CSR Communication in the Coffee Industry Sustainability Certifications –
Drivers for Consumer Trust, Brand Loyalty and Willingness to Pay?
Charleen Meyer 12337110 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Program Communication Science
University of Amsterdam
Dr. Iina Hellsten 27th of January 2020
Abstract
With the rise of ethical consumerism, corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication has become indispensable in today’s market. The coffee industry also needs to respond to current market trends and changing consumer behavior. Over the past decades, third-party sustainability certifications such as Fairtrade and Organic have been established to offer consumers more information about the origin and manufacturing of coffee products. While sustainability
certifications were introduced predominantly on products offered in organic supermarkets, they soon entered the mainstream market as well. Today, coffee with sustainability certifications is available in every store and experiences a steady increase in demand. While the effects of the use of third-party certifications on consumers’ willingness to pay has been widely explored, existing research fails to examine the effects of the perceived reputation of sustainable coffee on
consumer trust and brand loyalty. This study proposes that a positive perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications leads consumers to develop trust in the product, which in turn leads to the development of brand loyalty, as well as an increased willingness to pay. The findings reveal a positive relationship between the reputation of sustainable coffee and both brand loyalty and willingness to pay. Moreover, the perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications positively affects consumer trust. It is therefore suggested that sustainability certifications pose an effective strategic CSR tool for coffee producers, which could have a lasting positive effect on brand-consumer relationships and brand loyalty.
Keywords: CSR Communication, trust, brand loyalty, willingness to pay, coffee with sustainability certifications.
CSR Communication in the Coffee Industry Sustainability Certifications –
Drivers for Consumer Trust, Brand Loyalty and Willingness to Pay?
Over the past decades, “coffee has been transformed [...] from a boring staple good to a vibrant and differentiated specialty item” (Raynolds, Murray, & Heller, 2007, p. 150). The recent debate on climate change and rising consumer concern regarding social inequalities and
environmental degradation brought on by the industrial style coffee monocropping have rapidly increased sustainable coffee sales, as well as consumer consciousness (ibid.). Thus, the coffee industry, a sector with a large environmental impact, needs to react to consumers’ extended quality and sustainability requirements (Gosselt, van Rompay, & Haske, 2019). Companies have to find long-term oriented solutions to tackle environmental and social issues such as
deforestation, soil degradation, child labor and unfair loans to ensure future supply and profitability (Hopp, 2017). Coffee producers need to focus on innovative and more
environmental-friendly strategies to improve their value chains and find an authentic way to communicate their CSR efforts in a transparent way (Sora, 2019).
Sustainability certifications have become one of the most important means for coffee producers to communicate their CSR activities to customers and increase their reputation in order to establish long-term relationships with them. Product appreciation and repeated
purchases are the building blocks for consumer trust and loyalty (Gosselt et al., 2019). However, existing literature on sustainability in the coffee industry does not address the effects of the perceived reputation of sustainable coffee on consumers’ trust in the product and how this affects brand loyalty. In their recent study, Gosselt et al. (2019) pointed out the need for further research concerning the long-term effects of sustainability certifications on brand loyalty. To fill this
research gap, an online survey was designed that analyzes consumers’ behavioral intentions to outline future implications concerning third-party sustainability certifications as a dimension of CSR communication in the coffee sector. This paper aims to provide a first exploratory insight into the effects of the reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications on brand loyalty and consumers’ willingness to pay. Moreover, it will be explored how consumers’ trust affects these relationships. Together, this leads to the two main research questions of this study:
RQ1: To what extent does the perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications influence consumers’ brand loyalty and willingness to pay? RQ2: To what extent does consumers’ trust in coffee with sustainability
certifications mediate the effect of the perceived reputation of sustainable coffee on consumers’ brand loyalty?
Regarding the academic relevance, the conducted research will provide an insight into the perceived reputation of sustainable coffee and its influence on brand loyalty. This does not only allow for a better understanding of current developments in consumer behavior and the
companies’ efforts for more environmentally and socially sustainable practices, but also helps to examine effective CSR strategies for coffee producers. Moreover, the research will tap into the phenomenon of consumers’ intention-behavior gap, which is of high interest in the sustainable food sector because information is crucial at the moment of purchase and decisions are usually made within a few seconds (Frank & Brock, 2018). Elucidating the effects of perceived
reputation of sustainable coffee and its impact on brand loyalty and willingness to pay, mediated by consumer trust, is socially relevant, as it helps to understand consumer perceptions of
sustainable coffee, which ultimately helps companies to understand how to meet new societal demands (Carvalho, Salgueiro, & Rita, 2016).
The conducted research raises awareness for increased demands in CSR communication, which especially organizations in inherently unsustainable business sectors such as the coffee industry need to address to ensure future profitability and growth. Hence, the aim of this research is to examine the role of sustainability certifications as a CSR tool in the coffee industry, along with the challenges organizations must address concerning consumer consciousness, perception, trust and loyalty to sustainable coffee products.
Theoretical Background CSR Communication in the Coffee Industry
Nowadays, there is consensus that CSR principles are a necessary part of every corporate culture and behavior to ensure competitive advantages and protect organizational legitimacy (Del Mar García-De los Salmones & Perez, 2018; Eberle, Berens, & Li, 2013). CSR has been
conceptualized in many different ways in former research. Parcha (2017) defined CSR as “the policies and actions a company takes to appear socially responsible because of social
expectations, stakeholders’ perceptions, and the need to be economically successful” (p. 276). Corporations usually promote their CSR activities by using multiple communication tools that are publicly accessible such as annual reports, advertising, websites, social media and promotion events (Sora, 2019). By representing a good corporate citizen, corporations can foster consumer trust and loyalty, which can turn customers into brand ambassadors with an increased willingness to pay, and into advocates through spreading positive word-of-mouth (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). Consumers are proven to be willing to pay substantially more for ethically produced products, implying a financial reward for socially and environmentally responsible behavior (Gosselt et al., 2019; Trudel & Cotte, 2009). Nevertheless, CSR also involves risks for a
company because it can cause stakeholders to question the motives behind the corporation’s engagement in CSR. When consumers have doubts about the credibility of the undertaken CSR activities, CSR communication can backfire and lead to a loss of trust in the brand and ultimately to the loss of customers (Parcha, 2017). Hence, when planning to implement more ethical and sustainable operations into their business model, companies should consider if customers are ultimately willing to reward them for their positive actions or will rather punish them for unethical behavior (Trudel & Cotte, 2009). Yet, former research has shown that a company’s ethicalness is indeed an important factor for consumers and that environmentally friendly
products tend to have a more positive reputation than less sustainable alternatives (Gosselt et al., 2019; Trudel & Cotte, 2009). Therefore, CSR is posing a cross-sectoral challenge and should be considered in every industry (ibid.).
In this study, the above-mentioned findings concerning CSR communication and its effects on consumers’ behavioral intentions will be applied to the coffee industry to examine the influence of consumers’ perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications on brand loyalty and willingness to pay, mediated by consumer trust. The studied variables are of
increasing importance for the coffee industry since sustainability has become a strategic issue for companies (Kolk, 2012). Over the past decades, the industry has been booming with coffee becoming the second most traded commodity across the world (Hopp, 2017). With the rising popularity of coffee as more than a simple everyday commodity and the increasing demand for specialty coffee, the origin of the coffee beans has been receiving more attention, “shining light on unethical practices in the industry” (ibid., p. 1). With more than 100 million people being involved in the coffee trade worldwide, the industry is facing tremendous problems concerning social and environmental issues – such as child labor, inhumane and unregulated working
conditions, exploitation of farmers, deforestation, soil and water degradation and habitat destruction (Feng, 2017; Hopp, 2017; Raynolds et al., 2007).
With the turn of the century, a growing number of producers started to tackle both environmental and social problems caused by the cultivation and production of coffee products to ensure not only future supply but also consumers’ trust in their products (Lingnau, Fuchs, & Beham, 2019). Existing studies reveal that there is a growing group of highly involved
consumers with a strong preference for sustainable coffee products (Anagnostou, Ingenbleek, & van Trijp, 2015), as well as an expanding market of specialty coffee, resulting in higher growth rates than for conventional coffee (Hopp, 2017; Kolk, 2012). While overall sales in non-certified coffee remain high, there is an increasing share of the market dominated by high-quality,
sustainably sourced gourmet coffee (Kolk, 2012; Raynolds et al., 2007). Due to this
development, the coffee retail market can be divided into the 1) “mainstream” market, consisting of groceries supermarkets, 2) organic supermarkets and 3) specialty shops (cafés selling their own beans for home use, specialist coffee and tea shops, Fairtrade shops). While initially only specialty shops and organic stores sold coffee products with sustainability certifications, the mainstream market quickly caught up on the development (Kolk, 2012). Today, sustainable coffee represents a key segment of the differentiated market and can be found in every retail category (Raynolds et al., 2007). Coffee with sustainability certifications does not only compete with the mainstream brands but also collaborates with them. Many established brands partnered with sustainability labels to bring sustainable products to the market and introduce them to their portfolio (Anagnostou et al., 2015).
Sustainability certifications have been implemented to inform consumers about the environmental performance of a company and to take away confusion about the environmental
claims made. Although participation is voluntary, sustainability certifications are “increasingly required for products entering competitive and rapidly growing niche markets aimed at conscious consumers” (Raynolds et al., 2007, p. 149). Overall, two different types of certifications can be distinguished: 1) Verified third-party labels (based on compliance legislations with
predetermined criteria that have to be verified by an independent competent authority) and 2) uncertified internal claims of the company, placed on the product by the manufacturer (Gosselt et al., 2019). This study will exclusively be concerned with verified third-party labels [referred to as “coffee with sustainability certifications” or “sustainable coffee”], therefore any future reference to sustainability certifications will address this type of certification.
Verified third-party certifications were the first voluntary initiatives that were regarded as sustainable by the consumers because coffee producers had to fulfill strict criteria concerning social and environmental sustainability in order to be certified (Anagnostou et al., 2015). As a result, more and more certifications have been established with Fairtrade, Organic, Utz and Rainforest Alliance being the four main ones in the European coffee sector (the market shares of each certifications can vary among different countries), including independent monitoring and certification. Together, these initiatives are forming a new market segment and “a system of transnational private governance” (Raynolds et al., 2007, p. 148) which does not derive its power from the state but from consumer loyalty, market shares and premium prices. Traditional coffee products are distinguished by product standards like the cleanliness of the beans or the taste of the brewed coffee. Sustainable coffee, in contrast, is distinguished by process standards based on the conditions under which the coffee was produced and traded (ibid.). Importers have the responsibility to apply the given standards when purchasing the products from the coffee farmers. Products that have been certified according to the standards of the respective
certification receive a label to inform consumers about the product’s ethical attributes (Castaldo et al., 2009). Because of the certification by an external source, coffee products are expected to be perceived less biased and therefore more credible (Gosselt et al., 2019). In this study, the following four certifications will be summarized under the term “sustainable coffee/coffee with sustainability certifications”.
Table 1
Note. The presented information has been retrieved from Hopp (2017) and Castaldo et al. (2009).12
Today, sustainability certifications are part of a complex ethical consumer movement that demands improved and more environmentally and socially friendly production processes
1 Within the period of time in which this study has been conducted, the two organizations Utz and
Rainforest Alliance have merged. As of 2020, the organization is developing a new certification program. Until its implementation the current Rainforest Alliance and Utz programs will continue to run in parallel. The Utz label will be gradually phased out until the end of 2022 (Rainforest Alliance for Business, n.d.). The results of this study remain unaffected by this development.
2 For more information concerning each certification, please refer to: 1) www.fairtrade.eu, 2)
Overview sustainability certifications
Certification Logo Mission
Fairtrade
§ Establishment of democratic farmer cooperatives § Guaranteed price floor
§ Farmers credit
§ Long-term business relationships
Organic
§ Environmental protection § Biodiversity conservation
§ Health focused working standards
Utz
§ Social and environmental mission, focusing on corporate responsibility for mainstream coffee roasters and brands § ILO working standards
Rainforest Alliance
§ Biodiversity conversation § Environmental protection § Fair working conditions
(Castaldo et al., 2009). Moreover, they have become one of the most important tools to communicate the companies’ CSR efforts to consumers and to stand out from other “non-sustainable” products in the coffee sector (Anagnostou et al., 2015; Raynolds et al., 2007).
Coffee Certifications and Consumer Trust
The increasing number of labels and certifications has also led to confusion amongst consumers concerning the attributes of each one of them. When being asked why they refrain from purchasing products with sustainability certifications, most consumers would state that the higher price of the products holds them back, followed by a lack of knowledge concerning the system behind the label (Castaldo et al., 2009). From examining the product alone, the consumer cannot ascertain the quality of both the product and the production process. The attributed quality promised by certifications such as Fairtrade can only be verified during the production process, therefore making coffee a so-called “credence good” (Schleenbecker & Hamm, 2015, p. 5945). Hence, consumers require underlying information to compensate for the asymmetry of
information they are subjected to, for them to create trust in the label and subsequently in the product itself (ibid.). Trust is a multi-dimensional concept which has become an important variable when analyzing consumer behavior for credence goods. Overall, consumer trust has been defined as “the trustor’s expectation that the trustee is willing to keep promises and to fulfill obligations” (Castaldo et al., 2009, p. 6). When discussing communicative products, scholars often refer to credibility as a subcategory of trust. Generally, it can be said that, the more consumers trust the company or its message, the more credible they will perceive the communication process. Credibility can therefore be understood as an outcome of trustful interactions between consumers and the company (Lock & Seele, 2017).
When consumers trust a company and the ethical sourcing of its products, they are likely to establish loyalty toward the brand in the future (Lau & Lee, 1999). Schleenbecker and Hamm (2015) emphasize that a “credible label can serve as means to close the information gap and build up credibility by offering information in a condensed manner based on a certification process” (p. 5945). Still, consumer trust also depends on the reputation of the retailer. When a company has a bad reputation concerning its environmental impact, consumers will have less trust in the company’s CSR activities in comparison to companies with a positive CSR reputation (Bögel, 2019). This effect also varies between consumer groups because consumers differ in their knowledge of and concern about the social and environmental impact of purchased goods and can be classified according to their attitudes and behaviors. Generally, consumers who are more involved with the environment are more likely to purchase sustainable products but are also more educated and therefore critical concerning a company’s CSR activities (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995). Various campaigns by NGOs, aiming to educate consumers about the conditions under which their daily beverage was produced, have raised consumers’ awareness for the environmental and social issues caused by the coffee industry (Linton, 2008). This hampers the producers’ credibility when communicating CSR activities because consumers might not trust the brand to live up to its promises. When done wrong, CSR communication can be perceived as greenwashing by consumers which might backfire (Gosselt et al., 2019; Lock & Seele, 2017). Nevertheless, Bögel (2015) pointed out that repeated exposure to CSR activities will increase consumers’ trust even if the company had a prior negative reputation. Therefore, also companies with a negative social and environmental impact should consider implementing a consistent and ongoing CSR communication strategy into their business model. In line with Schleenbecker and Hamm (2015) and Gosselt et al. (2019), sustainability certifications therefore
represent an effective tool to close information gaps, establish credibility and, through the consistent use of certifications, build up consumer trust and ultimately brand loyalty.
CSR Reputation and Brand Loyalty
Studies on commodity products have shown that effective CSR communication can transform ordinary everyday life products into high-involvement products and bind them to the brand (Brei & Böhm, 2014; Del Barrio-García et al., 2019). Coffee, among them, has evolved from a staple good to a lifestyle product and differentiated specialty item over the past three decades (Frank & Brock, 2018; Raynolds et al., 2007). With the rise of sustainable coffee, consumers have started to pay more attention to the origin and the manufacturing of the coffee products they buy for home use. Through collecting more information about the product they intend to consume, customers engage more with brands and start building closer relationships with them. When convinced of the quality and taste, consumers are expected to return to the same product in the future (Castaldo et al., 2009). Thus, it can be expected that the reputation of sustainability certifications will have an influence on consumers‘ brand loyalty (Lau & Lee, 1999). Brand loyalty can be conceptualized as “the tendency to be loyal to a focal brand, which is demonstrated by the intention to buy the brand as a primary choice” (Castaldo et al., 2009, p. 7). Hence, the first hypothesis is:
H1) A consumer’s perception that coffee with sustainability certification has a positive reputation is positively related to the consumer’s loyalty to certified coffee.
The increased involvement with the purchase of coffee products sheds light on the need for brands to create meaningful relationships with consumers for them to trust in sustainable
coffee products. Sustainability certifications are an effective way of doing so (Castaldo et al., 2009). If consumers perceive the reputation of labels such as Fairtrade, Utz, Rainforest Alliance or Organic as positive, they are expected to be more likely to trust it (Lau & Lee, 1999).
Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H2) A consumer’s perception that coffee with sustainability certification has a positive reputation is positively related to the consumer’s trust in certified coffee. Trusting a brand or a product will have an effect on customers’ behavioral intentions. Trust can be expected to translate into the repeated purchase of the same brand in a product category. A loyal customer base is essential for every company to build market share, obtain higher margins and distinguish themselves from the competition (Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011). Thus, the third hypothesis is:
H3) A consumer’s trust in coffee with sustainability certifications is positively related to the consumer’s loyalty to certified coffee.
In a second step, the positive reputation as well as consumer trust in sustainability
certifications can also be expected to affect consumers‘ willingness to pay a higher price. Various scholars such as Castaldo et al. (2009) and Lingnau et al. (2019) have analyzed the effects of Fairtrade labels as a CSR activity on consumers’ willingness to pay and found (descriptive) support for their hypotheses. In this study, not only Fairtrade but also Organic, Rainforest Alliance and Utz will be analyzed under the general term „coffee with sustainability certifications”. Therefore, the final two hypotheses are:
H4) A consumer’s perception that coffee with sustainability certification has a positive reputation is positively related to the consumer’s willingness to pay a higher price for certified coffee.
H5) A consumer’s trust in coffee with sustainability certifications is positively related to the consumer’s willingness to pay a higher price for certified coffee.
Method Sample and Procedure
A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from the 28th of November until the 12th of December 2019. Participants answered an online questionnaire and self-reported on several statements, which were retrieved and adapted from previous scales developed by Balderjahn et al. (2013), Bögel (2019), Castaldo et al. (2009) and Lau and Lee (1999). The survey was published on Qualtrics.com and could be completed web-based or through using one’s
smartphone, as this allowed for greater reach and easier accessibility of the questionnaire. Using an online survey facilitated the data collection, since it could be distributed to a large number of possible participants at the same time, while additionally offering high anonymity and therefore reduced social desirability bias.
The data was collected through a non-probability convenience sampling. Possible participants were contacted via social media (Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn), e-mail and surveycircle.com.
Operationalization of Constructs and Survey Design
The survey started with an introduction, providing the participants an overview of the topic, followed by an informed consent. To participate in the survey, respondents had to be above 18 years old and have purchased coffee for home use within the past three months. To ensure that both conditions were fulfilled, two filter questions about the participants’ coffee consumption
and their age were included after the informed consent. All non-coffee consumers and underaged participants were counted as drop-outs.
In the first part of the survey, participants were asked where they usually buy coffee for home use (supermarket, organic stores/supermarkets, specialty shops, or other) and then answered several statements concerning their “consciousness of sustainable consumption”, adapted from Balderjahn et al. (2013) on a 7-point Likert scale. For the questionnaire, only the environmental and the social dimension of the “triple bottom line” concept in Balderjahn et al. (2013) were used. The economical dimension was excluded because it was of no relevance for the investigated concepts. Next, participants were asked to state which of the four sustainability certifications (Utz, Organic, Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance) they are familiar with, before stating how often they buy coffee with sustainability certifications.
In the second part, all variables were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. The independent variable “perceived reputation of sustainability certifications” was measured using six statements (e.g. “Coffee with sustainability certifications has a reputation for being good”), adapted from Lau and Lee (1999). The original scale of the latter study addressed the general term “brand” (e.g. “This brand has a reputation for being good”), which has been replaced by the term “coffee with sustainability certifications” in this study. This step was repeated for all items that have been adapted from the authors. Next, the mediator “trust in sustainability certifications” was measured, using seven items (e.g. “I trust coffee with sustainability certifications”). This variable was adapted from Lau and Lee (1999) as well. The scale of the mediator “trust in sustainability certifications” was extended by two items adapted from Bögel (2019) to include both the environmental and the social dimension as part of the construct: “I trust that coffee with sustainability certifications is concerned about
environmental and social issues” and “I trust that coffee with sustainability certifications is genuinely concerned about the welfare of their suppliers”. The brand name used in the study by Bögel (2019), called “Nordisk”, has been replaced with the term “coffee with sustainability certifications” for the purpose of this study. Afterwards, participants were asked to respond to eight statements measuring the first dependent variable “brand loyalty” (e.g. “I do not intend to keep buying coffee with sustainability certifications”), adapted from Lau and Lee (1999). The scale was extended by one item adapted from Castaldo et al. (2009): “Coffee with sustainability certifications is always my first choice”. Here, “coffee with sustainability certifications” was embedded instead of a blank space, which was originally left by the author for the participants to fill out. The second dependent variable “willingness to pay” was measured containing three statements (e.g. “I am ready to pay a higher price for coffee with sustainability certifications”), which were adapted from Castaldo et al. (2009). Again, the blank space in the authors’ scale was filled with the term “coffee with sustainability certifications”.
In the last part of the study, participants were asked to state their demographics (gender, age, level of education, employment status and country of origin) before completing the survey. A complete overview of the survey construction as well as the online survey can be found in Appendix A and B.
Respondent Profile
The survey resulted in an overall number of N = 264.After excluding the data from participants who dropped out or did not finish the study, an overall number of N = 160 remained for the analyses. The majority of the participants was female (64.4%), between 18-34 years old (65.6%), from Germany (71.7%) and obtained a Bachelor’s (35%) or Master’s degree (26.9%).
44.4% of the participants stated to be employed, followed by 40.6% students. A complete overview of the demographics of the sample can be found in Appendix C.
In addition to the demographics, participants were also asked about their purchase
behavior concerning coffee for home use. The majority of the participants indicated to buy coffee in the supermarket (“mainstream market”, 76.9%), only very few purchased coffee in organic stores (3.8%). Yet, along with the findings in previous studies, the specialty market seems to of growing popularity with 15% of the participants stating to buy coffee beans for home use in specialty cafés or shops offering their own products and coffee blends. However, the majority of the participants did not regularly buy coffee with sustainability certifications in the past (60.7%). Only 39.1% of the participants indicated to often or always buy sustainable coffee. Nevertheless, all four sustainability certifications seem to be fairly well known by the participants, with
Fairtrade being most popular among them (91.9%), followed by Organic (83.8%). The complete data is shown in Appendix D.
Evaluation of Reliability
Since all items used to operationalize the constructs in the questionnaire have been retrieved from previous studies and therefore have been validated, no additional principal axis factor analyses were carried out. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated and used to examine the reliability of the scales. The coefficients are shown in Table 4 below. In line with previous research, a Cronbach’s alpha of .70 or higher was considered sufficient (Field, 2018). Most scales exceeded this threshold, only the independent variable “perceived reputation of sustainability certifications” resulted in a rather low but acceptable Cronbach’s alpha = .68. Therefore, the results related to it need to be interpreted with caution.
Table 4
Overview of Reliability Analyses
Variable Type Mean SD Cronbach’s Alpha
Perceived reputation of sustainability certifications IV 5.18 0.87 .68 Brand Loyalty DV 4.38 0.96 .75 Willingness to pay DV 5.07 1.20 .85 Trust in sustainability certifications Mediator 4.89 1.01 .91 Note. N = 160. Results
Overall, participants indicated a rather high consciousness of sustainable consumption on a 7-point Likert scale (M = 5.52, SD = 1.23). This implies that they consider aspects of both social and environmental sustainability, such as fair loans and working conditions, as well as environmentally friendly packaging and production methods when making purchase decisions. The finding, that the awareness for ethical consumerism seems to be high, together with the fact that most participants purchase coffee in the supermarket (76.9%), supports the suggestion that sustainable consumption continues to grow in every market. Sustainable coffee is no longer a niche product which is only found in organic stores, but well-established on the mainstream market as well. In light of these results, the following two models were tested.
Model I – Reputation, Trust and Brand Loyalty
Main effect: Perceived reputation of sustainable coffee on brand loyalty. A simple linear regression analysis was computed in SPSS (Version 26.0.0.0). The regression model,
significant, F(1, 158) = 29.53, p < .001, and is therefore likely to predict brand loyalty to coffee with sustainability certifications in the population. The variance in the perceived reputation of sustainable coffee explains 16% of the variance in brand loyalty (R2 = .16).
Perceived reputation has a significant moderate positive association with brand loyalty, b* = .40, t = 5.43, p < .001, 95% CI [0.28, 0.60]. While holding all else constant, for every unit increase of perceived reputation of sustainable coffee, brand loyalty increases by 0.44. Hence, hypothesis 1 can be supported.
Mediation: The effect of reputation of sustainable coffee on brand loyalty, mediated by consumer trust in coffee with sustainability certifications. After examining the main effect, it was analyzed whether the effect of consumers’ perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications on their loyalty toward sustainable coffee is mediated by their trust in it. Therefore, a mediation analysis using the tool PROCESS in SPSS (Model 4, 1.000 bootstraps, 95% Confidence Interval; Hayes, 2018), was conducted. For the main effect, the PROCESS model resulted in a significant, yet smaller association between the perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications and brand loyalty, b = 0.18, SE = 0.09, t = 2.02, p < .001, 95% CI [0.00, 0.36]. Compared to the results of the simple regression analysis, the effect is lower when controlling for the mediating variable consumer trust. This indicates a partial mediation. The direct effect of reputation on brand loyalty remains significant, however there is also a significant indirect effect via the mediator variable consumer trust.
A-path. The analysis resulted in a significant association between perceived reputation and consumer trust, b = 0.65, SE = 0.08, t = 8.36, 95% CI [0.49, 0.80], p < .001. While holding all else constant, for every unit increase of perceived reputation of sustainable coffee, consumer trust increases by 0.65. Consequently, hypothesis 2 can be supported. According to the results the
perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications has a positive influence on consumer trust in certified coffee.
B-path. The analysis of the b-path resulted in a significant positive relationship between consumer trust and brand loyalty, b = 0.40, SE = 0.08, t = 5.17, 95% CI [0.25, 0.55], p < .001. For every unit increase in consumer trust, brand loyalty increases by 0.40. Therefore, hypothesis 3 is supported. Consumer trust in certified coffee has a significant positive influence on the participants’ brand loyalty.
Mediation effect. There was a significant positive mediation effect of the perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications on brand loyalty, mediated by consumer trust, indirect effect = 0.26, SE = 0.58, 95% CI [0.15, 0.38]. This association signals that a higher perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications increases consumers’ trust which in turn positively influences consumers’ loyalty to certified coffee.
Figure 1. Mediation analysis for the effect of the perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability
certifications on brand loyalty, mediated by consumer trust. *** p < .001
Model II – Reputation, Trust and Willingness to Pay
consumers’ willingness to pay from the perceived reputation of sustainable coffee, is statistically significant, F(1, 158) = 28.32, p < .001, and can therefore be expected to predict consumers’ willingness to pay in the population. The variance in the perceived reputation of sustainable coffee explains 15% of the variance in willingness to pay (R2 = .15).
Perceived reputation has a significant moderate positive association with consumers’ willingness to pay, b* = .40, t = 5.32, p < .001, 95% CI [0.34, 0.74]. While holding all else constant, for every unit increase of perceived reputation of sustainable coffee, consumers’ willingness to pay increases by 0.54. Accordingly, hypothesis 4 can be supported.
Mediation. The effect of reputation of sustainable coffee on willingness to pay, mediated by consumer trust in coffee with sustainability certifications. Next, it was analyzed whether the effect of consumers’ perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications on their willingness to pay a higher price for sustainable coffee is mediated by their trust in it. To do so, another mediation analysis using the tool PROCESS in SPSS (Model 4, 1.000 bootstraps, 95% Confidence Interval; Hayes, 2018), was carried out. Also for Model II it should be
acknowledged that, compared to the simple regression analysis, the PROCESS model resulted in a lower, yet significant positive association between perceived reputation and willingness to pay, b = 0.30, SE = 0.11, t = 2.59, p = 0.011, 95% CI [0.07, 0.54]. Again, controlling for consumer trust as a mediator variable lowers the main effect, which indicates a partial mediation. While the direct effect of reputation on willingness to pay remains significant, there is also a significant indirect effect via the mediator variable consumer trust.
A-path. The analysis for the a-path resulted in the same result as in Model I. B-path. The analysis of the b-path resulted in a positive significant influence of
[0.17, 0.56], p = .0004. While holding all else constant, for every unit increase in consumer trust, consumers’ willingness to pay increases by 0.37. Therefore, hypothesis 5 can be supported. Consumer trust in certified coffee has a significant positive effect on the participants’ willingness to pay a higher price for it.
Mediation effect. There was a significant positive mediation effect of the perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications on willingness to pay, mediated by consumer trust, indirect effect = 0.24, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [0.08, 0.41]. The result signals that a higher perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications increases consumers’ trust which in turn increases consumers’ willingness to pay a higher price for certified coffee.
Figure 2. Mediation analysis for the effect of the perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability
certifications on willingness to pay, mediated by consumer trust. *** p < .001
** p = .0004
Discussion
This study provides several contributions to the research on CSR communication in the coffee industry. By adapting and extending the research framework of Lau and Lee (1999) and applying their model to the coffee industry, relevant findings could be derived. Based on the results of the analyses, the two main research questions of this study could be answered and the
has a positive influence on consumers’ brand loyalty and willingness to pay. In addition to that, consumers’ trust in coffee with sustainability certifications significantly mediates the effect of the perceived reputation of sustainable coffee on consumers’ brand loyalty and willingness to pay. Accordingly, consumers are indeed more likely to develop loyalty to coffee with sustainability certifications when the product is perceived to be trustworthy due to its favorable reputation. Furthermore, they are willing to pay a higher price for coffee when it has sustainability certifications.
In line with Lingnau et al. (2019), the findings at hand shed light on how today’s consumers are well aware of the effects their consumption has on both the environment and society and that they are willing to reward sustainable brands by paying a higher price. One decade after Trudel and Cotte (2009) suggested that it “pays to be good” (p. 60), this study is able to confirm their findings and extend them by the fact that consumers are not only willing to reward reputable sustainable behavior financially, but also on a more personal level with their trust and loyalty to the product. Existing findings (e.g. Schleenbecker & Hamm, 2015), showing that sustainability certifications are able to reduce information gaps and thus enhance consumers’ perception regarding a brand’s reputation, as well as their trust and loyalty to it, can be supported by the findings at hand.
After completion of the analysis of the two main models, further exploratory results were investigated. The sample of this study predominantly represents the mainstream market, with 76.9% of the respondents buying coffee at the supermarket. Surprisingly, only 39.1% of the respondents indicated to often or always buy coffee with sustainability certifications, although a rather high consciousness of sustainable consumption was identified among the participants and especially two of the four certifications were well-known (Fairtrade (91.9%), Organic (83.8%)).
As a potential explanation for this, it could be argued that the sample of the study consisted of predominantly young respondents and students, who are known to have fewer financial means. Their budget might not allow them to invest in more expensive sustainable coffee, even though they intend to. However, the mediation analyses confirmed the influence of reputation and trust on brand loyalty and willingness to pay concerning coffee with sustainability certifications. The fact that all measured effects were significant, although participants appear to not buy coffee with sustainability certifications regularly, could also be explained by the so-called intention-behavior gap. Frank and Brock (2018) described this phenomenon, whereby consumers indicate highly positive intentions to buy sustainable products, followed by not acting in the depicted way. In their study, Carrington, Neville and Whitwell (2014) found a similar effect, reporting that consumers often find it difficult to embed ethical issues into their daily life and form new
habitual behavior. Once issues are not prioritized, they become easily forgotten from being integrated into one’s shopping plans. Based on these insights, it can be expected that people might find it hard to pay attention to sustainability certifications on every single product when being in a supermarket, where purchase decisions are usually made within a few seconds (Frank & Brock, 2018). Another reason for the found effects could be that consumers are often confused and overwhelmed by the sheer amount of different sustainability certifications provided on different food groups (Castaldo et al., 2009). This finding could explain why they, even when having the intention to make more sustainable purchases, often still refrain from doing so and should be further investigated in the future.
Frank and Brock (2018) pointed out that shopping is highly habitualized for most consumers and their purchase decisions often depend on their involvement with the product. In their study, the authors categorized coffee as a high-involvement product, indicating that the
communication of point-of-sale information is helpful to bridge the gap between consumers’ intention to buy sustainable products and the actual purchase. Their finding goes hand in hand with the suggestions of Schleenbecker and Hamm (2015). Nevertheless, the authors found that it is harder to change consumer behavior concerning high-involvement products since they mostly come with the perception of higher financial risks. An assumed reason for this behavior is that, once consumers found a coffee product whose quality and taste they enjoy, they might not be willing to switch to a different, more sustainable product at the risk of buying something they perhaps enjoy less. These insights might further contribute to the presented gap between
participants’ intentions and their behavior. Furthermore, they back the observation that the group of highly involved coffee consumers is still rather small (Anagnostou et al., 2015; Hopp, 2017). Consumers are having good intentions concerning their purchase choices, yet most of them still seem to lack the necessary awareness when buying credence goods to translate these into actions. After completing the survey, many participants reported that they had never thought about the origin or the manufacturing of the coffee they consume but that they are intending to change this in the future.3 This indicates that more educational work concerning the cultivation and
production of coffee and its impact on the environment and coffee farmers is needed in the future.
Although coffee has transformed into more than a commodity nowadays, there are still many purchase barriers that need to be overcome. Sustainability certifications are the most established mean to tackle the often claimed lack of information concerning credence goods (Anagnostou et al., 2015; Castaldo et al., 2009; Gosselt et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the industry
still has a lot of work to do to provide concise information about the background of the product. Sustainability certifications are an effective, credible tool for producers to inform consumers about their undertaken measures. However, consumers also need to become aware of the reasons why they should buy sustainable coffee to begin with, which requires additional educational measures and information about the importance of environmental and social sustainability in the coffee sector.
The perceived reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications, enhancing both trust and brand loyalty, has been proven to play an important role within consumers’ purchase
intention. Trust in sustainable coffee is, as hypothesized, an important factor for consumers to establish loyalty toward a brand or product. In the future, it is therefore of importance for both coffee producers and researchers to explore how to overcome consumers’ intention-behavior gaps to enhance sustainable purchases.
Practical Implications
The results show that both a positive reputation of and trust in coffee with sustainability certifications positively contribute to the behavioral intentions brand loyalty and willingness to pay. Sustainability certifications, as a tool to communicate the coffee producer’s CSR activities, seem to have a favorable reputation among consumers. The use of third-party sustainability certifications (such as Fairtrade or Organic) furthermore results in more trust in the product, creating a positive spillover effect from the certification to the coffee brand (Anagnostou et al., 2015). The participants of the study were most familiar with Fairtrade and Organic – Utz and Rainforest Alliance were less known. To benefit from the positive effects of sustainability certifications on consumer trust, brand loyalty and willingness to pay, coffee producers should
therefore, based on the results of this research, focus on Fairtrade and Organic when deciding to embed third-party certifications into their CSR strategy. Ultimately, the use of sustainability certifications can strengthen the company’s image (Lau & Lee, 1999), resulting in long-term relationships between customers and the brand. Bögel (2019) suggested that CSR
communication, when done right, can result in more favorable consumer perceptions – regardless of the former reputation of the company. This study confirms that sustainability certifications are indeed a functional tool to achieve this strategic goal.
However, companies who decide to embed sustainability certifications into their communication strategy also need to communicate the background and taken measures to their customers to overcome information gaps and reduce confusion. In the coffee industry, the phenomenon of the intention-behavior gap seems to impact consumers’ purchase behavior. Therefore, coffee producers should consider additional activities to convince ethical consumers of the benefits their product offers compared to non-certified coffee. In the future, companies should not only focus on the implementation of sustainability certifications, but on a wholesome approach which also includes educational efforts to further raise consumer awareness and knowledge. This will ultimately result in higher returns of investments and translate consumers’ intentions into desired purchase behavior to the benefit of the brand.
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
As all empirical research, this study is limited in several ways which provides numerous opportunities for future research. First, the measured constructs refer to a single industry (the coffee industry) which complicates generalizations to other product categories and industries.
Second, the number of sustainability certifications included in the research was limited to the four most represented certifications on the European market: Fairtrade, Organic, Rainforest Alliance and Utz. These do not represent the entirety of third-party certifications on the market, which needs to be considered when analyzing the data.
Third, the data was analyzed in its entirety, summarizing the responses for all four certifications under the term “coffee with sustainability certifications”. Future research could tap into this limitation and conduct an experiment, measuring the effects for each certification to provide a more distinct overview. For companies, it would be interesting to investigate for which label trust, reputation, willingness to pay and brand loyalty score the highest and which ones should be taken up into their strategy accordingly.
Fourth, the respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire with reference to the named sustainability certifications only, without explicit reference to a coffee brand. Future research could expand this approach to examine the interaction effect of both the reputation of the coffee producer (sustainable vs. non-sustainable reputation) and the use of sustainability certifications. The results could provide deeper insights into the effects of perceived
greenwashing and how this might backfire for a coffee producer.
Fifth, it needs to be addressed that this survey only measured intentions, not behavior. As Lau and Lee (1999) stated, only “behavior is the full statement what brand loyalty is” (p. 343). The results of this survey must therefore be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, they deliver a first insight into consumers’ behavioral intentions.
Sixth, the sample consisted of people with a rather high educational background with the majority being from Germany, it is therefore questionable whether the findings would apply to other markets.
Seventh, the sample consisted of predominantly young respondents and students who are often financially limited. This should be considered when interpreting the fact that the majority of the participants indicated to not regularly buy coffee with sustainability certifications. It is possible that, although participants have the intention to buy more sustainable products, their budget prevents them from doing so. In order to consider this fact, future research should include the participants’ salary when measuring willingness to pay and purchase intentions.
Lastly, the results of this survey were conducted at a single point of time and therefore solely represent a first insight into the investigated concepts. For a deeper understanding of the development of trust throughout all stages of the customer-brand relationship, as well as its effect on brand loyalty and willingness to pay, a longitudinal approach should be pursued.
Conclusion
This study confirmed the importance of the reputation of coffee with sustainability certifications, consumers’ trust in sustainable coffee and the influence of both concepts on brand loyalty and willingness to pay. Within the conducted survey, sustainability certifications were found to have a positive reputation, resulting in trust and loyalty toward sustainable coffee, as well as the willingness to pay a higher price for coffee with sustainability certifications. Although the positive relationship of the concepts was confirmed, there still seems to exist a gap between consumers’ intentions and their behavior, which provides room for further research on how to overcome this issue. Once consumers are willing to change their purchase behavior,
sustainability certifications seem to be a favorable CSR tool to close the information gap between producers and consumers.
References
Anagnostou, A., Ingenbleek, P. T. M., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2015). Sustainability labelling as a challenge to legitimacy: Spillover effects of organic Fairtrade coffee on consumer
perceptions of mainstream products and retailers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 32(6), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-11-2014-1213
Balderjahn, I., Buerke, A., Kirchgeorg, M., Peyer, M., Seegebarth, B., & Wiedmann, K.-P. (2013). Consciousness for sustainable consumption: Scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability. AMS Review, 3(4), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-013-0057-6
Bögel, P. M. (2019). Company reputation and its influence on consumer trust in response to ongoing CSR communication. Journal of Marketing Communications, 25(2), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1166146
Brei, V., & Böhm, S. (2014). ‘1L=10L for Africa’: Corporate social responsibility and the transformation of bottled water into a ‘consumer activist’ commodity. Discourse & Society, 25(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513503536
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2014). Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior gap. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2759– 2767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.022
Carvalho, B. L. de, Salgueiro, M. de F., & Rita, P. (2016). Accessibility and trust: The two dimensions of consumers’ perception on sustainable purchase intention. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 23(2), 203–209.
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2009). The Missing Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumer Trust: The Case of Fair Trade Products. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9669-4
Del Barrio-García, S., Kamakura, W. A., & Luque-Martínez, T. (2019). A Longitudinal Cross-product Analysis of Media-budget Allocations: How Economic and Technological
Disruptions Affected Media Choices Across Industries. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 45, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.05.004
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. b., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x Eberle, D., Berens, G., & Li, T. (2013). The Impact of Interactive Corporate Social
Responsibility Communication on Corporate Reputation. Journal of Business Ethics: JBE; Dordrecht, 118(4), 731–746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1957-y Feng, J. (2017). All about the Coffee Industry. WorldAtlas.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/all-about-the-coffee-industry.html
Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th edition.). SAGE Publications. Print.
Frank, P., & Brock, C. (2018). Bridging the intention–behavior gap among organic grocery customers: The crucial role of point‐of‐sale information. Psychology & Marketing, 35(8), 586–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21108
Gosselt, J. F., van Rompay, T., & Haske, L. (2019). Won’t Get Fooled Again: The Effects of Internal and External CSR ECO-Labeling. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3512-8
Hopp, J.-M. (2017). Impact of sustainability measures in the specialty coffee supply chain on the end consumer [Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze]. http://www.vse.cz/vskp/id/1340267 Kolk, A. (2012). Towards a Sustainable Coffee Market: Paradoxes Faced by a Multinational
Company. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(2), 79– 89. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.289
Lau, G. T., & Lee, S. H. (1999). Consumers’ Trust in a Brand and the Link to Brand Loyalty. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4(4), 341–370.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009886520142
Lingnau, V., Fuchs, F., & Beham, F. (2019). The impact of sustainability in coffee production on consumers’ willingness to pay–new evidence from the field of ethical consumption. Journal of Management Control, 30(1), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-019-00276-x
Linton, A. (2008). A Niche for Sustainability? Fair Labor and Environmentally Sound Practices in the Specialty Coffee Industry. Globalizations, 5(2), 231–245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14747730802057621
Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2017). Measuring Credibility Perceptions in CSR Communication: A Scale Development to Test Readers’ Perceived Credibility of CSR Reports. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 584–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917707592 Parcha, J. M. (2017). How Much Should a Corporation Communicate About Corporate Social
Responsibility? Reputation and Amount of Information Effects on Stakeholders’ CSR-Induced Attributions. Communication Research Reports, 34(3), 275–285.
Punniyamoorthy, M., Mahadevan, B., Shetty, N. K., & Lakshmi, G. (2011). A framework for assessment of brand loyalty score for commodities. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 19(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2011.23
Rainforest Alliance for Business. (n.d.). 2020 Rainforest Alliance Certification Program. Retrieved January 21, 2020, from https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/business/
Raynolds, L. T., Murray, D., & Heller, A. (2007). Regulating sustainability in the coffee sector: A comparative analysis of third-party environmental and social certification initiatives. Agriculture and Human Values, 24(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-006-9047-8
Schleenbecker, R., & Hamm, U. (2015). Information Needs for a Purchase of Fairtrade Coffee. Sustainability, 7(5), 5944–5962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055944
Schuhwerk, M. E., & Lefkoff-Hagius, R. (1995). Green or Non-Green? Does Type of Appeal Matter When Advertising a Green Product? Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1995.10673475
Sora, K. (2019). The Process Model of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Communication: CSR Communication and its Relationship with Consumers’ CSR Knowledge, Trust, and Corporate Reputation Perception. Journal of Business Ethics: JBE; Dordrecht, 154(4), 1143–1159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3433-6
Trudel, R., & Cotte, J. (2009). Does It Pay To Be Good? MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 61–68.
Appendix Appendix A
Online Survey
Constructs Items Scale Adapted from
1. Drop out questions
§ Have you purchased coffee within the past three months?
§ Are you 18 years old or older?
Yes/No
2. Purchase Location
§ Where do you usually buy coffee for home use?
Multiple choice § Supermarket § Organic stores/supermarkets § Specialty shops (Cafés, specialist coffee and tea shops) § Other (open) 3. Consciousness for sustainable consumption § It is produced in an environmentally friendly manner. § It is packaged in an environmentally friendly manner. § It can be disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner.
§ Workers’ human rights are adhered to.
§ No illegal child labour is involved.
§ Workers are not discriminated against. § Workers are not abused. § Workers are treated fairly. § Workers are compensated
fairly.
7-point Likert scale (1 Strongly disagree – 7 Strongly agree) Balderjahn et al. (2013) 4. Familiarity with sustainability certifications
§ Please indicate which sustainability certifications you are familiar with.
Multiple choice § Utz
Online Survey § Rainforest Alliance § None § Other (open) 5. Experience with coffee with sustainability certifications
§ How often do you buy coffee with sustainability certifications?
Multiple choice § I never buy coffee
with sustainability certifications § I sometimes buy coffee with sustainability certifications § I have bought coffee with sustainability certifications many times before § I often buy coffee
with sustainability certifications § I always buy coffee
with sustainability certifications
Lau & Lee (1999)
6. Perceived reputation of sustainability certifications
§ Coffee with sustainability certifications has a
reputation for being good § Coffee with sustainability
certifications has a reputation for being unreliable
§ Other people have told me that coffee with
sustainability certifications is not good
§ Other people have told me that coffee with
sustainability certifications is reliable*
§ Coffee with sustainability certifications is reputed to perform well
§ I have heard negative comments about coffee with
7-point Likert scale (1 Strongly disagree – 7 Strongly agree)
Lau & Lee (1999)
Online Survey 7. Trust in coffee
with
sustainability certifications
§ I trust coffee with
sustainability certifications § Coffee with sustainability
certifications cannot be counted on
§ I feel that I can trust coffee with sustainability
certifications completely § I cannot rely on coffee with
sustainability certifications* § I feel secure when I buy
coffee with sustainability certifications
§ I trust that coffee with sustainability certifications is concerned about
environmental and social issues.
§ I trust that coffee with sustainability certifications is genuinely concerned about the welfare of their suppliers.
7-point Likert scale (1 Strongly disagree – 7 Strongly agree)
Bögel (2019), Lau & Lee (1999)
8. Brand Loyalty § Coffee with sustainability certifications is always my first choice
§ I do not intend to keep buying coffee with
sustainability certifications § If another brand without
certifications is having a sale, I will generally buy the other brand instead of coffee with sustainability
certifications
§ If coffee with sustainability certifications is not available in the store when I need it, I will buy it somewhere else § I would not recommend
coffee with sustainability certifications to someone
7-point Likert scale (1 Strongly disagree – 7 Strongly agree)
Castaldo et al. (2009), Lau & Lee (1999)
Online Survey
brand to buy in this product class
§ I would believe a person if that person made negative comments about coffee with sustainability certifications § I would consider myself to
be loyal to coffee with sustainability certifications 9. Willigness to
pay
§ Buying coffee with
sustainability certifications seems smart to me even if it costs more
§ I’m ready to pay a higher price for coffee with sustainability certifications § I’d still buy coffee with
sustainability certifications if other, uncertified brands reduced their prices
7-point Likert scale (1 Strongly disagree – 7 Strongly agree)
Castaldo et al. (2009)
10. Demographics § Gender Multiple choice
§ Male § Female § Non-binary § Prefer not to say
§ Age Multiple choice.
§ 18-24 years old § 25-34 years old § 35-44 years old § 45-54 years old § 55-64 years old § 65 years or older § Level of education § High School
§ Trade School § Bachelor’s degree § Master’s degree § PhD or higher § Other (open) § Employment status § Employed
Online Survey
§ Not employed, looking for work § Not employed, not
looking for work § Student
§ Retired
§ Unable to work § Other (open) § Country of origin Open question
Note. *After reliability analyses have been carried out these items have been excluded in the further analyses.
Appendix B
Appendix C Demographics
Characteristic Value Frequency %
Gender Female Male Non-binary 103 53 2 64.4 33.1 1.3
Age 18-24 years old
25-34 years old 35-44 years old 45-54 years old 55-64 years old 65 years and older
33 72 10 15 26 4 20.6 45 6.3 9.4 16.3 2.5
Education High School
Trade School Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree PhD or higher Other 26 18 56 43 0 17 16.3 11.3 35 26.9 0 10.6 Employment Status Employed
Self-employed
Not employed, looking for work Not employed, not looking for work Student Retired Unable to work Other 71 6 1 0 65 6 1 10 44.4 3.8 0.6 0 40.6 3.8 0.6 6.3 Country of Origin Germany
Switzerland Italy United States United Kingdom Netherlands Australia Spain Bulgaria Austria China Croatia Czech Republic Finland 115 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 71.7 3.2 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.6
Demographics India Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia New Zealand Romania Russia Ukraine 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Note. N = 160.
Appendix D Purchase behavior
Characteristic Value Frequency %
Purchase location Supermarket
Organic stores/supermarkets Specialty shops (Cafés, specialist coffee or tea shops)
Other 123 6 24 7 76.9 3.8 15 4.4 Familiarity with sustainability certifications Fairtrade Organic Rainforest Alliance Utz 147 134 79 63 91.9 83.8 49.4 39.4 Purchase behavior I never buy coffee with sustainability
certifications
I sometimes buy coffee with sustainability certifications I have bought coffee with
sustainability certifications many times before
I often buy coffee with sustainability certifications
I always buy coffee with sustainability certifications 11 55 30 40 22 6.9 34.8 19 25.3 13.8 Note. N = 160.
