 2 Cohort 2 (1990 - 1994): 29,174 respondents 3 Cohort 3 (1995 - 1998): 77,818 respondents 4 Cohort 4 (1999 - 2004): 60,041 respondents 5 Cohort 5 (2005 - 2009): 83,975 respondents 6 Cohort 6 (2010 - 2014): 89,565 respondents 7 Cohort 7 (2017 - 2022): 153,950 respondents From this extensive pool, a judiciously selected sample comprising 53,877 respondents from 46 countries was chosen, as shown in Table 2, predicated upon data availability for the pertinent variables. The list of countries with individual samples extracted from each country is attached in Table 2 below. This sample constitutes a robust 10.57% of the overall survey population, a proportion deemed sufficient for this study. This selection criterion aligns with the approach taken by Beck and Gunderson (2016) in their examination of the influence of religiosity on income and by Bettendorf and Dijkgraaf (2009) in their analysis of 25 Western countries. HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  55 Table 2. Distribution of Data Countries No. of Observations Countries No. of Observations Albania 754 Montenegro 172 Argentina 1001 New Zealand 1015 Armenia 1790 Nigeria 1794 Australia 1963 Norway 1113 Azerbaijan 1873 Peru 1047 Bangladesh 1217 Philippine 1165 Belarus 1865 Poland 1075 Bosnia 1086 Puerto 1126 Brazil 1143 Romania 962 Bulgaria 775 Russia 1666 Chile 942 Serbia 1143 China 1247 Slovakia 932 Croatia 1067 Slovenia 913 Czechia 970 South Africa 2662 Dominica 336 South Korea 1230 Estonia 880 Spain 1162 Finland 934 Sweden 937 Georgia 1973 Taiwan 704 Germany 1923 USA 1466 Hungary 621 Uruguay 940 India 1415 Venezuela 1141 Japan 883 Total 53877 Lithuania 753 Macedonia 783 Mexico 1318 In addition to providing data on the variables of interest, the dataset also includes various demographic characteristics, including age, gender, marital status, region, income, and education. The variables of interest were measured through the utilization of the specific survey questions detailed below in Table 3: 56  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 Table 3. Measurement of Focus Variables Latent Variable Position Observed Measurements Sustainable Behaviour Dependent Variable I chose products that are better for the environment. I prefer recycling products. I prefer actions that reduce water consumption. I attend meetings and sign petitions that support environmental protection. I contribute to environmental organizations that support environmental protection. Religiosity Independent Variable How I rank the importance of religion in life. Religion gives me strength and comfort in life. Income I The reported income is in bottom 50% of the country’s population. Income II The reported income is in top 50% of the country’s population. Descriptive Statistics Table 4 provides a comprehensive overview of the summary statistics for the studied sample. The dataset encompasses a significant demo- graphic diversity. Firstly, the mean Age of the 53,877 observations is approximately 41.02 years, signifying a predominant presence of rela- tively mature individuals within the dataset. Further examination of the Gender distribution reveals a marginal gender imbalance, with a mean value of approximately 0.481 for the Gender variable. This indicates a slightly higher representation of individuals coded as male (1) than their female counterparts (0). Moreover, the Marital variable exhibits a notable trend, with a mean value of 0.651, indicating that a substantial portion HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  57 of the dataset consists of respondents in a married relationship (coded as 1). The region, with an average value of around 0.691, suggests a pre- dominant representation of individuals residing in a specific region or category (coded as 1), marking a noteworthy geographical concentration. To delve into the temporal dynamics, two dummy variables, C1 and C2, representing distinct time periods, warrant consideration. C1 encap- sulates three periods (1990 – 1994, 1995 – 1998, and 1999 – 2004) and is benchmarked against the initial time period (1981 – 1984). This indicates that approximately 46.8% of the sample respondents belong to these three specified time periods. Meanwhile, C2 corresponds to three time periods (2005 – 2009, 2010 – 2014, and 2017 – 2022) and is similarly benchmarked against the initial time period. The data shows that roughly 49% of the sample respondents align with these three specific time periods. Turning to economic attributes, the Income I variable, with a mean value of approximately 0.436, signifies the substantial presence of respondents within the medium income per capita category (coded as 1), benchmarked against the lowest income per capita stratum. On the other hand, the Income II variable, with a mean value of about 0.151, highlights a smaller segment of the dataset falling within a higher income category (coded as 1). Educational diversity emerges as an important dimension. Education I, with an average value of 0.229, signifies a subset of respondents attaining a secondary level of education (coded as 1), benchmarked against the lowest education stratum, representing primary education. Conversely, Education II, with a mean value of 0.557, signifies a larger segment of respondents achieving a higher level of education (coded as 1), indicating attainment of university education. Furthermore, the dataset manifests substantial dimensions of religios- ity, with the Religiosity variable exhibiting a mean value of approximately 0.664. This suggests that, on average, respondents in the dataset demon- strate a relatively high level of religiosity, as inferred from the composite average score of observed measures. Finally, Sustainable Behavior, with a mean value of about 0.348, indicates respondents exhibiting moderate, sustainable behavior based on the composite average score of observed measures. These summary statistics provide insights into the central tendencies and characteristics of the dataset, which can inform further analysis and interpretation of the study. 58  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 Table 4. Summary Statistics for Demographic and Focus Variables Observations Mean Age 53,877 41.021 Gender 53,877 .481 Marital 53,877 .651 Region 53,877 .691 C1 53,877 .468 C2 53,877 .490 Income I 53,877 .436 Income II 53,877 .151 Education I 53,877 .229 Education II 53,877 .557 Religiosity 53,877 .664 Sustainable Behaviour 53,877 .348 Note: Age denotes the average Age of the respondent(s). Gender represents the respond- ent(s) with 0 representing females and 1 representing males. Marital measures the re- lationship status of the respondent(s) where 0 represents single and 1 denotes married. The region represents the regional orientation of the respondents, as 0 reflects rural and 1 for urban. C1 denotes time cohort 1, representing three cohorts (1990 – 1994, 1995 – 1998, and 1999 – 2004). This dummy variable is benchmarked with the first-time wave 1981 – 1984. C2 indicates time cohort 2, representing three cohorts (2005 – 2009, 2010 – 2014, and 2017 – 2022). This dummy variable is benchmarked with the first-time cohort in 1981 – 1984. Income I denotes the population which falls in the medium strata of per capita income. This dummy variable is benchmarked with the people who fall in the lowest income strata. Income II indicates the population that falls in the highest strata of per capita income. This dummy variable is benchmarked with the people who fall in the lowest income strata. Education I reflect the respondent from the medium strata of education, which reflects the respondent having attained secondary education. This dummy variable is the benchmark from the first strata, which is primary education. Education II imitates the respondent who belongs to the highest strata of education, which reflects the respondent attaining a university education. This dummy variable is also benchmarked from the first stratum, which is primary education. Religiosity encapsulates the composite average score of the two observed measures of religiosity mentioned in Table 2. Sustainable Behavior represents the composite average score of the five observed measures of sustainable behavior mentioned in Table 2. HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  59 Empirical Models For the purpose of this study, two primary equations have been formu- lated: a baseline equation and an extended equation. These equations are presented below: Sustainable Behaviori = α0 + α1Agei + α2Genderi + α3Maritali + α4Regioni + α5C1i + α6C2i + α7IncomeIi + α8IncomeIIi + α9EducationIi + a10EducationIIi + α11Religiosityi + εi Baseline Equation (i) Sustainable Behaviori = α0 + α1Agei + α2Genderi + α3Maritali + α4Regioni + α5C1i + α6C2i + α7IncomeIi + α8IncomeIIi + α9EducationIi + a10EducationIIi + α11Religiosityi + a12Religiosity×Incomei + εi Extended Equation (ii) Age denotes the log age of the respondent(s), and for Gender 0 rep- resents female and 1 for male. Marital measures the relationship status of the respondent(s), where 0 represents single and 1 denotes married. The region represents the regional orientation of the respondents, as 0 reflects rural and 1 for urban. C1 denotes time cohort 1, representing three periods (1990 – 1994, 1995 – 1998, and 1999 – 2004). This dummy variable is bench- marked with the first-time wave 1981 – 1984. C2 indicates time cohort 2, representing three periods (2005 – 2009, 2010 – 2014, and 2017 – 2022). This dummy variable is benchmarked with the first-time cohort in 1981 – 1984. Income I denotes the population which falls in the medium strata of per capita income. This dummy variable is benchmarked with the people who fall in the lowest income strata. Income II indicates the population that falls in the highest strata of per capita income. This dummy variable is benchmarked with the people who fall in the lowest income strata. Education I reflects the respondents from the medium strata of education, which reflects that the respondents have completed secondary education. This dummy variable is the benchmark from the first strata, which is primary education. Education II imitates the respondents who belong to the highest strata of education, which reflects the respondents completing 60  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 a university education. This dummy variable is also benchmarked from the first stratum, which is primary education. Religiosity encapsulates the composite average score of the two observed measures of religiosity men- tioned in Table 3. Sustainable Behavior represents the composite average score of the five observed measures of sustainable behavior mentioned in Table 2. ε denotes the Robust error term, assumed to be independently distributed. Furthermore, equation (ii) extends equation (i) with an inter- action of Religiosity×Income, which represents the level of an individual’s religiosity interacting with the per capita income level. This research investigates the influence of an individual’s religiosity on their engagement in sustainable behaviors within the sample coun- tries. There exists a limited body of empirical research exploring the impact of a person’s religiosity on their attitudes toward sustainability. In the study conducted by Minton et al. (2015), a systematic examination was carried out to discern how a person’s religious beliefs and values shape their consumption behaviors in a sustainable context. The study’s results indicated a moderating effect of religiosity, with highly religious consumers exhibiting a greater propensity to participate in sustainable practices. Moreover, Karimi et al. (2022) employed the renounce theory of planned behavior to investigate the relationship between religiosity and the pro-environmental conduct of rural female facilitators in the Qom province of Iran. Their findings illuminated the pivotal role of religiosity as a social influence factor in determining pro-environmental behavior among the sampled individuals. Wahab (2017) investigates the impact of religious work values, specifically Islamic work values (IWVs), on the manifestation of sustainable work behaviors and employees’ utilization of sustainable energy within a workplace context. Their findings reveal a statistically significant association between religious values, particularly IWVs, and sustainable work behaviors and energy consumption. Notably, the observed influence on sustainable work behaviors was found to be more pronounced than its impact on sustainable energy consumption. Studies investigating the impact of religion on sustainable and proso- cial behaviors have yielded diverse findings, as demonstrated by the works of Eckberg and Blocker (1996), Kearns (1996), Kirchmaier et al. (2018), and Vaidyanathan et al. (2018). The majority of existing research has primarily HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  61 concentrated on the correlation between religious beliefs and eco-friendly attitudes, leaving the underlying mechanisms that connect religion and environmentally responsible actions relatively underexplored. For instance, Greeley (1993) discovered a negative correlation between a commitment to environmental spending and biblical literalism but a positive correla- tion with being Catholic. Hayes and Marangudakis (2000) conducted a cross-country survey and identified significant inter-denominational vari- ations within the Christian tradition concerning environmental attitudes. In this vein, Robina and Pulido (2018) have highlighted that recent research outcomes have not elucidated the precise mediating factors in the rela- tionship between religiosity and a more favorable attitude toward nature. They advocate for further investigations to investigate this relationship and consider religiosity as a mediator of other constructs, such as prosocial behaviors. This underscores the complexity and importance of understand- ing the multifaceted interplay between religion and various dimensions of human behavior and attitudes, including sustainability-related ones. This study possesses a distinctive and pioneering aspect by delving into the role of religiosity in shaping sustainable behaviors, leverag- ing an extensive microdata repository featuring a substantial sample size of 53,877 respondents hailing from 46 countries across diverse global regions. What sets this investigation apart is its scale. To date, no prior research has comprehensively examined this phenomenon using microdata on such a massive scale. Existing studies in this domain have typically been confined to single-country contexts or limited, relatively homogenous samples (e.g., Wahab, 2017; Karimi et al., 2022; Leonidou et al., 2022). These limitations have constrained the breadth and appli- cability of their findings. By contrast, our study, characterized by its broad nature, holds the potential to offer insights and implications that transcend national boundaries, making its findings relevant and appli- cable to countries across diverse sociocultural backgrounds worldwide. Estimation Strategy The estimation strategy for both equations employs Pooled Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression, supplemented by Robust standard 62  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 errors to address potential heteroscedasticity. To validate the suitability of this approach, a Breusch-Pagan Test was first conducted to detect heteroscedasticity in the sample dataset. The test results confirmed its presence, justifying the use of Robust standard errors alongside Pooled OLS regression as a robust corrective measure. This method is particularly beneficial when examining complex relationships across distinct groups or time points. Similar estimation strategies have been employed in prior research, as demonstrated by Lin (2019) and Becerra et al. (2013), further supporting its relevance and applicability in research methodology. The Robust standard errors approach provides a useful alternative to conventional standard error calculations, effectively mitigating the impact of heteroscedasticity on our statistical inferences. The Robust standard errors operates by relaxing the assumption of homoscedas- ticity inherent in OLS regression, instead allowing for a more flexible error variance structure. Specifically, it estimates the variance-covari- ance matrix of the coefficients without imposing restrictive assumptions about the error term’s behavior. This method adjusts the standard errors to account for potential heteroscedasticity, ensuring that our hypoth- esis tests and confidence intervals remain valid even in the presence of non-constant error variance. By implementing the Robust standard errors approach, we provide more reliable parameter estimates and sta- tistical inferences across potentially heterogeneous subgroups within our diverse, multi-country sample. This approach aligns with best practices in econometric analysis for cross-sectional data, where heteroscedastic- ity is often a concern due to the inherent variability in large-scale, diverse datasets (White, 1980; MacKinnon and White, 1985). Robustness Check To ensure the robustness and credibility of our devised model, we con- ducted a robustness test by substituting our primary focal variable, Religiosity, with Disbelief (measured religiosity inversely). This strategic adjustment enables us to validate the reliability of our findings derived from the main model. HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  63 Sustainable Behaviori = α0 + α1Agei + α2Genderi + α3Maritali + α4Regioni + α5C1i + α6C2i + α7IncomeIi + α8IncomeIIi + α9EducationIi + a10EducationIIi + α11Disbeliefi+ εi Robustness Check - Baseline Equation (i) Sustainable Behaviori = α0 + α1Agei + α2Genderi + α3Maritali + α4Regioni + α5C1i + α6C2i + α7IncomeIi + α8IncomeIIi + α9EducationIi + a10EducationIIi + α11Disbeliefi + a12Disbelief×Incoi + ε Robustness Check - Extended Equation (ii) This robustness test serves as a critical step in affirming the reliabil- ity and consistency of our model’s outcomes by examining the impact of Disbelief as an alternative focal variable, reinforcing our research findings’ credibility. Results and Discussion Tables 5 and 6 present the results from the baseline and extended equation estimations, respectively. As explained above, to address the significant variability in the data, robust pooled ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was employed, incorporating Robust standard errors to account for heteroscedasticity. Table 5. Pooled OLS (with Robust Standard Errors) Regression Results – Baseline Equation Pooled OLS Regression with Robust Standard Errors Sustainable Behavior Coefficient Age .0004*** Gender -.0244*** Marital .0101*** Region .0190*** C1 -.0035 64  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 Pooled OLS Regression with Robust Standard Errors C2 .0588*** Income I .0774*** Income II .1353*** EducationI .0121*** EducationII .0128*** Religiosity -.0456*** Constant 9.653*** Observations 53,877 R2 0.0533 Note: *** denotes significance at 0.01 - ** denotes significance at 0.05 - * denotes signif- icance at 0.10 Table 6. Pooled OLS (with Robust Standard Errors) Regression Results – Extended Equation Pooled OLS Regression with Robust Standard Errors Sustainable Behavior Coefficient Age .0004*** Gender -.0245*** Marital .0105*** Region .0192*** C1 -.0045 C2 .0584*** Income I .0434*** Income II .1025*** EducationI .0119*** EducationII .0126*** Religiosity -.0759*** HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  65 Pooled OLS Regression with Robust Standard Errors Religiosity×Income .0490*** Constant 9.653*** Observations 53,877 R2 0.0533 Note: *** denotes significance at 0.01 - ** denotes significance at 0.05 - * denotes signif- icance at 0.10 Non – Focus Variables Apart from C1 (Coefficient Estimate: -.0035, p value: >0.05), all other fac- tors substantially affect the sustainable behavior of individuals in the studied sample. Age (CE: .0004, p value: <0.01) has a significant positive impact in determining sustainable behavior amongst the studied individ- uals in the study. This finding denotes that people are more responsible in making sustainable choices with increasing age. Older individuals tend to have accumulated knowledge and life experiences, which often include a deeper understanding of the long-term consequences of their actions on the environment (Piligrimienė et al., 2020; Quoquab et al., 2019). With Age, people become more aware of environmental issues through exposure to information and firsthand experiences, further motivating them to engage in sustainable practices. Additionally, as individuals age, they typically achieve greater financial stability, allowing them to make more sustainable choices, even if these choices involve higher upfront costs but yield long-term savings (Sheoran and Kumar, 2022). Furthermore, Gender (CE: -.0244, p value: <0.01) has a significant negative impact in defining sustainable behavior amongst the studied data observations. The findings suggest that being female has a nega- tive significant impact on sustainable behavior, a complex issue that can be understood through various socio-cultural and economic lenses. Traditional gender roles and responsibilities often assign to women the bulk of household chores and childcare duties, which may limit their time and opportunities to engage in sustainability-related activities 66  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 outside the home (Panzone et al., 2016). Gender disparities in education and access to information can further compound this issue, with men potentially having greater exposure to sustainable practices. Economic disparities and gender wage gaps can hinder women’s ability to invest in sustainable technologies or practices that may require initial financial investments (Bhutto et al., 2021). The Marital (CE: .0101, p value: <0.01) variable represents that married individuals are more responsible with regard to sustainability. Marriage often fosters a sense of shared responsibility between spouses, including household tasks and decision-making. In the context of sustainability, this shared responsibility can lead to joint efforts to adopt eco-friendly practices, such as energy conservation, waste reduction, and sustain- able consumption. Couples may find encouraging each other to make environmentally conscious choices easier, creating a positive influence within the household (Saphores et al., 2012). Moreover, the economic stability often accompanying marriage can significantly impact sustain- able behavior. Married couples typically pool their financial resources, resulting in a higher combined income. This economic stability allows them to invest in sustainable technologies and practices that may have initial upfront costs, such as solar panels or energy-efficient appliances. This financial capacity empowers them to make choices that align with sustainability goals (Wan et al., 2014). Family values and the prospect of starting or raising a family can also play a pivotal role. Many couples who plan to have children develop a heightened sense of responsibility toward the environment. They aspire to create a sustainable and healthy environment for their offspring’s future, which serves as a powerful motivator to engage in sustainable behaviors (Boztepe, 2012). The observation that people from urban (CE: .0190, p value: <0.01) areas exhibit a positive and significant impact on sustainable behav- ior can be explained by several factors. Urban residents typically have better access to resources and services conducive to sustainability, including public transportation and recycling facilities (Topal et al., 2021). Environmental awareness is heightened in cities due to visible pollution and resource scarcity. Higher levels of education, greater eco- nomic stability, and the convenience of sustainable practices in urban HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  67 environments further encourage eco-friendly choices (Soopramanien et al., 2023). Moreover, time cohort 2 (C2) (CE: .0588, p value: <0.01) significantly shapes sustainable behaviour of the studied respondents. When comparing the time cohort 2 (2005 – 2009, 2010 – 2014, and 2017 – 2022) with the benchmark time cohort (1981 – 1984), a clear elevation in individuals’ sustainable behavior can be observed. This phenomenon is attributed to several factors. During the C2 period, there was a notable rise in global environmental awareness, driven by increased attention to issues like climate change and resource depletion (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Vainio and Paloniemi, 2014). Advances in information dissemination, educational initiatives, and technological innovations facilitated greater access to sustainability-related knowledge and eco- friendly practices (Radziszewska, 2019). Moreover, the implementation of supportive policies, evolving social and cultural norms, and the influ- ence of younger generations prioritizing sustainability have collectively contributed to a discernible elevation in sustainable behavior within the C2 cohort (Wan et al., 2014). This empirical evidence underscores the dynamic nature of sustainable behavior and the profound influence of temporal and contextual factors on individual’’ proclivity towards sustainability. Income dummy variables (Income I and Income II) (CE: .0434, p value: <0.01 ; CE: .1353, p value: <0.01) show a significant positive impact of income in determining sustainable behaviors amongst the studied pop- ulation. This outcome aligns with existing empirical literature that has consistently classified income as a paramount factor in influencing sus- tainable practices among households (Panzone et al., 2016; Sheoran and Kumar, 2022). The reasoning behind this correlation is rooted in the fact that higher income levels provide individuals and households with the financial means to invest in sustainable technologies, products, and lifestyle choices (Bhutto et al., 2021). With greater economic resources at their disposal, individuals are more capable of adopting eco-friendly practices, such as purchasing energy-efficient appliances, opting for renewable energy sources, and engaging in environmentally responsible consumption patterns (Wu et al., 2016). Therefore, the observed positive relationship between income and sustainable behavior underscores the 68  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 pivotal role that economic prosperity plays in promoting sustainability within a given population, substantiating the academic consensus on this matter. Lastly, the results of Education dummy variables (Education I and Education II) (CE: .0121, p value: <0.01 ; CE: .0128, p value: <0.01) suggest that an increase in the level of education has a significant positive impact in promoting sustainable behaviors amongst the studied population. This outcome aligns with the established body of research that underscores the crucial role of education in fostering sustainability. The reasoning behind this correlation is that higher levels of education equip individ- uals with greater knowledge, critical thinking skills, and awareness of environmental issues. Educated individuals are more likely to compre- hend the long-term consequences of their actions on the environment and society, thus motivating them to engage in eco-conscious practices (Pimdee, 2020). Furthermore, education often exposes individuals to sus- tainability-related information and encourages them to adopt responsible consumption patterns, energy-efficient practices, and eco-friendly tech- nologies (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Vainio and Paloniemi, 2014). Hence, the observed positive relationship between education and sus- tainable behavior reaffirms the scholarly consensus on the significance of education as a catalyst for promoting sustainability within a given population, highlighting the pivotal role of knowledge and awareness in driving pro-environmental actions. Variable of Interest Examining the result that religiosity (CE: -.0456, p value: <0.01) has a significant negative impact on sustainable behavior is a complex issue, as it involves the intersection of personal beliefs, cultural norms, and environmental attitudes. To discuss this result in detail, we can consider various factors and provide analysis, while also recognizing that indi- vidual interpretations and practices of religion can vary widely. How individuals interpret religious texts and teachings can greatly influence their views on environmental stewardship (Steg et al., 2005). Some inter- pretations may emphasize human dominion over nature, potentially HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  69 leading to a perception that environmental concerns are less important (James, 2004; Rice, 2006). However, it is crucial to note that religious texts can be interpreted in multiple ways, and some religious traditions emphasize the importance of caring for the earth as part of their faith. Secondly, cultural practices and traditions that are intertwined with reli- gious beliefs can also affect sustainable behavior. For example, certain cultural practices may involve rituals or ceremonies that produce waste or consume resources, potentially conflicting with sustainability princi- ples. However, many religious traditions also have rituals emphasizing respect for nature and promoting environmental conservation (Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Religious leaders and authorities wield considerable influence over the beliefs and conduct of their followers. When religious leaders fail to prioritize environmental concerns or actively discourage sustainable practices, it can shape the behavior of their congregants, as indicated by Sarre (1995). Conversely, some religious leaders strongly advocate for environmental stewardship and endorse sustainable living as an integral aspect of their faith, as demonstrated by Minton et al. (2015). Empirical investigations examining the relationship between religiosity and sustainable behavior have yielded varied results. Some studies have iden- tified a negative association between religiosity and pro-environmental actions, while others have uncovered no significant connection or even a positive correlation in certain instances, as evidenced by Agudelo and Cortes-Gomez (2021), Karimi et al. (2022), Leary et al. (2016), Leonidou et al. (2022), and Muñoz-Garcia and Villena-Martinez (2020). These dis- parities underscore the intricate nature of this issue and highlight the significance of taking into account additional contributing factors. The interaction between religiosity and income introduces a nuanced dimension to our analysis, revealing a complex interplay between these factors in shaping sustainable behavior (CE: .0490, p value: <0.01). This finding suggests that the influence of religiosity on sustainable behavior is not uniform across socioeconomic strata, but rather is moderated by individuals’ income levels. This relationship can be developed through the lens of Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs, a theoretical frame- work that posits a hierarchical structure of human motivations. At the 70  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 foundation of Maslow’s hierarchy lies physiological needs—fundamen- tal requirements such as nutrition, hydration, and shelter—which are essential for basic survival. These needs take precedence over higher-or- der concerns, including environmental stewardship. Consequently, the fulfillment of these elemental physiological needs is a prerequisite for individuals to engage in sustainable practices, which often require addi- tional resources, both cognitive and material. Higher income levels typically correlate with enhanced access to resources that facilitate sustainable living. This improved access can manifest itself in various ways, such as the financial capacity to invest in energy-efficient appliances and technologies, the ability to afford organic or locally-sourced products (which often come at a premium), increased educational opportunities leading to greater environmental awareness, and residential choices that offer proximity to recycling facilities or public transportation. Thus, as income increases, individuals are better posi- tioned to overcome the economic barriers that might otherwise impede the adoption of sustainable behaviors (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). The positive interaction between religiosity and income in our model suggests that at higher income levels, the previously observed negative effect of religiosity on sustainable behavior is mitigated. This mitigation effect could be attributed to several factors. First, higher-income individ- uals may have the means to align their religious values with sustainable practices, even if such practices require additional investment. Second, increased income often correlates with higher education levels, poten- tially leading to a more nuanced understanding of religious teachings in relation to environmental stewardship. Third, higher-income religious communities might place greater emphasis on environmental respon- sibility as part of their social doctrine. Lastly, with basic needs met, individuals can focus on higher-order concerns, including environmental sustainability, without any perceived conflict with religious obligations. The interaction between religiosity and income in shaping sus- tainable behavior can be further considered through the lens of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985), particularly in rela- tion to Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC). Within the TPB framework, PBC represents an individual’s perception of the ease or difficulty of HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  71 performing a particular behavior, taking into account past experiences and anticipated obstacles. In the context of our findings, income emerges as a critical factor influencing PBC with respect to sustainable behav- iors. Higher income levels are likely to enhance an individual’s PBC by increasing their access to resources and opportunities that facilitate sustainable practices. For instance, higher-income individuals may per- ceive greater ease in purchasing energy-efficient appliances, investing in renewable energy sources, or choosing eco-friendly transportation options. This increased PBC, in turn, may mitigate the potential negative effects of religiosity on sustainable behavior. As individuals with higher incomes feel more capable of engaging in sustainable practices, they may be more likely to align their religious values with environmental stewardship, regardless of the specific tenets of their faith. This interpre- tation aligns with recent research by Pieters et al. (2023), who found that improved access to sustainability-enabling amenities indirectly bolsters environmentally responsible behaviors. Our study extends this under- standing by demonstrating how such access, proxied by income levels, interacts with religiosity to influence sustainable behavior through the mechanism of enhanced PBC. This insight contributes new knowledge to the field of religion and ecology, deepening our understanding of the complex interplay between religiosity, socioeconomic factors, and pro-environmental behaviors. Existing scholarly literature posits that individuals with pronounced religiosity tend to possess lower income levels (Bettendorf and Dijkgraaf, 2009; Bettendorf and Dijkgraaf, 2005; Heath et al., 1995; Lipford and Tollison, 2003). Therefore, it is arguably unrealistic to expect that indi- viduals contending with the challenges of meeting basic survival needs will simultaneously demonstrate a sincere dedication to environmental preservation. It is imperative to emphasize that characterizing religiosity as inherently antagonistic to sustainable behaviors represents an overly reductionist assertion, as the primary factor frequently influencing an individual’s inclination towards sustainable practices tends to be their foundational income level. For instance, it is worth noting that nations that have ardently championed sustainable behaviors and practices have, in fact, precipitated significant environmental degradation during past 72  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 industrial revolutions (Martinez, 2005). Paradoxically, these nations, having attained requisite levels of development and living standards, are now proponents of sustainability, calling upon less-developed nations, many of which espouse higher levels of religiosity, to adopt similar envi- ronmental conservation efforts. Labeling religiosity as an inherently adverse influence on environmental stewardship is a biased inference. Consequently, a more prudent conclusion is that the inclination toward sustainable practices within a society is intricately tied to the prevailing level of economic development and living standards. Furthermore, the interplay between religiosity and these sociodemo- graphic factors may potentially serve to augment, rather than diminish, the impetus for sustainable behavior (Steg et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2016). For example, religiosity often includes values of compassion, char- ity, and generosity. Higher-income individuals who are also religious may feel a stronger moral obligation to engage in sustainable and chari- table acts. Their religious values might align with the idea of responsible stewardship of resources and assisting those in need, encouraging them to support sustainability initiatives and engage in philanthropy (Muñoz- Garcia and Villena-Martinez, 2020). Income levels significantly affect an individual’s ability to afford sustainable practices and technologies. Higher-income individuals have greater financial resources to invest in renewable energy sources, energy-efficient appliances, and sustainable transportation options (Panzone et al., 2016; Sheoran and Kumar, 2022). Religious values may further motivate them to make these eco-conscious choices, knowing they have the means to do so. Robustness Analysis For increased robustness in our analysis, we have replaced our primary focal variable Religiosity with its inverse counterpart Disbelief. The out- comes of this substitution are illustrated in Table 7. The replacement of religiosity with disbelief has substantiated the results obtained from our principal empirical models. Notably, the coefficients associated with disbelief exhibit a statistically significant positive impact on sustainable behavior and a significant negative impact when interacting with income HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  73 levels. These findings support our overarching analysis, suggesting that when income levels are held constant among individuals with high religi- osity and those with a high degree of disbelief, the former tend to exhibit a greater propensity toward sustainable behavior than the latter. Notably, these findings align with the conclusions of previous studies by Filippini and Srinivasan (2019) and Mo et al. (2023). Therefore, it can be inferred that providing economic support to individuals with high religiosity can contribute positively to achieving sustainable environmental goals. Table 7. Pooled OLS (with Robust Standard Errors) Regression Results for the Robustness Check– Baseline and Extended Equations Pooled OLS Regression with Robust Standard Errors Pooled OLS Regression with Robust Standard Errors Sustainable Behavior Coefficient Coefficient Age .0003*** .0003*** Gender -.0209*** -.0209*** Marital .0094*** .0095*** Region .0214*** .0214*** C1 -.0033 -.0035 C2 .0597*** .0596*** Income I .0802*** .0856*** Income II .1399*** .1454*** Education I .0135*** .0135*** Education II .0132*** .0132*** Disbelief .0225*** .0290*** Disbelief×Income - -.0111*** Constant .2082*** .2054*** Observations 53,877 53,877 R2 0.0509 Note: *** denotes significance at 0.01 - ** denotes significance at 0.05 - * denotes signif- icance at 0.10 74  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 Concluding Remarks This study examined the impact of religiosity on sustainable behav- ior using extensive data from 46 countries and 53,877 respondents, making it one of the most comprehensive investigations of its kind. It has introduced an innovative perspective by incorporating income as a crucial socio-demographic factor and demonstrated that the relation- ship between religiosity and sustainability is nuanced. While religiosity alone appears to have a negative impact on sustainable behavior, when religiosity is considered alongside income, it positively influences sus- tainable behavior. This underscores the complexity of the interaction between personal beliefs, cultural norms, and environmental attitudes. It suggests that achieving sustainability goals requires addressing basic physiological needs and creating conditions where religious values can guide individuals toward environmentally responsible actions. In summary, this research significantly advances our understanding of how religiosity and income intersect to shape sustainable behavior. It emphasizes the importance of improving individuals’ well-being to a level where basic needs are met, allowing religious principles to play a constructive role in fostering a sustainable future. Rather than attributing environmental challenges solely to impoverished religious communities, policymakers should focus on creating an environment where religious values can positively contribute to sustainability efforts. Statements and Declarations Funding: This research received no external funding. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the World Value Survey Website: https:// www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp (accessed on 08 June 2023). Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The authors have no financial or personal relationships with individuals or organizations that could potentially influence or bias the research pre- sented in this article. HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  75 Endnotes Abrahamse, Wokje, Linda Steg, Robert Gifford, and Charles Vlek. 2009. ‘Factors Influencing Car Use for Commuting and the Intention to Reduce It: A Question of Self-Interest or Morality?’ Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 12: 317–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2009.04.004. Agudelo, César Augusto, and Angela María Cortes-Gómez. 2021. “Sustainable Behaviors, Prosocial Behaviors, and Religiosity in Colombia. A First Empirical Assessment”. Environmental Challenges 4: 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100088. Ajzen, Icek. 1985. “From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior.” In Action Control, edited by Julius Kuhl and Jürgen Beckmann, SSSP Springer Series in Social Psychology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2. Becerra, Manuel, Juan Santaló, and Rosario Silva. 2013. “Being Better vs. Being Different: Differentiation, Competition, and Pricing Strategies in the Spanish Hotel Industry.” Tourism Management 34: 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.03.014. Beck, Stephen V., and S. Jay Gunderson. 2016. “A Gospel of Prosperity? An Analysis of the Relationship Between Religion and Earned Income in Ghana, the Most Religious Country in the World.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 55: 105–129. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12247. Bergek, A., and I. Mignon. 2017. “Motives to Adopt Renewable Electricity Technologies: Evidence from Sweden.” Energy Policy 106: 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2017.04.016. Bettendorf, L. J. H., and E. Dijkgraaf. 2005. “The Bicausal Relation Between Religion and Income.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.856004. Bettendorf, Leon J.H., and Elbert Dijkgraaf. 2009. “The Bicausal Relation Between Religion and Income.” Applied Economics 43: 1351–1363. https://doi. org/10.1080/00036840802600442. Bhuian, Shahidul, and Sanjay K. Sharma. 2017. “Predicting Consumer Pro-environmental Behavioral Intention.” Review of International Business Strategy 27: 352–368. https:// doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-03-2017-0022. Bhutto, Muhammad Yaseen, Xiaohui Liu, Yasir Ali Soomro, Myriam Ertz, and Yasser Baeshen. 2021. “Adoption of Energy-Efficient Home Appliances: Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior.” Sustainability 13: 250. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13010250. Boztepe, A. 2012. “Green Marketing and Its Impact on Consumer Buying Behavior.” European Journal of Economic and Political Studies 5, no. 1. Brundtland, Gro Harlem. 1987. World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 76  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 Büchs, Milena, and Sylke V. Schnepf. 2013. “Who Emits Most? Associations Between Socio-Economic Factors and UK Households’ Home Energy, Transport, Indirect and Total CO2 Emissions.” Ecological Economics 90: 114–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2013.03.007. Christopher, I.D., and J. Kidwell. 2019. “Religion and Social Values for Sustainability.” Sustainability Science 14: 1355–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00657-0. Cohen, Adam B. 2009. “Many Forms of Culture.” American Psychologist 64: 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015308. Corraliza, J.A., and J. Berenguer. 2000. “Environmental Values, Beliefs, and Actions.” Environment and Behavior 32, no. 6: 832–848. https://doi. org/10.1177/00139160021972829 De Groot, Judith I., and Linda Steg. 2009. “Morality and Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Awareness, Responsibility, and Norms in the Norm Activation Model.” The Journal of Social Psychology 149, no. 4: 425–49. https://doi.org/10.3200/socp.149.4.425-449. Di Fabio, Alberto, and Jacobus G. Maree. 2016. “A Psychological Perspective on the Future of Work: Promoting Sustainable Projects and Meaning-Making Through Grounded Reflexivity.” Giornale Italiano di Ricerca Applicata 9. https://doi.org/10.14605/ CS931619. Diener, E., L. Tay, and D. G. Myers. 2011. “The Religion Paradox: If Religion Makes People Happy, Why Are So Many Dropping Out?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101: 1278–1290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024402. Djupe, P. A., and P. K. Hunt. 2009. “Beyond the Lynn White Thesis: Congregational Effects on Environmental Concern.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48: 670–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01472.x. Dunlap, Riley E., Kent D. Van Liere, Angela G. Mertig, and Robert Emmet Jones. 2000. “New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.” Journal of Social Issues 56, no. 3: 425–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176. Eckberg, David L., and Thomas J. Blocker. 1996. “Christianity, Environmentalism, and the Theoretical Problem of Fundamentalism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35: 343–355. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386580. Elshaer, Ibrahim, Abu Elnasr Sobaih, Mansour Alyahya, and Ahmed Abu Elnasr. 2021. “The Impact of Religiosity and Food Consumption Culture on Food Waste Intention in Saudi Arabia.” Sustainability 13, no. 11: 6473. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116473. Filippini, Massimo, and Suchita Srinivasan. 2019. “Impact of Religious Participation, Social Interactions and Globalization on Meat Consumption: Evidence from India.” Energy Economics 84: 104550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104550. HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  77 Frighetto, J. 2011. “Sustainability Study: Global Warming Cools Off as Top Concern.” Accessed from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2011/global-warming- cools-off-as-top-concern.html. Ghazali, E. M., D. S. Mutum, and N. Ariswibowo. 2018. “Impact of Religious Values and Habit on an Extended Green Purchase Behavior Model.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 42: 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12472. Gifford, Robert, and Andreas Nilsson. 2014. “Personal and Social Factors That Influence Pro-Environmental Concern and Behaviour: A Review.” International Journal of Psychology 49 (3): 141–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034. Greeley, Andrew. 1993. “Religion and Attitudes Toward the Environment.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32: 19–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386911. Hayes, Bernadette C., and Manos Marangudakis. 2000. “Religion and Environmental Issues within Anglo-American Democracies.” Review of Religious Research 42: 159– 174. https://doi.org/10.2307/3512527. Heath, W. C., M. S. Waters, and J. K. Watson. 1995. “Religion and Economic Welfare: An Empirical Analysis of State Per Capita Income.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 27, no. 1: 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(94)00028-d. Hirsch, J. B. 2010. “Personality and Environmental Concern.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 245–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.004. Hope, Andrew L., and Christopher R. Jones. 2014. “The Impact of Religious Faith on Attitudes to Environmental Issues and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technologies: A Mixed Methods Study.” Technology in Society 38: 48–59. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.02.003. Huckfeldt, Robert R., and John Sprague. 1995. Citizens, Politics and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hwang, HaeJung. 2018. “Do Religion and Religiosity Affect Consumers’ Intentions to Adopt Pro-environmental Behaviours?” International Journal of Consumer Studies 42: 664–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12488. Inglehart, Ronald. 1995. “Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies.” PS: Political Science & Politics 28 (1): 57–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/420583. Ives, C. D., and J. Kidwell. 2019. “Religion and Social Values for Sustainability.” Sustainability Science 14: 1355–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00657-0. Jakovcevic, Adriana, and Linda Steg. 2013. “Sustainable Transportation in Argentina: Values, Beliefs, Norms and Car Use Reduction.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 20: 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.05.005. 78  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 James, William. 2004. The Varieties of Religious Experience. New York: Touchstone. (Original work published in 1902). Kahle, L.R. 1996. “Social Values and Consumer Behavior: Research from the List of Values.” In The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 8, edited by C. Seligman, J.M. Olson, and M.P. Zanna. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kahle, L.R., and E. Gurel-Atay. 2014. Communicating Sustainability for the Green Economy. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. Kahle, L.R., and G.-X. Xie. 2008. “Social Values in Consumer Psychology.” In Handbook of Consumer Psychology, edited by C.P. Haugtvedt, P.M. Herr, and F.R. Kardes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Karimi, S. 2019. “Pro-environmental Behaviors Among Agricultural Students: An Examination of the Value-Belief-Norm Theory.” Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 21: 249–263. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3398141. Karimi, S., and A. Saghaleini. 2021. “What Drives Ranchers’ Intention to Conserve Rangelands: The Role of Environmental Concern (A Case Study of Angoshteh Watershed in Borujerd County, Iran).” Journal of Rangeland Science 11: 419–430. Karimi, Saeid, Genovaitė Liobikienė, and Fatemeh Alitavakoli. 2022. “The Effect of Religiosity on Pro-Environmental Behavior Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Iranian Rural Female Facilitators.” Frontiers in Psychology 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.745019. Kearns, Laurel. 1996. “Saving the Creation: Christian Environmentalism in the United States.” Sociology of Religion 57 (1): 55–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/3712004. Kirchmaier, Isadora, Jens Prüfer, and Stefan T. Trautmann. 2018. “Religion, Moral Attitudes, and Economic Behavior.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 148: 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.02.022. Kollmuss, Anja, and Julian Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Pro-environmental Behaviour?” Environmental Education Research 8: 239–260. Kumar, A. 2019. “Exploring Young Adults’ E-waste Recycling Behavior Using an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model: A Cross-cultural Study.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 141: 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.013. Leary, R. Bret, Elizabeth A. Minton, and John D. Mittelstaedt. 2016. “Thou Shall Not? The Influence of Religion on Beliefs of Stewardship and Dominion, Sustainable Behaviors, and Marketing Systems.” Journal of Macromarketing 36, no. 4: 457–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146715626219. Leonidou, Constantinos N., Verena Gruber, and Bodo B. Schlegelmilch. 2022. “Consumers’ Environmental Sustainability Beliefs and Activism: A Cross-Cultural HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  79 Examination.” Journal of International Marketing 30, no. 4: 78–104. https://doi. org/10.1177/1069031x221128786. Lin, Xuehong. 2019. “Multiple Pathways of Transportation Investment to Promote Economic Growth in China: A Structural Equation Modeling Perspective.” Transportation Letters 12 (7): 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2019.1635 780. Lipford, J. W., and R. D. Tollison. 2003. “Religious Participation and Income.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 51, no. 2: 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0167-2681(02)00096-3. MacKinnon, James G., and Halbert White. 1985. “Some Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimators with Improved Finite Sample Properties.” Journal of Econometrics 29 (3): 305–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(85)90158-7. Mancha, R. M., and C. Y. Yoder. 2015. “Cultural Antecedents of Green Behavioral Intent: An Environmental Theory of Planned Behavior.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 43: 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.005. Martinez, Leah H. 2005. “Post Industrial Revolution Human Activity and Climate Change: Why the United States Must Implement Mandatory Limits on Industrial Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 20, no. 2: 403–421. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/42842978. Maslow, Abraham H. 1943. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50 (4): 370–96. Mathras, D., Adam B. Cohen, N. Mandel, and D. Glen Mick. 2015. “The Effects of Religion on Consumer Behavior: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.08.001. McDaniel, Stephen W., and John J. Burnett. 1990. “Consumer Religiosity and Retail Store Evaluative Criteria.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 18: 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726426. Minton, Elizabeth A., Lynn R. Kahle, and Chung-Hyun Kim. 2015. “Religion and Motives for Sustainable Behaviors: A Cross-Cultural Comparison and Contrast.” Journal of Business Research 68, no. 9: 1937–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.003. Mo, Y., J. Zhao, and T.L.P. Tang. 2023. “Religious Beliefs Inspire Sustainable HOPE (Help Ourselves Protect the Environment): Culture, Religion, Dogma, and Liturgy—The Matthew Effect in Religious Social Responsibility.” Journal of Business Ethics 184: 665–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05131-z. Muñoz-García, Antonio, and Ma Dolores Villena-Martínez. 2020. “Sustainable Behavior among Spanish University Students in Terms of Dimensions of Religion and Spirituality.” Sustainability 12, no. 2: 470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020470. 80  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 Nguyen, T.N., A. Lobo, and S. Greenland. 2016. “Pro-environmental Purchase Behaviour: The Role of Consumers’ Biospheric Values.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33: 98-108. https://doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.08.010. Nielsen, Jonas Ø., and Sarah Ann Lise D’haen. 2014. “Asking About Climate Change: Reflections on Methodology in Qualitative Climate Change Research Published in Global Environmental Change Since 2000.” Global Environmental Change 24: 276–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.10.006. Onel, N., and A. Mukherjee. 2015. “Understanding Environmentally Sensitive Consumer Behavior: An Integrative Research Perspective.” World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 11: 2–16. https://doi:10.1108/ WJEMSD-07-2014-0021. Panzone, Luca, Denis Hilton, Laura Sale, and Doron Cohen. 2016. “Socio-demographics, Implicit Attitudes, Explicit Attitudes, and Sustainable Consumption in Supermarket Shopping.” Journal of Economic Psychology 55: 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. joep.2016.02.004. Pew Research Center. 2017. “The Changing Global Religious Landscape.” Accessed February 12, 2019. http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/ the-changing-global-religious-landscape/. Pieters, Leon, James Cascone, Derek Pankratz, and David R. Novak. “Economic Uncertainty Puts Pressure on Sustainable Behavior Change.” Deloitte Insights, September 12, 2023. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/environmental-so- cial-governance/sustainable-consumer-behaviors.html. Pihkala, P. 2018. “Death, the Environment, and Theology.” Dialog. https://doi.org/10.1111/ dial.12437. Piligrimienė, Žaneta, Andželika Žukauskaitė, Hubert Korzilius, Jūratė Banytė, and Aistė Dovalienė. 2020. “Internal and External Determinants of Consumer Engagement in Sustainable Consumption.” Sustainability 12: 1349. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12041349. Pimdee, Paitoon. 2020. “Antecedents of Thai Student Teacher Sustainable Consumption Behavior.” Heliyon 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04676. Quoquab, Farzana, Jihad Mohammad, and Nurain N. Sukari. 2019. “A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring ‘Sustainable Consumption Behaviour’ Construct: Development and Psychometric Evaluation.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 31: 791–816. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-02-2018-0047. Radziszewska, Aleksandra. “The Role of Social Media in Promotion of Sustainable Consumption Behaviour.” Paper presented at 34th IBIMA Conference, Madrid, Spain, November 13–14, 2019. Available online: https://ibima.org/accepted-paper/ the-role-of-social-media-in-promotion-of-sustainable-consumption-behaviour/ (accessed on August 20, 2022). HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  81 Ramkissoon, H., L. D. G. Smith, and B. Weiler. 2013. “Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachment and Its Relationships with Place Satisfaction and Pro-environmental Behaviors: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach.” Tourism Management 36: 552–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.003. Rice, Glenn. 2006. “Pro-environmental Behavior in Egypt: Is There a Role for Islamic Environmental Ethics?” Journal of Business Ethics 65: 373–390. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-006-0010-9. Robina Ramírez, Rafael, and Manuel Pulido Fernández. 2018. “Religious Travellers’ Improved Attitude towards Nature.” Sustainability 10 (9): 3064. https://doi. org/10.3390/su10093064. Saphores, J.-D.M., Ogunseitan, O.A., and Shapiro, A.A. 2012. “Willingness to Engage in a Pro-environmental Behavior: An Analysis of E-waste Recycling Based on a National Survey of US Households.” Resources, Conservation, and Recycling 60: 49–63. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.12.003. Sarre, Peter. 1995. “Towards Global Environmental Values: Lessons from Western and Eastern Experience.” Environmental Values 4 (2): 115–27. https://doi. org/10.3197/096327195776679565. Schwartz, Shalom H. 1977. “Normative Influences on Altruism.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 10, 221–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60358-5. Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25, 1–65. https://doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6. Sheoran, Monika, and Divesh Kumar. 2022. “Conceptualisation of Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Converging the Theory of Planned Behavior and Consumption Cycle.” Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management 17: 103–135. https:// doi:10.1108/QROM-05-2020-1940. Sheth, J.N. 1983. “An Integrative Theory of Patronage Preference and Behavior.” In Patronage Behavior and Retail Management, edited by W.R. Darden and R.F. Lusch, 9–28. New York: North-Holland. Shin, F., and Preston, J.L. 2019. “Green as the Gospel: The Power of Stewardship Messages to Improve Climate Change Attitudes.” Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Advance online publication. https://doi:10.1037/rel0000249. Soopramanien, Didier, Ahmad Daryanto, and Zening Song. 2023. “Urban Residents’ Environmental Citizenship Behaviour: The Roles of Place Attachment, Social Norms and Perceived Environmental Responsibility.” Cities 132: 104097. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104097. Steg, L., and C. Vlek. 2009. “Encouraging Pro-environmental Behavior: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29: 309–317. https://doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004. 82  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:1-2 Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J. W., Keizer, K., and Perlaviciute, G. 2014. “An Integrated Framework for Encouraging Pro-environmental Behavior: The Role of Values, Situational Factors, and Goals.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 38: 104–115. https:// doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.002. Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., and van der Werff, E. 2015. “Understanding the Human Dimensions of a Sustainable Energy Transition.” Frontiers in Psychology 6 (805): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00805. Steg, Linda, Lieke Dreijerink, and Wokje Abrahamse. 2005. “Factors Influencing the Acceptability of Energy Policies: A Test of VBN Theory.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 25, no. 4: 415–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.003. Stern, Paul C. 2000. “New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 56, no. 3: 407–24. https://doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175. Stern, Paul C., Dietz, Thomas, Abel, Troy, Guagnano, Gregory A., and Kalof, Linda. 1999. “A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism.” Human Ecology Review 6: 81–97. Thøgersen, John. 2005. “How May Consumer Policy Empower Consumers for Sustainable Lifestyles?” Journal of Consumer Policy 28, no. 2: 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10603-005-2982-8. Topal, H.F., Hunt, D.V.L., Rogers, C.D.F. 2021. “Sustainability Understanding and Behaviors across Urban Areas: A Case Study on Istanbul City.” Sustainability 13: 7711. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147711. Vaidyanathan, Brandon, Khalsa, Sukhwinder, and Ecklund, Elaine Howard. 2018. “Naturally Ambivalent: Religion’s Role in Shaping Environmental Action.” Sociology of Religion 79 (4): 472–494. https://doi:10.1093/socrel/srx043. Vainio, Annukka, and Riikka Paloniemi. 2014. “The Complex Role of Attitudes toward Science in Pro-environmental Consumption in the Nordic Countries.” Ecological Economics 108: 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.026. Vitell, Scott J. 2009. “The Role of Religiosity in Business and Consumer Ethics: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Business Ethics 90: 155–167. https://doi:10.1007/ s10551-010-0382-8. Wahab, Mastura. 2017. “Relationships between Religious Work Values, Sustainable Work Behaviours and Sustainable Energy Consumptions.” Management Decision 55: 1854–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-01-2017-0039. Wald, Kenneth D., Owen, Diana E., and Hill, Samuel S. 1988. “Churches as Political Communities.” American Political Science Review 82 (2): 531–548. Wan, M., Toppinen, A., Chen, J. 2014. “Consumers’ Environmental Awareness towards Children’s Furniture in Shanghai and Shenzhen, China.” Scandinavian Forest HAMZA & SHIrAZI: rOLE OF rELIGIOSIt Y IN SHAPING SUStAINABLE BEHAVIOr  83 Economics. In Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics. Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics. White, Halbert. 1980. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica 48 (4): 817–38. https://doi. org/10.2307/1912934. World Value Survey. 2023. World Value Survey Wave 7 (2017-2022). Retrieved June 8, 2023, from https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp. Wu, Ci-sheng, Xiao-xia Xhou, and Meng Song. 2016. “Sustainable Consumer Behavior in China: An Empirical Analysis from the Midwest Regions.” Journal of Cleaner Production 134: 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.057.