• No results found

The influence of knowledge about labels on the willingness to buy food products: the moderating effect of sustainable consumer behaviour.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The influence of knowledge about labels on the willingness to buy food products: the moderating effect of sustainable consumer behaviour."

Copied!
36
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

The influence of knowledge about labels

on the willingness to buy food products:

the moderating effect of sustainable

consumer behaviour.

N. van Lent

Student number: 11855800 Word count: 7103

Supervised by Lita Napitupulu

July 2020

(2)

Abstract

Although consumers are increasingly concerned about the consequences of their consumption patterns, this has not yet translated into a higher purchase of food products with a sustainable label. Previous research indicated that consumers who have more sustainable knowledge, have a proneness to consume less. However, other studies demonstrated that previous sustainable consumer behavior led to the purchasing of sustainable products. To contribute to this discussion, this study set out to investigate if this behaviour impacts the positive effect that knowledge has on the intention to purchase sustainable food products. More specifically, this research examined the moderating effect of sustainable consumer behaviour on the relationship between knowledge about labels and willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products. Data was collected by means of an online survey, with a total sample size of 195. The findings suggest a positive relationship between knowledge about labels and willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products. There seems to be no significant interaction effect on this relationship caused by sustainable consumer behaviour and therefore, consumers that have greater knowledge about labels, are not more willing to buy food products bearing such labels, when they formerly engaged in sustainable consumer behaviour. A possible explanation for this is that the survey did not clearly identify one product category.

(3)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ... 4 2. Theoretical Framework ... 6 2.1 Knowledge about Labels ... 6 2.3 Knowledge about labels and willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products ... 6 2.4 Sustainable Consumer Behaviour (SCB) ... 7 2.5 The interaction effect ... 8 2.6 Conceptual Model ... 9 3. Methods ... 10 3.1 Design, Sample and Procedure ... 10 3.4 Measurements ... 10 3.5 Analytical plan ... 12 4. Results ... 13 4.1 Correlations ... 13 4.2 Assumption testing ... 14 4.3 Hypothesis testing ... 14 5. Discussion ... 16 5.1 Limitations and future research ... 17 5.2 Implications ... 16 References ... 19 Appendices ... 26 Appendix A - Survey questions ... 26 Appendix B - Descriptive statistics ... 30 Appendix C - Reliability analysis ... 31 Appendix D - Assumptions tests ... 32 Linearity ... 32 Normality of Residuals ... 32 Homoscedasticity of residuals ... 33 Identifying outliers ... 33 Multicollinearity ... 34 Appendix E - Linear regressions and PROCESS (model 1) hypothesis testing ... 35 Linear Regression ... 35 PROCESS (model 1) ... 36

(4)

1. Introduction

A greater need has arisen for information about the consequences of food we consume on a daily basis. For what reason has this need arisen? According to Annunziata and et al (2019) this need has arisen as a result of growing awareness of the negative effects of individual food choices on global food sustainability, as well as greater concern about the environmental consequences of food production. Sustainability is defined in many different ways, but the most commonly used definition among scholars is from the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987): “[meeting] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. In response to this greater concern, the importance of goods that seek to embody ‘sustainable consumption’ has increased (Sirieix et al., 2013). This is a trend identified by several researchers who have conducted comprehensive research on sustainable consumer behaviour (Grunert & Juhl, 1995; Thøgersen, 1999; Loureiro and Lotade, 2005; Prothero et al., 2011). Given personal and environmental consequences of choosing sustainable products, it is important for society and policy makers to better understand reasons underlying sustainable consumer behaviour (Peschel et al., 2016). In this context, the growing interest in sustainable food products has encouraged producers to expand the number of information tools to differentiate their goods and make them appealing (Annunziata, Mariani & Vecchio, 2019). Traditionally, brand and price have been perceived as the most important attributes (Sharp, 2010). However, during the last two decades, consumers have been able to increasingly encounter other food attributes and claims, including sustainability attributes, that are recognized at the EU level (Sirieix et al., 2013). Sustainability attributes of food serve as credentials, and therefore manufacturers are looking for opportunities to inform consumers about these attributes, and consumers in their turn, need ways to identify the desired attributes

(Sirieix et al., 2013).

One such opportunity that serves as an outlet for product information of sustainable food products is labelling. The literature on sustainable labels has led to a better understanding of the different drivers that can encourage consumers to choose food products bearing such labels. Some scholars have linked the values of individuals to their preferences for sustainable labelled foods (Grebitus, Steiner, & Veeman, 2013). Kempton (1991) has shown that the desire of consumers to protect the environment for their offspring is an important concern for consumers when buying eco-labelled products. In addition, many studies underpin the significant role of the label for both producers and consumers, as labelling reduces the information asymmetry between supply and demand (Mishra, Heide, & Cort, 1998; Verbeke & Viaene, 1999; Howard & Allen, 2006; Annunziata et al., 2011; Nikolaou & Kazantzidis, 2016). With this idea, the number of labelling initiatives has grown significantly in recent decades. Nonetheless, consumer scientists have long understood that more information is not always better (Scammon, 1977; Roe, Levy & Derby, 1999). This recent flood of sustainable labels for food products is causing a high level of scepticism among consumers, as well as excessive information that may confuse consumers and lead to sustainable products not being bought (Peattie & Crane, 2005; Grunert, 2011; Sirieix et al., 2013). Even though consumers have shown greater concern with respect to sustainability issues of food, it has not translated into higher use of sustainability labels.

There are indications that the impact of sustainable labels is only weakly positive, because they are not always fully understood (Garnett et al., 2015). Grunert et al. (2014) already raised this issue by implying that sustainable labels are only effectively utilized, when consumers are able to understand them properly. In particular, the level of understanding of sustainability labels plays a central role in influencing the use of such labels (Vecchio & Annunziata, 2015; Leach et al., 2016). The relationship of knowledge and willingness to buy these food products bearing sustainable labels has been thoroughly investigated. Nevertheless,

(5)

the findings are contradictory. The main reason for these contradicting findings is confusing about the concept of knowledge, as various studies use the term differently. Peschel et al. (2016) try to eliminate this confusion and clearly distinguish between objective and subjective knowledge, which will be further elaborated on in the next section. In the current research the focus will lie on objective knowledge. With regard to objective knowledge, Taufique et al. (2016) concluded that knowledge leads to the purchase of sustainable products. Nevertheless, the focus of this study was a subjective measure of consumers’ knowledge, and suggested that future research should be conducted to check whether consumers’ objective knowledge measures have the same effects (Taufique, et al., 2016; Taufique et al., 2017). Furthermore, while many studies have underpinned the role that sustainable knowledge plays on willingness to buy, studies that examine the moderator role of sustainable consumer behaviour are lacking. Sustainable consumer behaviour can either enhance this relationship, because consumers who had previously bought sustainable food products were more likely to buy sustainable products again (Thøgersen et al., 2010). Nontheless, sustainable consumer behaviour can also decrease this relationship, as sustainable conscious consumers have the desire to consume less.

There should be a mechanism that explains these differences leading to inconclusiveness in results, therefore, this research addresses the research question ‘To what

extent does sustainable consumer behaviour moderates the relationship between knowledge about labels and the willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products?’. To be able to

answer this research question, the next section covers the literature, presents the hypotheses and highlights the relationships among the hypotheses to create a theoretical framework. Section 3 explains the methods that are used during this research, which encompasses design, sample, procedure, measurements and analytical plan. Then, Section 4 presents the results of the data analysis, including linear regression and PROCESS model 1. Next, Section 5 discusses the research and implications that flow from the findings, as well as limitations and suggestions for future research are expressed. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn in Section 6.

(6)

2. Theoretical Framework

In this section, further elaboration is given on the concept of knowledge about labels. After that, the relationship between knowledge about labels (IV) and the willingness to buy sustainable food products (DV) is examined and subsequently the relationship between these variables will be portrayed through a hypothesis. Then, the concept of sustainable consumer behaviour (moderator) will be clarified, in order to demonstrate the interaction effect of sustainable consumer behaviour, which will be clarified through a hypothesis. Finally, the relationships between these variables will be illustrated in the conceptual model.

2.1 Knowledge about Labels

The use of the concept of knowledge is problematic in the existing sustainable labelling literature. This is mainly due to the fact that different studies attribute different definitions and aspects to the concept of knowledge (Daugbjerg et al., 2014; Testa et al., 2015). Peschel et al. (2016) identified three aspects of consumer knowledge in their research: subjective knowledge (what individuals think they know), objective knowledge (what is actually memorized), and usage experience. They focused on the effect of consumer knowledge on sustainable choices and they found that the use of sustainable labels was attributed more to objective knowledge (Thøgersen, Haugaard, & Olesen, 2010). The existing body of research defines objective knowledge as the actual general knowledge on the current state of the environment (Aarset et al., 2004; D’Souza, Taghian & Khosla, 2007) or the ability to recognize a label (Janssen & Hamm, 2012; Thøgersen, 2000; D’Souza, Taghian & Khosla, 2007).

In the majority of sustainable label literature, knowledge about the concept of sustainability, thus general environmental knowledge, is addressed. Yet, general environmental knowledge is not always sufficient for predicting sustainable consumer behaviour (Ajzen, 1985; Schahn & Holzer, 1990; Laroche, Bergeron, & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001). One explanation for this is that consumers are inconsistent in their behaviour regarding sustainable issues (Thøgersen, 2000). Also, in the context of the purchase of food products, general knowledge competes with other issues, such as sensory quality, and may not necessarily translate into use of sustainability information when choosing food products (Grunert et al., 2014). Specific knowledge of sustainable products and labels is therefore a more accurate measure than generalized knowledge (Minton & Rose, 1997; Testa et al., 2015).

Besides that, in the context of general sustainable knowledge, Grunert (2014) argues that sustainability is an abstract and diffuse term, which makes it difficult for consumers to relate to it. However, he points out that these problems with the general concept do not seem to affect the understanding of specific sustainability labels. A sustainable label is a communication tool used to provide consumers with product-specific information (ISO, 2012). As a necessity for using it correctly in decision-making, as well as for eco-labels to be effective, consumers need to understand their meaning (Horne, 2009; Taufique, et al., 2016). The understanding of specific sustainability labels is related to the familiarity of these labels and their ability to communicate their meaning (Thørgersen, 2000). Accordingly, in this research, knowledge is defined as a person’s ability to recognize a label and to understand what it means, which is in line with the research of Thøgersen (2000).

2.3 Knowledge about labels and willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products Recent research shows that many consumers are displaying an increasing awareness of and preferences for sustainability, as well as an increased willingness to buy sustainable products (Tully & Winer, 2014). Knowledge has proven to be a significant predictor of

(7)

sustainable purchasing intention (Rousseau, 2015; Testa et al., 2015). Demeritt (2002) indicated that insufficient knowledge and awareness of sustainable foods are considered important barriers to buying those food products. That is, consumers would not consider purchasing sustainable foods if they lacked the knowledge and awareness necessary to create trust. The lower knowledge of sustainable foods, the higher uncertainty regarding sustainable food choices. De Magistris and Gracia (2008) claimed that increasing sustainable knowledge is crucial to enhancing sustainable food consumption, since knowledge of sustainable foods strongly influences consumer attitudes that directly determine decisions or intentions to buy sustainable foods. The study from Michaud and Llerena (2010) demonstrates this relationship as well, as they found that consumers who are well informed on product environmental attributes are more likely to choose sustainable products.

Subsequently, several studies on sustainability labels have led to a better understanding of the different motivations that can lead consumers to choose products bearing such labels. Van Herpen et al. (2012) argued that consumers have different motivations for buying organic or Fairtrade products, which are classified under the category of sustainable products. They conclude that the consumption of sustainable food products is not only based on ethical characteristics, but that environmental characteristics also contribute to the purchase of these products. Furthermore, Gleim et al. (2013) found that one of the main barriers to sustainable consumption was the lack of consumer understanding of sustainable products. Didier and Lucie (2008) concluded that organic and Fairtrade labels increase consumers' willingness to pay and that familiarity of the label plays a crucial role. Nevertheless, consumers tend to have limited knowledge of sustainable foods and their production processes, and consequently lack confidence and understanding of the implications of their food buying decisions (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006).

As mentioned in the introduction, the spread of vague and confusing claims undermined the role that eco-labels have in fostering the sustainable purchasing intentions of consumers. This attribute should enable consumers to easily understand the sustainable features of a food product (Chamorro & Bañegil, 2006). The research conducted by McEachern and Warnaby (2008) is supporting this argument, as it found a direct link between knowing the standards underpinning labels for fresh meat and the purchase of labelled meat products. Additionally, they indicated that recognizing and understanding a label has an indirect effect on the consumption of sustainable labelled products. More specifically, a closer understanding of whether knowledge about sustainable labels actually lead to an increasing willingness to buy products bearing such labels is needed. As Caswell and Mojduszka (1996) already mentioned two decades ago, the relationship between the acquired information and the actual consumption behaviour is very complex. Drawing on this literature, the first hypotheses of this research is:

H1 Knowledge about labels has a positive effect on willingness to buy sustainable

labelled food products.

2.4 Sustainable Consumer Behaviour

Various sustainable consumer behaviours have previously been the focus of scientific research. Some examples include research in recycling, the use of public transport and the purchase of less environmentally harmful goods (Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Klöckner, 2013). As many different scholars have addressed the concept of sustainable consumer behaviour, this has led to a variety of terms: “SCB” or “sustainable consumption” (Kilbourne et al. 1997; Luchs et al. 2010; Wolff and Schönherr 2011), “responsible consumption” (Fisk 1973), “ecologically concerned consumption” (Henion 1976), “socially responsible consumption” (Antil 1984), “green purchasing” (Min & Galle, 1997) and “green behaviour” (Wagner, 2003).

(8)

Some definitions explicitly focus on social issues, others refer to environmental issues, and some point out to both.

Sustainable behaviour can best be described as a combination of self-interest and of concern for other people, whether it is other species, the whole ecosystem or even the next generation. This mixture of self-interest and pro-social considerations is also manifested through the theoretical models most commonly used to explain sustainable behaviour. Scholarly who see environmental behaviour primarily as pro-socially motivated typically link it to the Norm-Activation Model (NAM, Schwartz, 1977), while scholars who view self-interest as the more important motive typically build on rational choice models, such as Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Theory of Action (TRA) (Fishbein & Azjen, 1980; Ajzen, 1991; Bamberg & Möser, 2007). The essence of these latter models is that actual (objective) knowledge about the matter is a perquisite of behaving according to it (Kaiser et al., 2005). Nevertheless, numerous theories on sustainable consumer behaviour reveal that the underlying mechanisms are far too complex to be described in a single framework.

While alternative measures and theories of sustainable consumer behaviours have been examined, this research deals with Roberts (1995) notion of SCB, defined as “the purchase of products and services which they perceive to have a positive (or less negative) impact on the environment” (p. 222). Johnstone and Hooper (2016) elaborated on that by treating SCB as consumer behaviours that reflect the broader and long-term impacts of consumption on society and/or on the environment. Thus, people who follow sustainable consumption look for products with less negative environmental impacts on the long-run (Alves & Edwards, 2008). Roberts and Bacon (1997) argued that to encourage sustainable consumer behaviour, it is essential for policy-makers and marketers to clearly understand the antecedents of such behaviour. Some recent studies (Polonsky et al., 2012; Daugbjerg, et al., 2014) have suggested that sustainable consumption is at least partly dependent on appropriate information from various sources including product packaging (sustainable labels).

2.5 The interaction effect

In the literature on consumer behaviour, it is generally agreed that the process of consumption starts long before the actual product purchase. Since companies introduce sustainable labelled products in response to consumer demand, it is essential to understand the factors that impact the willingness to buy of these products. Existing research on sustainable product purchases has focused on demographic factors, as well as the values and beliefs that influence sustainable consumption. Many sustainable labelling studies already conclude the importance of socio-demographic factors in relation to food product knowledge (Green et al., 2003; De Boer et al., 2004), but the sole measurement of demographic variables and knowledge can only provide a limited profile of the consumer, especially in relation to buying behaviour of the consumer (Diamontopoulos et al., 2003; McEachern & Warnaby, 2008). Moreover, attempts to predict behaviour based on demographic characteristics have been inconsistent (Diamantopoulos et al. 2003), and a psychographic approach, such as a sustainable lifestyle, has been advocated to identify these consumers (Hughner et al. 2007).

Previous work has assessed the role of consumer knowledge in the context of previously sustainable behaviour and the lifestyle characteristics associated with sustainable behaviour (Ellen, Wiener, & Cobb-Walgren, 1991; Thøgersen et al., 2010). In particular, consumers who had previously purchased sustainable products were observed to be more likely to choose more sustainable products, e.g. products with a lower carbon and water footprint (Thøgersen et al., 2010). Consumers who were part of sustainable active groups were also found to be more likely to choose sustainable products (Ellen, Wiener & Cobb-Walgren, 1991). Therefore, as previously mentioned, knowledge cannot only increase the intention of buying sustainable

(9)

foods, but sustainable consumer behaviour can also enhance this relationship (Gracia and De Magistris, 2008).

In contrast, sustainable consumer behaviour can also decrease this relationship. Although the flow of information has rapidly enhanced the great amount of knowledge on the consequences of our consumption and production patterns and consequently the concern of consumers for the environment, this is not always decisive for sustainable consumption behaviour (Pedersen and Neergaard, 2006). This could be explained by the fact that the increased tendency of a more concerned consumer to buy sustainable products could be compensated by a lower willingness to consume (Peattie, 2001). Young et al. (2010) mentions this contrast as well, by arguing that the decision-making process of consumers who choose to adopt a sustainable lifestyle, becomes increasingly complex. In this context, Zarei and Maleki (2018) concluded that people that have a higher concern regarding sustainability are eager to engage in pro-environmental behavior and for this they try to obtain more information about products and their impacts on environment. To be able to contribute to this discussion, the second hypothesis states:

H2 Sustainable Consumer Behaviour moderates the relationship between knowledge about

labels and willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products.

2.6 Conceptual Model

Based on independent findings in existing literature discussed above, the current research tests a proposed model in which sustainable consumer behaviour moderates the effect of knowledge about labels on willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products. A moderator influences the relationship between two other variables. Figure 1 presents the conceptual model to visually demonstrates the relationships this research proposes.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model - knowledge about labels, sustainable consumer behaviour and

(10)

3. Methods

This research is a quantitative study with the purpose to investigate how sustainable consumer behaviour influences the relationship of knowledge about labels and willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products. The following chapter describes the design, sample, procedure, measurements and analytical plan that has been used in this research, in order to enable replication.

3.1 Design, Sample and Procedure

The present research includes a cross-sectional design. It was conducted by means of a questionnaire, in the form of an online survey. Data was collected in the Netherlands, between 22 May and 15 June 2020. The questionnaire consisted of four parts. The first part dealt with socio-demographic questions and the parts thereafter contained questions about the three main variables: knowledge about labels, willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products and sustainable consumer behaviour. The full questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. Respondents were able to select English or Dutch as language. The questionnaire was pre-tested on a sample of 10 people to detect any possible misinterpretation, error or duplication. Based on this test, adjustments were then made to the final questionnaire. For this research, convenience sampling was used; the survey was delivered through the web platform ‘qualtrics’ and disseminated through social media networks and word of mouth. Existing literature shows that online research has a number of important benefits. One of these benefits is low costs for researchers, as well as simplicity and time saving for respondents (Wright, 2005). Nevertheless, persons interested in the subject are more inclined to respond (self-selection bias) and respondents tend to answer in a socially approved way (social desirability bias), which constrains the outcomes of actual behaviour (Annunziata, Mariani & Vecchio, 2019). That said, all data will be gathered anonymously in order to limit this possible bias. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and respondents were assured that only aggregated results would be reported.

A total of 261 participants completed the survey, of which 238 were valid. 26 respondents were excluded because they never consume chocolate, as well as 17 respondents who did not fill in that question. Of the remaining 195, some had not completed all items, which means that the active sample can be smaller in the following calculations. The share of male participants is 61.5% and female participants 38.5%. On average, respondents were 32.36 years old, with an age range between 18 and 71 years (SD = 15.48). The respondents have completed different levels of education, from which .5% completed primary school, 27.8% completed secondary school/MBO and 71.6% completed HBO/WO. The average household size was equal to 3.49 (SD = 2.816). The majority of the respondents had a personal monthly net income of < €1000 (M = 1.81, SD = .808) and did < 25% of the total food purchases of their household (M = 2.56, SD = 1.268)

3.4 Measurements

The questionnaire was designed to measure the three main variables in the conceptual model in Figure 1: knowledge about labels (IV), willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products (DV) and sustainable consumer behaviour (moderator). Questions of the survey were composed by multi-item scales and items adopted from validated scales from previous literature, adjusted to fit the purpose and context of the current research.

(11)

First of all, Knowledge about Labels implies whether consumers can identify and recognize labels and was measured by asking respondents to identify three commonly used labels: Rainforest Alliance Certified, Fairtrade and the EU organic label. All three labels are adopted from Grunert et al. (2014). They appointed that these labels are used internationally and can be considered most widespread in their use on food and drink products (Grunert et al., 2014). These labels can be seen in Table 1. The three labels used as examples were tested for knowledge (“What do you think this label means?”) by providing a list of 5 potential answers of which only one answer was true, adapted from Grunert et al (2014). The sixth potential answer contained ‘I don’t know’ to encourage respondents to choose this answer if they genuinely did not know the answer, to prevent guessing. The possible answers can be seen in the questionnaire (Appendix A).

For the variable WTB sustainable labelled food products, first respondents were asked if they consumed chocolate, so that respondents who did not consume any chocolate could be removed from the dataset. After that, an image of a chocolate bar was shown with a Fairtrade label on it (Appendix A). This chocolate bar was brandless, to prevent any biases. Chocolate was chosen, as it is a product that is well-known and frequently bought by consumers (Rousseau, 2015). Therefore, the novelty bias when making hypothetical choices should be minimal (List & Shogren, 1999). Moreover, chocolate is an interesting good to study the role of labels since it is often considered to be a luxury or a special treat (Rousseau, 2015). It is interesting to examine to what extent consumers still consider external effects such as labor conditions (revealed through the impact of a Fairtrade label) when selecting such a self-indulgent treat. In addition, health arguments in favor of organic consumption are less likely to hold when considering chocolate. After the displaying of this chocolate bar, participants expressed their agreement with the three-item scale borrowed from Grewal et al (1998) of purchase intention. These items were recorded on a 5-item Likert scale, ranging from ‘Strongly agree’ (= 1) to ‘Strongly disagree’ (= 5) and can be found in Appendix A.

Lastly, Sustainable Consumer Behaviour was measured by a seven-item scale adapted from Lee (2009). These items were recorded on a 5-item Likert scale, ranging from ‘Strongly agree’ (= 1) to ‘Strongly disagree’ (= 5). Participants needed to rate how strongly they personally agreed or disagreed with statements such as ‘I often buy products that are labelled as environmentally-safe’ and ‘I often buy organic products’. We can sufficiently rely on this scale since the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.85 (appendix C).

When investigating the relationship between knowledge about labels, WTB sustainable labelled food products and sustainable consumer behaviour, there must also be controlled for other factors that might influence their relationship. Annunziata (2011) stressed the importance of demographics in sustainable consumption. Therefore, various socio-demographic factors are used to rule out possible alternative effects on the hypotheses. In accordance with previous literature, the variables that are controlled for in this research are age, household size and

personal monthly net income(Arcury et al., 1987; Samdahl & Robertson, 1989; Roberts, 1995;

Torgler & Garcia-Valinas, 2007; Brécard et al., 2009; Daugbjerg et al., 2014). As willingness to buy is measured, percentage of food purchases of the total household is controlled for as well.

(12)

Table 1. Sustainable labels shown to respondents together with their definitions.

Rainforest Alliance Fairtrade EU Organic

Promoting sustainable agriculture to help farmers,

while protecting the local environment.

Ensuring better prices, decent working conditions

and good terms for producers.

The product complies with the EU rules for organic

farming.

3.5 Analytical plan

Data analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (Version 14) and Process macro (model 1) of Hayes (2018). For testing the first hypothesis, knowledge about labels has a positive effect on willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products, linear regression will be utilized with willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products as the dependent variable (DV) and knowledge about labels as the independent variable (IV). Following our conceptual model (Figure 1), sustainable consumer behaviour will be added. Process macro (model 1) of Hayes (2018) will be used to test hypothesis 2, the interaction effect between sustainable consumer behaviour (moderator) and the knowledge about labels on willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products.

(13)

4. Results

This section of the paper starts by broadcasting a descriptive statistics and correlation table and explaining their relationships. This is followed by assumption testing, necessary for linear regression analysis. Finally, the results of the hypothesis analysis using linear regression and PROCESS macro are examined under hypothesis testing.

4.1 Correlations

Table 2 describes the means (M), standard deviations (SD) and correlations among the main variables and control variables. First of all, it is important to look what the correlations between the variables are, which means how the variables are associated. Only the control variables that are significant are included. In table 2 can be observed that there is no strong correlation between any of the variables, that means that the correlation is between (-)0.7 and )1.0. When a correlation is moderate, then the Pearson correlation is between )0.3 and (-)0.7. This holds true for two different correlations, age with personal monthly net income, as well as age with sustainable consumer behaviour, of which the latter is most interesting. This is a negative significant correlation, which means that the increase of age leads to the decrease of sustainable consumer behaviour, as well as the other way around. This is in line with comprehensive research by Diamantopoulos et al. (2010), who suggested that a green consumer is a young, well-educated, liberal and wealthy female. The remaining variables are correlated weakly.

Of the main variables, knowledge about labels and sustainable consumer behavior have a significant effect on willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products. Yet, none of their relationships discussed in the theoretical framework show strong or moderate correlations between the variables. However, the indication that these variables not show a strong bivariate correlation, does not necessary mean that there is no strong association in regression (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn 2011).

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age 32.360 15.48 1.000

2. Household size a 3.490 2.816 -.169* 1.000

3. Personal monthly net income 1.810 .808 .519** -.132 1.000 4. Percentage food purchases household 2.560 1.268 .225** -.151* .258** 1.000 5. SCB 3.199 .796 -.358** .143* -.162* -.179* (.858) 6. Knowledge 2.472 .786 .078 .115 .057 .093 .135 - 7. WTB 2.517 .777 .092 .097 .092 .061 .213** .283** (.860)

Notes: N=195. Cronbach’s alphas are in parentheses on the diagonal. a Household size was

measured in number of people. *p<0.05

**p<0.01 ***P< 0.001

(14)

4.2 Assumption testing

To test Hypothesis 1, knowledge about labels has a positive effect on willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products, linear regression was used. As such, first was checked whether the data meets the assumptions of linear regression. The first assumption that will be tested is if the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable is linear. This will be tested with a scatterplot, with on the x-as knowledge about labels (IV), and on the y-as willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products (DV). The scatter plot illustrates a positive linear association so we can conclude that there is a linear relationship (Appendix D). The second assumption states that the values of the residuals need to be independent. However, this is not a concern for cross-sectional survey and therefore this assumption is also passed. The third assumption that needs to be tested is normality of residuals, implying that the residuals are normally distributed. This assumption was checked by examining the residuals of the main variables via a normal probability plot (P-P plot, see appendix D). So, this assumption holds in the data set. The fourth assumption that will be tested includes the homoscedasticity of residuals, which means the residuals are equally variable (constant). The scatterplots in Appendix D show that there is homoscedasticity for all hypotheses, since the residuals in the plot are equally variable therefore this assumption is also met (appendix D). Furthermore, assumption five deals with identifying outliers. An outlier is a score very different from the rest of the data, and the rule of thumb is usually a cut-off of 2. In my data set there were six outliers above 2 and five outliers under 2. Yet, In this research, the outliers are kept, as the coefficients showed no big difference with the outliers kept and with the outliers removed. The Skewness and the Kurtosis was also checked for and from this can be concluded that keeping the outliers does not cause abnormalities (appendix D). Finally, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is included in the regression analysis for the last assumption, to explore the extent of multi-collinearity in the results. If the VIF is smaller than 5, multicollinearity is not present. As can be seen in appendix D, the VIF value equals 1.019 (see Appendix D, coefficients table) and indicates a lack of multicollinearity. Thus, the data meets all the assumptions of linear regression.

4.3 Hypothesis testing

As became clear from the theoretical framework, there are 2 hypotheses, (1) knowledge about labels has a positive effect on willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products and (2) Sustainable Consumer Behaviour moderates the relationship between knowledge about labels and willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products. Since this study contains a moderation model, the first hypothesis will be tested using linear regression and the moderation effect, hypothesis 2, will be tested with PROCESS macro of Hayes (2018) model 1. The three main variables of the hypotheses were knowledge about labels (DV), WTB sustainable labelled food products (IV) and sustainable consumer behaviour (moderator). Control variables that were used include age, household size, personal monthly net income and percentage of food purchases.

The results of the linear regression are broadcasted in Appendix E. To test hypothesis 1, linear regression was used with control variables in model 1 and knowledge about labels (IV) in model 2. The regression results show that for model 1 the variance explained by the control variables is 2.3% (R square) and for model 2 the variance explained by the control variables, as well as the independent variable is 9.9% (R square). The second model is ‘better’ since the R square is higher for model 2 than for model 1. The ‘R square change’ displays that the R square is improved with 7.6% by adding the independent variable knowledge about labels. The 0.00 in the box significant F change indicates that there is a significant contribution

(15)

of knowledge about labels in valuing WTB sustainable labelled food products. In the coefficient table (Appendix E), the unstandardized B value and significance test statistics information about hypothesis 1 can be observed. The unstandardized B represent the slope of the line between the independent variable and the dependent variable. This means that for every unit increase in level of knowledge about labels, WTB sustainable labelled food products by 0.27 (se = .07, t = 3.9, p = .0), if the other effects are held constant. Standard error is 0.07, the t is 3.94 and the standardized beta is 0.28 and is the highest of all the variables so it has the strongest relationship with WTB sustainable labelled food products. Overall, it can be concluded that hypothesis 1 is supported.

The second hypothesis is tested with the PROCESS macro of Hayes (2018) model 1. The results of the interaction effect of sustainable consumer behaviour are shown in table 3 and Appendix E. From the results is visible that the interaction effect is not significant, as p > 0.10 (b = 0.084, se = 0.075, t = 1.114, p = 0.232, 95% CI = -0.065, 0.232). Therefore, the second

hypothesis is not supported by the outputs of the test. Nevertheless, the R2 change is equal to

0.1499, which means that 14.9% of the model is explained by the interaction effect. Following the approach of Falk and Miller (1992) that the explanatory power (R2) greater than 10% is acceptable, the results indicate that the conceptual model would be more than satisfactory.

Table 3. Results for the interaction effect of sustainable consumer behaviour on the relationship

between knowledge about labels and willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products.

B se t p

Constant 2.101 0.193 10.912 <0.001

Age 0.005 0.004 1.148 >0.10

Household size 0.017 0.019 .902 >0.10

Personal monthly net income 0.0497 0.077 0.646 >0.10

Percentage food purchases 0.033 0.044 0.748 >0.10

Knowledge about labels (X) 0.229 0.069 3.315 <0.05

Sustainable Consumer Behaviour (W) 0.213 .073 2.901 <0.05

X*W 0.084 0.075 1.114 >0.10

Notes:

R2 = 0.1499

Dependent variable is willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products N = 195

(16)

5. Discussion

The main objective of this study was to examine to what extent sustainable consumer behaviour moderates the relationship between knowledge about labels and the willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products. In particular, the analysis has identified the effect of the ability to understand a sustainable label on the willingness to buy food products bearing such labels, and in doing so has assessed the interaction effect of sustainable consumer behavior on this relationship. In line with existing literature (Pedersen & Neergaard, 2006; Janssen & Hamm, 2012; Rousseau; 2015), it can be concluded that labels are not particularly well-known. This is especially problematic for the Rainforest Alliance labels. A majority of respondents was able to recognize the Fairtrade label, while only a fraction could recognize the Rainforest Alliance label and over half of the respondents were able to identify the EU Organic label. The result of the regression show support for the first hypothesis, knowledge about label has a positive effect on the willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products. This implies that the more objective knowledge a consumer has about a sustainable label, the more they are willing to buy that product bearing such a label. This put some clarification in the current debate around contrasting findings regarding this relationship.

In this study we were not able to prove that sustainable consumer behaviour has an interaction effect on the relationship between knowledge about labels and willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products. The second hypothesis, sustainable consumer behaviour moderates the relationship between knowledge about labels and willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products, is not supported by the result. There are several possible explanations for this unexpected result. The first explanation is that in order to measure sustainable consumer behaviour of the respondents, a seven-item scale from Lee (2009) was used. Respondents were asked how strongly they agreed to statements such as “I often buy organic products”, yet often can be interpreted in several ways, as it does not reflect a precise frequency. Some respondents may have understood often as once a month, while for others often is equivalent to once a week. Another explanation is that the product category can be perceived as unclear. In the survey is not specified the types of products in question with respect to sustainable consumer behaviour and this may have caused different interpretations.

5.1 Implications

The results of this study enable one major implication. Sirieix et al (2013) pointed out a new challenge, as food production practices and the support for these practices are defined by both industry and governmental bodies. Since consumers expect these food products to be produced in a sustainable manner, a better understanding of consumers' concerns and trade-offs in their choices of food products is therefore crucial for the development of both business strategies and public policies. This research has led to a better understanding of these choices and trade-offs, as it investigates the impacts on the willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products. Although this research did not lead to the desired moderating effect of sustainable consumer behaviour, another interesting finding was that most consumers cannot identify the sustainable labels correctly that were broadcasted in this research. As our results have shown, understanding these labels does influence the intention to buy food products that display such labels. It is therefore important to increase the understanding of these labels for both business strategies and public policies. In order to increase this knowledge, eco-labelling schemes should be designed in such a way that consumers are able to recognise the labels on food products and have the confidence that they deliver the expected qualities. This remains a major challenge, requiring cooperation between companies and government.

(17)

5.2 Limitations and future research

The theoretical findings should be interpreted in the light of the limitations of this study. The first limitation with regard to the measurements of the variable knowledge about labels is that the difficulty of the questions was not the same across all three labels. Grunert et al. (2014) tried to phrase items that were not completely wrong, but also not too close to the answer, as this would lead to confusing among the respondents. This leads to some uncertainty about the comparability of the levels of understanding for the three sustainable labels. Nonetheless, these items have been borrowed from Grunert et al. (2014) and tested on reliability. Moreover, the current study targeted only three specific well-known labels of food products. As mentioned in the introduction, there are plenty other sustainable labels that serve as attributes on food products. Future research should therefore take into account a larger number of labels, variating from well-known to lesser known, providing a more comprehensive overview. Nevertheless, this research has shown that consumers are often already unable to identify themselves on these types of well-known labels.

One other major limitation is that this research investigated the relationship of knowledge about labels on willingness to buy, which may involve an intention-behaviour gap. Consumer intentions are not necessarily translated into actual purchasing behaviour (Carrigan and Attalla, 2001). The resulting ‘gap’ means that socially responsible consumption, such as sustainable consumption, is lower in practice than would be anticipated based on survey-based studies (Eckhardt et al., 2010), which questions the reliability of these studies (Ulrich and Sarasin, 1995). Part of that gap can be attributed to research based on questionnaires do not require consumers to weigh up ethical and other product attributes, which makes it impossible to determine whether consumers are willing to compromise (Auger et al., 2003, 2010). Another bias regarding ethical behaviour is socially desirable responding (Ulrich and Sarasin, 1995). Therefore, future research should include some form of experimental design, in order to gain a better insight into actual behaviour.

Another limitation is the sampling method, as in this study is chosen for convenience sampling. The use of convenience sampling technique is discouraged by many scholars, since this causes the generalizability of the outcomes to other settings to be restricted. As the survey was distributed by means of word-of-mouth advertising and social media distribution, which enables sampling bias, the results do not accurately represent reality. However, convenience sampling is fast, easy to use and is cost effective and therefore this method was chosen to conduct this research.

Finally, the last limitation of the current study is that correlation data were used. Correlation data is appropriate to indicate if any relationship exists at all and whether this relationship is significant, but does not demonstrate how this relationship is established. Hence, no statements can be made about the cause-and-effect relationships between the variables. This opens the way for further experimental research, using a longitudinal design, to examine the causal relationships between the variables involved, involving a more representative sample of the population.

(18)

6. Conclusion

In previous research knowledge about labels and its effect on willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products is comprehensively researched, yet sustainable consumer behaviour was not considered as a variable that can moderate this relationship. Additionally, precious research indicated contradicting findings on the effect that understanding of sustainable labels had on the intention to buy food products bearing such labels. Therefore, this study aimed at reconciling to what extent sustainable consumer behaviour influences the relationship between knowledge about labels and willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products. The results demonstrate that consumers that have greater knowledge about sustainable labels, are not more willing to buy food products bearing such labels, when they have been previously involved in sustainable consumer behaviour.

(19)

References

Aarset, B., Beckmann, S., Bigne, E., Beveridge, M., Bjorndal, T., Bunting, J., ... & Reisch, L. (2004). The European consumers’ understanding and perceptions of the “organic” food regime. British food journal.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action

control (pp. 11-39). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human

decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Alves, E., & Edwards, M. (2008). The case for green food labels. Sustainable Dev. L. &

Pol'y, 9, 51.

Antil, J. H. (1984). Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public policy. Journal of macromarketing, 4(2), 18-39.

Annunziata, A., Mariani, A., & Vecchio, R. (2019). Effectiveness of sustainability labels in guiding food choices: Analysis of visibility and understanding among young adults.

Sustainable Production and Consumption, 17, 108-115.

Arcury, T. A., Scollay, S. J., & Johnson, T. P. (1987). Sex differences in environmental concern and knowledge: The case of acid rain. Sex roles, 16(9-10), 463-472. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A

new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of environmental psychology, 27(1), 14-25.

Brécard, D., Hlaimi, B., Lucas, S., Perraudeau, Y., & Salladarré, F. (2009). Determinants of demand for green products: An application to eco-label demand for fish in

Europe. Ecological economics, 69(1), 115-125.

Caswell, J. A., & Mojduszka, E. M. (1996). Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 78(5), 1248-1253.

Chamorro, A., & Bañegil, T. M. (2006). Green marketing philosophy: a study of Spanish firms with ecolabels. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management, 13(1), 11-24.

Daugbjerg, C., Smed, S., Andersen, L. M., & Schvartzman, Y. (2014). Improving eco labelling as an environmental policy instrument: knowledge, trust and organic consumption. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 16(4), 559-575.

De Boer, M., McCarthy, M., Brennan, M., Kelly, A.L. & Ritson, C. (2004). Differences in the

perceptions of food risk issues and food risk messages between various demographic groups on the island of Ireland: a qualitative study. Interim Report submitted to

(20)

De Magistris, T., & Gracia, A. (2008). The decision to buy organic food products in Southern Italy. British food journal.

Demeritt, D. (2002). What is the ‘social construction of nature’? A typology and sympathetic critique. Progress in human geography, 26(6), 767-790.

Didier, T., & Lucie, S. (2008). Measuring consumer's willingness to pay for organic and Fair Trade products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 479-490.

D'Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Khosla, R. (2007). Examination of environmental beliefs and its impact on the influence of price, quality and demographic characteristics with respect to green purchase intention. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for

Marketing, 15(2), 69-78.

Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M. (2010). Why don't consumers consume

ethically?.Journal of Consumer Behaviour,9(6), 426-436.

Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal of public

policy & marketing, 10(2), 102-117.

Fisk, G. (1973). Criteria for a theory of responsible consumption. Journal of

marketing, 37(2), 24-31.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1980). Predicting and understanding consumer behavior: Attitude behavior correspondence. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior, 148-172.

Garnett, T., Mathewson, S., Angelides, P., & Borthwick, F. (2015). Policies and actions to shift eating patterns: What works. Foresight, 515(7528), 518-522.

Gleim, M. R., Smith, J. S., Andrews, D., & Cronin Jr, J. J. (2013). Against the green: A multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. Journal of

retailing, 89(1), 44-61.

Gracia Royo, A., & De Magistris, T. (2007). Organic food product purchase behaviour: a pilot study for urban consumers in the South of Italy.

Grebitus, C., Steiner, B. and Veeman, M. (2013). Personal Values and Decision-Making: Evidence From Environmental Footprint Labeling in Canada, American Journal of

Agricultural Economics, 95(2), 397-403.

Green, J.M., Draper, A.K. & Dowler, E.A. (2003) Short-cuts to safety: risk and ‘rules of thumb’ in accounts of food choice. Health, Risk and Society, 5, 33–52.

Grunert, S. C., & Juhl, H. J. (1995). Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. Journal of economic psychology, 16(1), 39-62.

(21)

perspective. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 2(3), 207-218. Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products:

Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177-189.

Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY.

Henion, K. E. (1976). Ecological marketing. Grid.

Howard, P. H., & Allen, P. (2006). Beyond organic: consumer interest in new labelling schemes in the Central Coast of California. International Journal of Consumer

Studies, 30(5), 439-451.

Horne, R. E. (2009). Limits to labels: The role of eco‐labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. International Journal of

consumer studies, 33(2), 175-182.

Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J., & Stanton, J. (2007). Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 6(2‐3), 94 110.

International Standards Organization (ISO) (2012). Environmental labels and declarations:

How ISO standards help. Genève, Switzerland: ISO Central Secretariat. ISBN 978

92-67-10586-4.

Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food

quality and preference, 25(1), 9-22.

Johnstone, M. L., & Hooper, S. (2016). Social influence and green consumption behaviour: a need for greater government involvement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(9- 10), 827-855.

Kaiser, F. G., Hübner, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2005). Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value‐belief‐norm model in explaining conservation behavior 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 35(10), 2150-2170.

Kempton, W. (1991). Lay perspectives on global climate change. Global environmental

change, 1(3), 183-208.

Kilbourne, W., McDonagh, P., & Prothero, A. (1997). Sustainable consumption and the quality of life: A macromarketing challenge to the dominant social paradigm. Journal

of macromarketing, 17(1), 4-24.

Klöckner, C. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Global environmental change, 23(5), 1028-1038. Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro‐Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are

(22)

willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of consumer

marketing.

Leach, A. M., Emery, K. A., Gephart, J., Davis, K. F., Erisman, J. W., Leip, A., ... & Castner, E. (2016). Environmental impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints. Food Policy, 61, 213-223.

Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers' green purchasing behavior. Journal of consumer marketing.

Loureiro, M. L., & Lotade, J. (2005). Interviewer effects on the valuation of goods with ethical and environmental attributes. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30(1), 49-72.

Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of

Marketing, 74(5), 18-31.

McEachern, M. G., & Warnaby, G. (2008). Exploring the relationship between consumer knowledge and purchase behaviour of value‐based labels. International Journal of

Consumer Studies, 32(5), 414-426.

Michaud, C., Llerena, D., & Joly, I. (2010). Willingness to pay for environmental attributes

of nonfood products: a real choice experiment.

Min, H., & Galle, W. P. (1997). Green purchasing strategies: trends and

implications. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 33(2), 10-17.

Minton, A. P., & Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on

environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of

Business research, 40(1), 37-48.

Mishra, D. P., Heide, J. B., & Cort, S. G. (1998). Information asymmetry and levels of agency relationships. Journal of marketing Research, 35(3), 277-295.

Nikolaou, I. E., & Kazantzidis, L. (2016). A sustainable consumption index/label to reduce information asymmetry among consumers and producers. Sustainable production and

Consumption, 6, 51-61.

Peattie, K. (2001). Towards sustainability: the third age of green marketing. The marketing

review, 2(2), 129-146.

Peattie, K., & Crane, A. (2005). Green marketing: legend, myth, farce or prophesy?. Qualitative market research: an international journal.

Pedersen, E. R., & Neergaard, P. (2006). Caveat emptor–let the buyer beware! Environmental labelling and the limitations of ‘green’consumerism. Business strategy and the

(23)

Peschel, A. O., Grebitus, C., Steiner, B., & Veeman, M. (2016). How does consumer knowledge affect environmentally sustainable choices? Evidence from a cross- country latent class analysis of food labels. Appetite, 106, 78-91.

Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., & Thøgersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31-38.

Roberts, P. (1995). Environmentally sustainable business: a local and regional perspective. SAGE.

Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between

environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal of

business research, 40(1), 79-89.

Roe, B., Levy, A. S., & Derby, B. M. (1999). The impact of health claims on consumer search and product evaluation outcomes: results from FDA experimental

data. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(1), 89-105.

Rousseau, S. (2015). The role of organic and fair trade labels when choosing chocolate. Food

Quality and Preference, 44, 92-100.

Samdahl, D. M., & Robertson, R. (1989). Social determinants of environmental concern: Specification and test of the model. Environment and behavior, 21(1), 57-81. Scammon, D. L. (1977). “Information load” and consumers. Journal of consumer

research, 4(3), 148-155.

Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern: The role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and behavior, 22(6), 767- 786.

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in experimental social

psychology, 10(1), 221-279.

Sharp, B. (2010). Evidence-based marketing. How Brands Grow. Oxford University Press,

Melbourne, Australia, 1-15.

Sirieix, L., Delanchy, M., Remaud, H., Zepeda, L., & Gurviez, P. (2013). Consumers' perceptions of individual and combined sustainable food labels: a UK pilot investigation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(2), 143-151. Taufique, K. M. R., Siwar, C., Chamhuri, N., & Sarah, F. H. (2016). Integrating general

environmental knowledge and eco-label knowledge in understanding ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 39-45. Taufique, K. M. R., Vocino, A., & Polonsky, M. J. (2017). The influence of eco-label

knowledge and trust on pro-environmental consumer behaviour in an emerging market. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 25(7), 511-529.

(24)

Testa, F., Iraldo, F., Vaccari, A., & Ferrari, E. (2015). Why eco‐labels can be effective marketing tools: Evidence from a study on Italian consumers. Business Strategy and

the Environment, 24(4), 252-265.

Thøgersen, J., Haugaard, P., & Olesen, A. (2010). Consumer responses to ecolabels. European Journal of Marketing.

Thøgersen, J. (2000). Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchase decisions: Model development and multinational validation. Journal of

consumer policy, 23(3), 285-313.

Torgler, B., & Garcia-Valiñas, M. A. (2007). The determinants of individuals' attitudes towards preventing environmental damage. Ecological economics, 63(2-3), 536-552. Tully, S. M., & Winer, R. S. (2014). The role of the beneficiary in willingness to pay for

socially responsible products: a meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 255-274.

Ulrich, P., & Sarasin, C. (Eds.). (2012).Facing public interest: The ethical challenge to

business policy and corporate communications(Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business

Media.

Van Herpen, E., Van Nierop, E. & Sloot, L. (2012) The relationship between in-store marketing and observed sales for organic versus fair trade products. Marketing

Letters, 23, 293–308.

Vecchio, R., & Annunziata, A. (2015). Willingness-to-pay for sustainability-labelled

chocolate: an experimental auction approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 335 342.

Verbeke, W., & Viaene, J. (1999). Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food quality

and preference, 10(6), 437-445.

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Impact of values, involvement and perceptions on consumer attitudes and intentions towards sustainable consumption.

Wagner, S. A. (2003). Understanding green consumer behaviour: A qualitative cognitive

approach. Psychology Press.

Wolff, F., & Schönherr, N. (2011). The impact evaluation of sustainable consumption policy instruments. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34(1), 43-66.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press: 1987.

Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 10(3), JCMC1034. Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., & Oates, C. J. (2010). Sustainable consumption:

(25)

green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable

development, 18(1), 20-31.

Zarei, A., & Maleki, F. (2018). From decision to run: the moderating role of green skepticism. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 24(1), 96-116.

(26)

Appendices

Appendix A - Survey questions

Demographics

What is your gender? a) Male

b) Female

c) Other / I don’t want to tell What is your age?

What is the highest level of education you have completed? a) Primary education

b) High school/MBO c) HBO/WO

Household: people that you live and share meals with How many people does your household consist of?

What is your personal monthly net income (the amount you receive each month)? a) Less than €1.000

b) €1.000 to €2.500 c) €2.500 to €5.000 d) €5.000 or more

How much do you buy of the total food purchases made by your household? a) < 25%

b) 25% - 49% c) 50% - 75% d) > 75%

Sustainable consumption behaviour

I often buy organic products a) Strongly agree

b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree

e) Strongly disagree

I often buy products that are labelled as environmentally-safe a) Strongly agree

b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree

(27)

I often buy products that are against animal-testing a) Strongly agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree e) Strongly disagree

I often buy products that contain no or fewer chemical ingredients a) Strongly agree

b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree

e) Strongly disagree

When I consider buying a product, I will look for a certified environmentally-safe or organic stamp a) Strongly agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree e) Strongly disagree

I often buy products that support fair community trades a) Strongly agree

b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree

e) Strongly disagree

I often buy products that use recycled/ recyclable packaging a) Strongly agree

b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree

e) Strongly disagree

Knowledge about labels

What do you think this label means?

a) Promoting sustainable agriculture to help farmers, while protecting the local environment b) Minimising (soil) contamination when producing food

c) Protecting wildlife in the rainforest

d) Using land and water as efficiently as possible to avoid environmental damage e) Don’t know

(28)

What do you think this label means? (

a) Ensuring better prices, decent working conditions and good terms for producers b) Ensuring that no child labour is used in the production process

c) Ensuring good prices and working conditions for retailers d) Ensuring that the food produced is distributed in a fair way e) Don’t know

What do you think this label means?

a) This product meets the requirements of a sustainable product according to the USA b) The product complies with the EU rules for organic farming

c) Ensuring the preservation of the rainforest d) Reducing the amount of packaging used e) Don’t know

(29)

Willingness to buy sustainable labelled food products I consume chocolate. a) Never b) Rarely c) Sometimes d) Often e) Always

I am willing to buy this product a) Strongly agree

b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree

e) Strongly disagree

I consider to buy this product a) Strongly agree

b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree

e) Strongly disagree

I would actually buy this product a) Strongly agree

b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree

(30)
(31)

Appendix C - Reliability analysis Sustainable consumer behaviour

(32)

Appendix D - Assumptions tests Linearity

(33)

Homoscedasticity of residuals

Identifying outliers

(34)

With outliers deleted

(35)

Appendix E - Linear regressions and PROCESS (model 1) hypothesis testing Linear Regression

(36)

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

With regard to main effects of three moderators, the analysis shows that participants with extensive sustainable knowledge express more favorable attitudes to the

In this study we expected the mediators product involvement and number of connections to be mediating the effect of consumer innovativeness on the level of ingoing

The fast growth of Internet-based social networking applications (such as Facebook and Instagram) and advanced information technologies (such as smart phones and

H2 Presenting the front-of-pack exercise label (as opposed to the regular caloric label) will lead to a greater (smaller) reduction in.. calorie consumption in the case of vice

Moreover, outlier analyses were conducted for the dependent variable calorie consumption (healthiness of the shopping basket), for the moderator type of food and for the other two

H4a: A higher perceived hedonic level of the product positively moderates the (negative) effect of a higher price distance to the first lower priced alternative on purchase

(a) Brian: All Entities (b) Brian: Wiki Entities (c) Brian: Non-Wiki Entities Figure 3: Disambiguation results over different top k frequent terms added from targeted tweets.. the

According to an article published by the United Nations (2001) on diversity management issues; organisations can be strengthened by differences that mirror the diversity of its