CAN SIGNALS OF PRODUCT EXCLUSIVENESS
LEAD TO A DECREASE IN
FOOD WASTE?
Luiza Fundătureanu University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Marketing Management Master Thesis June 18th, 2015 Poelestraat 31G 9711PH Groningen The Netherlands +40740064243 l.fundatureanu@student.rug.nl S2765020 Supervisors University of Groningen
ABSTRACT
By using an experimental field study, this research investigates the influence of type of packaging as well as organic labeling on food waste. More exactly, the study assumes that perceived product quality mediates this relationship and seeks to find if signals of exclusiveness at food products, such as glass packaging instead of tetra pack, or organic labeling instead of conventional labeling, lead to a decrease in food waste behaviour. With an experimental approach, by tasting orange juice and complete a questionnaire, the previous variables are measured and observed. Results indicate that type of packaging as well as organic labeling do not affect perceived product quality and in turn food waste. However, healthfulness and perceived product quality were found to negatively influence food waste behaviour.
Keywords: food waste, packaging, organic labeling, perceived product quality,
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This paper had as purpose to determine additional factors that influence consumers to waste food, since this unwanted behaviour continued growing in the last decades and brought economic and environmental side effects.
The present study draws attention to the influence of packaging as well as organic labeling on perceived product quality, which in turn may influence food waste. As external signals of food products, the type of packaging and organic labeling were determined by prior investigations to influence perceived product quality. But in order to determine if the assumed relationships are true, a field experiment with orange juice was conducted. The results of the research revealed that packaging and organic labeling do not influence perceived product quality, and in turn do not affect food waste behaviour. However, the study found perceived quality of food products as negatively influencing food waste, meaning that the higher the perceived quality of a product, the lower the probability that consumers will actually waste that product. Moreover, a similar relationship was discovered between healthfulness and food waste, implying that the higher the degree of healthfulness of a food product, the lower the chances that consumers will dispose of that particular product.
The findings of the study though demand action by practitioners and require further research. Recommendations include:
• retailers and manufacturers should focus on increasing the healthfulness and quality perception of food products through advertising, brand image, or other subjective product attributes
• retailers should signal the increased quality their products have, on the shelf and aisles
• retailers should consider eliminating from stores private brands and other brands perceived as being cheap and having a low quality perception
• manufacturers should provide consumers with recipes for leftovers on the packaging
• manufacturers should include easily comprehensible health claims and nutrition information on labels
PREFACE
The present paper is a proof of competence for obtaining the Master of Science (MSc) degree in Marketing Management (MM), from The University of Groningen located in Groningen, The Netherlands. The research has been overseen by The University of Groningen and was conducted in the Zernike and Harmonie campus.
!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.INTRODUCTION ... 1
2.LITERATURE REVIEW ... 3
2.1 Food Waste in Households ... 3
2.2 The Role of Packaging in the Food Market ... 4
2.3 Organic Food Labeling ... 6
3.CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES ... 7
3.1 Conceptual Model ... 7
3.2 The Impact of Packaging Type and Organic Labeling on the Perceived Product Quality ... 8
3.3 The Impact of Packaging Type, Organic Labeling and Perceived Product Quality on Food Waste ... 10
4. METHODOLOGY ... 12 4.1 Study Design ... 12 4.2 Procedure ... 13 4.3 Measurement ... 15 5. RESULTS ... 16 5.1 Sample Characteristics ... 17
5.2 Description of the Data ... 18
5.3 Hypotheses Testing ... 21
5.3.1 H1&H2: Packaging, Organic Labeling and Perceived Quality ... 21
5.3.2 H3: The Mediating Role of Perceived Quality ... 23
5.3.3 H4: The Direct Effect of Organic Labeling on Food Waste ... 23
5.4 Additional Analyses ... 23
6. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 24
6.1 Overview of Results ... 24
6.2 Discussion ... 26
6.3 Limitations and Future Research ... 30
! REFERENCES………...……32
APPENDIX 1: The Experiment……….……...………37
1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, food waste has become a topic of growing interest with consumers becoming more conscious of the serious consequences of this behaviour. Not only does it have a destructive impact on the environment, it also represents a waste of materials, energy and water used in food production that will never be consumed. The results of Gustavsson et al.’s study (2011, p.4) indicate that “one-third of edible parts of food produced for human consumption, gets lost or wasted globally”. These alarming statistics have motivated researchers to investigate the motives behind food waste in the supply chain stages and more importantly in the last stage – the consumer – since he is the biggest responsible for food losses (Griffin, Sobal and Lyson 2008). Even though numerous studies have been conducted to detect the amount of food waste, little research has taken into consideration the drivers of these food losses in relation to the solutions of inhibiting food waste behaviour. Therefore, a lack of knowledge exists regarding attitudes and perceptions of consumers on food products that lead them to waste food this easily. One could argue that consumers do not value food products enough, and Gustavsson et al. (2011) consider that the abundance of food consumers in industrialized countries face, leads to a higher amount of food waste. Therefore, if food products are seen as having a higher quality or value, will consumers waste them less?
Perceived product quality can be defined as “consumer’s judgment about a product’s overall excellence or superiority” (Zeithaml 1988, p.5). It is different from the actual functional quality of the product because it holds a level of abstraction that is formed only in the consumer’s perception (Zeithaml 1988). Consumers form this perception based on cues that attract their attention to products on the shelf, the most noticeable being the type of package and the type of label.
In the market, numerous types of food products exist that convey higher perceived quality, one of them being organic food products. They became more popular with the increasing health benefits consumers believe they offer (Keith 2009), as well as with consumers’ willingness to value and purchase them more and more often. Consumers perceive organic products “as a healthier alternative to conventional foods in that they contain more nutrients which enhance personal well being, and better taste and more enjoyable than conventional products” (Mohd et al. 2010, p.72).
Is it therefore possible to influence the perceived product quality consumers hold for food and drinks through signals of exclusiveness such as the type of material packages are made of, and organic labeling? The current paper seeks to investigate food waste in relationship with the perceived product quality while taking into account the type of packaging food products feature and the presence of the organic label, leading to the following problem statement:
To what extent do food products’ signals of exclusiveness influence consumers’ food waste?
To investigate this issue, several research questions have been developed:
1. Do the type of packaging and organic labeling influence the perceived quality of a product?
2. Do people waste less of a food product if they perceive it as having high quality?
3. Is the effect of packaging and organic labeling on food waste mediated by the perceived product quality?
Based on these research questions, this paper extends the existing literature in marketing and consumer behaviour by enhancing the knowledge of additional possible reasons of why food is wasted, as well as possible solutions that may come in help of retailers, manufacturers and even consumers to reduce food disposal.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter elaborates and examines the already existing literature on food waste and the influence perceived product quality has on this behaviour while taking into account food packaging and organic labeling.
2.1 Food Waste in Households
Food waste can occur at any point in the food supply chain, but for the focus of this paper, food waste will be discussed as a phenomenon arising at the end of the food chain, which is related to consumers’ behaviour. In other words, food that is no longer edible for consumption becomes food waste at the household level, thus “contributing to ecological damages and nutritional losses” (Griffin, Sobal and Lyson 2008, p.67). Griffin, Sobal and Lyson (2008) show consumers as being the most accountable for food losses, surpassing food waste occurring during production, processing and distribution levels. The quantity of food waste reported by consumers represents 22% of the total food purchased as indicated by WRAP (2009). There are three categories of household food waste: ‘avoidable’, ‘possibly avoidable’ and ‘unavoidable’ (WRAP 2009). ‘Avoidable food’ refers to food that before disposal was edible (e.g. it was cooked too much). ‘Possibly avoidable’ is food that can be consumable through some ways of preparing, but not for others (e.g. potato skins). ‘Unavoidable’ represents food that is not consumable under normal conditions (e.g. meat bones).
possible motives for food waste: consumers act like ‘the good provider’ for their families so they buy more than necessary; due to store inconvenience consumers go shopping less so each time they buy large quantities; consumers lack food priority therefore do not plan meals in advance and lastly, consumers exempt from responsibility and blame the food industry of supermarkets for the poor food quality and taste, and in turn they dispose of food. In the end, the amount of food waste does not only represent financial losses for consumers, but also “threatens environmental and community health through destruction of the biophysical environment, air pollution from decaying food, water pollution from runoff or leaching, and rapidly growing landfills” (Griffin, Sobal and Lyson 2008, p.69).
Besides the numerous drivers of food waste, this paper focuses on the consumers’ lack of concern about food waste in relationship with the perceived quality of food products. There is still a gap in the literature regarding what kind of attitudes and perceptions are more important in relation to food waste as indicated also by Stefan et al. (2013).Intuitively, one can enunciate that consumers’ value perception of food has decreased, as in rich countries consumers “can simply afford to waste food” (Gustavsson et al. 2011, p.V). Aside from the mentioned reasons, which influence perceived product quality, further on, the role of packaging and organic labeling on consumers’ formation of product quality perceptions will be investigated.
2.2 The Role of Packaging in the Food Market
influence “consumers’ ability to discriminate quality, even when product evaluation is based on actual taste” (Honea and Horsky 2012, p.224), as for the case of food and drinks.
Venter et al. (2011) recently studied how consumers form quality perceptions about food and drink products and they concluded that this process is based on the consumers’ comprehension of the visual stimuli of the packaging that attract their attention. Moreover, Grossman and Wisenblit (1999) identified graphics and color of food packages as being the most important and noticeable factors in choosing a particular brand from the shelf, especially for low involvement items. Recent findings linked the visual attributes of packaging with the affective side of decision-making, while informational elements like labels and instructions are perceived as influencing the consumers’ cognitive side (Aday and Yener 2014).
Moreover, previous literature has investigated consumers’ quality perceptions in relation to the types of packaging a food product may convey and findings highlighted that “glass packages attracted consumers with their protective structure, transparency and healthy nature, whereas plastic and paperboard packages attracted the consumers with their resistance to physical impacts and easy-to-use abilities” (Aday and Yener 2014, p.385). And because consumers prefer to see the product they are buying to ease the evaluation of it, the transparency of glass bottles or the plastic ones furnish to this consumer expectation and subsequently to the identification of quality (Venter et al. 2011). Another study conducted by Vilnai-Yavetz and Koren (2013, p.394) concluded that consumers are more interested in buying the products with opaque packaging since the transparent one was identified as being “more instrumental, less aesthetic, and less symbolic of quality than opaque packaging”.
2.3 Organic Food Labeling
Organic food represents one of the many “food-sector innovations of the past decade” as stated by Rainbolt, Onozaka and McFadden (2012, p.385), who indicate that consumers’ demands are diverse and their preferences reflect their distinctive values. Consumers of organic food have strong individual values (Marques Vieira et al. 2013): self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition, benevolence (Schwartz 2007), biospheric values (Van Doorn and Verhoef 2015), and their purchasing behaviour revolves around motives such as: personal health, product ‘quality’, and concern about degradation of the natural environment (Pearson, Henryks and Jones 2010), being also connected with sustainable consumption (Vermeir and Verbeke 2005). Makatouni (2002, p.346) highlights that the “better taste, being like home-grown, being free from genetic modification and food additives” motivates consumers to believe that organic food has higher quality than non-organic food, but also that “these consumers perceive organic food as a mean of achieving individual and social values, of which the most important is centred around the health factor”. Other studies reflect quality and taste as dominant motives for organic food consumption (Vermeir and Verbeke 2006). Nevertheless, due to barriers such as higher prices and limited availability of organic food, previous literature has found a gap between the overall positive attitude of organic food and the low level of actual purchases (Pearson et al. 2010).
Mohd et al. (2010, p.75) discovered that “consumers place relatively high level of importance on health consciousness and perceived value in their intention to purchase organic food products”, without perceived quality relying on the higher price alone. Consumers’ perceptions about organic food differ according to the organic food category, and in turn consumers’ willingness to pay takes into account “food quality and security, trust in the certification, and, for some products, brand name” (Krystallis and Chryssohoidis 2005, p.320). Moreover, food signals of quality are effective only to the degree that consumers find them highly useful and more importantly credible, as enunciated by Boulding and Kirmani (1993).
3. CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES 3.1 Conceptual Model
Central to this research is the perspective that perceived product quality has a mediating role between the type of packaging as well as organic labeling of food products, and the amount of food waste, as seen in figure 1. This perspective is based on theoretical and empirical evidence that will be discussed further on.
This conceptual framework starts with the idea that the amount of food waste could be lowered if consumers would value food more, and perceive it as having higher quality. Product quality “is a complex, multidimensional factor for which a global and unidimensional definition does not exist” (Sebastianelli and Tamimi 2002, p.451),but in the literature different definitions based on major approaches of quality are offered: transcendent, product-based, user-based, manufacturing-based, and value-based. The current paper views product quality from the value-base perspective, which is the subjective customer perception of what constitutes performance in relation to price (Sebastianelli and Tamimi 2002), or other cues which indicate exclusiveness.
believe that “food waste has no environmental impact whatsoever because it is biodegradable” (WRAP 2007, p.3). Also, the fact that access to food products has increased and that their prices are more appealing due to marketing efforts and sales promotions has made it more difficult for consumers to appreciate the high quality of food products. Theory states that there are two main determinants of consumers’ perceptions of product quality, such as the type of packaging and organic labeling that can act as extrinsic cues in formation of quality perceptions. The current research considers that these two variables may affect perceptions of product quality, and thereby drive food waste behaviour.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
3.2 Impact of Packaging Type and Organic Labeling on Perceived Product Quality
“is superior when presented in an appealing package” (Banerjee 2013, p.22). Similar reasoning is provided by Silayoi and Speece (2007, p.1497), since they claim that “if the package communicates high quality, consumers frequently assume that the product is of high quality; if the package symbolizes low quality, consumers transfer this ‘low quality’ perception to the product itself”.
Consumers do form attitudes about a food product based on the visual aid, that directly influence the perceived product quality and indirectly influence food product value (Wang 2013). The same author also reveals that “visual packaging design generates positive product and brand evaluations” (Wang 2013, p.811). Moreover, researchers state that glass signals a higher quality than plastic or paperboard (Aday and Yener 2014; Venter et al. 2011), thus demonstrating the influence package has on consumers’ judgments just by the type of material from which is made.
In addition, theory demonstrates that consumers’ judgments of quality act like a mediator between package design factors and product price expectations, and this significant influence of product attractiveness on quality may imply that there is a potential extension on food products of the “beautiful-is-good” stereotype (Orth, Campana and Malkewitz 2010, p.25). Also, Vilnai-Yavetz and Koren (2013) affirm that a mediating role of aesthetics and symbolism of how product packaging influences purchasing intention exists.
In line with these findings, one can expect that food packaged in the type of packaging that signals exclusiveness, expensiveness and high value is perceived as having higher quality. This can be obtained with the choice of material (glass vs. plastic) or other visual elements (labeling) that usually are identified by the consumers as being special or elitist. Therefore a causal relationship may exist between the type of food product packaging and the perceived quality of that particular product:
H1: Type of packaging that signals exclusiveness will positively influence perceived product quality.
“the trend towards healthier eating has highlighted the importance of food labeling in allowing consumers the opportunity to make carefully considered and informed food choices”. In this case, the organic label acts like a signal, which represents, according to Bloom and Reve (1990, p.59), “a marketer-controlled, easy-to-acquire informational cue, extrinsic to the product itself, that consumers use to form inferences about the quality or value of that product”.
In addition, Verhoef (2005) confirms that organic purchasing depends on the evaluation of costs (price level) and the product’s benefits involved (quality), and another study claims that if the consumer perceives the value of the product and not the acquisition cost, his attitude towards it will be positive and will lead to purchasing behaviour (Marques Vieira et al. 2013). However, the influence of organic labeling on food quality can be limited by several possible factors. First, it depends on how important consumers perceive the labeled information to be, in order to have the desired impact (Annunziata, Ianuario and Pascale 2011). Second, for the consumers the existence of “familiarity, trust and fit between combinations of labels as well as between associating a label with a brand” (Sirieix et al. 2013, p.143) is important because some combinations (e.g. private and sustainable label) can decrease the label’s perceived value that in turn affects product quality. Taking into account that “food labels help transform quality aspects from credence to search attributes and are used as an extrinsic quality cue” (Banerjee 2013, p.21), the presence of an organic label on a food product is expected to positively influence the perceived quality of that product:
H2: The presence of an organic label on the product will positively influence perceived product quality.
3.3Impact of Packaging Type, Organic Labeling and Perceived Product Quality on Food Waste
product quality, which is defined as a subjective assessment of a product based on image, brand name, or advertising rather than the objective product’s attributes (Garvin 1984).
Consumers discern food waste as a waste of money and a waste of good food as stated by WRAP (2007), therefore it may be natural to conclude that the higher the perceived quality of a food product, the lower the chances of wasting it since consumers will be motivated to consume it in due time or will not be willing to act careless with the benefits of that particular product.
As organic product purchasing is primarily based on “beliefs about benefits” (Marques Vieira et al. 2013, p.1468), and the price component of exclusiveness is featured in the visual cues of product packaging, it is to expect a mediating role of perceived product quality between packaging type and organic labeling, and the amount of food waste:
H3: Perceived product quality will mediate the impact of packaging type and organic labeling on the amount of food waste.
Consuming organic food is connected to a person’s biospheric values (Van Doorn and Verhoef 2015), which represents the extent to which a consumer considers his/her personal interests in relation to the natural environment or animal welfare. These values are one of the determinants of sustainable consumption, which “is based on a decision-making process that takes the consumer’s social responsibility into account in addition to individual needs and wants“ (Vermeir and Verbeke 2005, p.170). Since food waste is associated with extensive greenhouse gas emissions, consumers who consume organic products due to their biospheric values, also exhibit a sustainable behaviour.
is environmentally responsible”. Consuming a product that has an organic label, which may represent an ecological and sustainability cue, could lead consumers to act environmentally friendly further on, meaning to not waste food. Therefore, in addition to the indirect effect mediated by perceived product quality, a direct effect of organic labeling on the amount of food waste is expected:
H4: The presence of organic labeling on food products will negatively influence the amount of food waste.
4. METHODOLOGY 4.1 Study Design
For answering the research questions of this paper and to test the validity of the enunciated hypotheses, an experimental research was conducted. By choosing a field experiment, the causal relationship between variables can be determined with higher certainty than laboratory research (Aronson, Wilson and Brewer 1998). A factorial 2 (tetra pack versus glass packaging) by 2 (organic versus no organic labeling) between participants study design was chosen, as seen in table 1. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions of the experiment, to ensure the validity of the results (Aronson, Wilson and Brewer 1998). In each condition, participants had to taste a cup of orange juice poured from tetra pack or glass packaging, with an organic or without an organic label and asked to express their quality perception. The same orange juice was offered for all four conditions in order to be able to see how the characteristics of the conditions influence consumers’ quality perception, as seen in figure 2.
No Organic Label Organic Label
Tetra pack Condition 1 Condition 2
Glass Condition 3 Condition 4
Figure 2: The orange juice used in the study
4.2 Procedure
The experiment was held on the campus of The University of Groningen (either Zernike campus or Harmonie campus), in three different days (see appendix 1 for a photo of the experimental set up). In order to attract participants, a sign indicating
‘Free Orange Juice’ was displayed for all four conditions. The real reason of the
Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4
Figure 3: The bottles of orange juice for the 4 conditions of the study
Figure 4: The orange juice label used in the study
Figure 5: The ‘organic label’ used in the study
Tasting. The participants were given the 250 ml cup of orange juice that was filled in front of them by the researcher. They were asked to taste the orange juice and fill in the questionnaire handed to them. Also, they were told that they can finish the cup of juice or not, but at the end they had to leave the cup at the table to be disposed. This way, the participants had the choice of finishing the cup or not, and researchers were able to observe the food waste behaviour. Moreover, having cups of 250 ml that are more difficult to drink at once, the usual food waste behaviour of participants was easily observed.
participant finished the juice or left the cup unfinished at the table. This notation was the indicator of food waste behaviour for each participant.
Questionnaire. During the completion of the questionnaire, the bottles remained on the table facing the participants, so their packaging and labeling characteristics could influence their responses. Moreover, participants were asked to indicate the bottle material and type of labeling in the questionnaire so they could become aware of the condition. Also, in the questionnaire questions were asked regarding the perceived quality of the juice, perceived healthfulness, willingness to pay for a litre of juice and participants’ egoistic, altruistic and biospheric values were tested along with gender and age as control variables (see appendix 2 for the questionnaire).
4.3 Measurement
During the experiment, the questionnaire and the observations were used in order to measure the variables of interest for this study (see appendix 2 for the questionnaire). Food waste behaviour. The researcher observed the food waste behaviour of participants at the end of their participation at the study and marked on the questionnaire handed back 0 = no, if the participant finish his/her cup of juice, or 1 = yes, if the participant did not finish the cup of juice.
Perceived quality. To measure the perceived quality, the fourth question of the questionnaire determined the quality perception of participants regarding the orange juice they tasted. The question assessed four sensory signals, such as rich/full flavour, natural and fresh taste, good aroma and appetizing appearance (Zeithaml 1988), on a 7-point Likert scale of agreement (from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’). To use in further analysis, the four items were computed into one variable named ‘perceived quality’. Also, a reliability analysis was conducted to test the internal consistency of the scale and the results indicated that the scale used for measuring the perceived quality was reliable, with Cronbach’s Alpha being ,730 (> ,60) (Shelby 2011).
2011). For the following analysis, a new variable from the three items, ‘healthfulness’, was developed, after the scale was concluded to be reliable with Cornbach’s Alpha being ,911 (>,60).
Willingness to pay. Participants were asked about their willingness to pay for a litre of the orange juice they tested, as seen in the seventh question of the questionnaire in appendix 2 (Van Doorn and Verhoef 2011).
Personal values. Participants were questioned about the personal values that guide their actions in life, falling into three categories: egoistic, altruistic and biospheric values. For each category, there were four values that reflected each one as follows: authority, social power, wealth, influential (for egoistic values), social justice, equality, a world of peace, helpful (for altruistic values), preventing pollution, respecting the Earth and unity with nature (for biospheric values) (Steg, Dreijerink and Abrahamse 2005). The values were assessed on an 8-point scale of importance, from 0 (not at all important) to 7 (of supreme importance). Moreover, participants were also given the option (-1) if they opposed to the value enunciated. For the subsequent analysis, for each of the three categories of values one new variable was formed, labelled ‘egoistic’, ‘altruistic’ and ‘biospheric’. Also, a reliability analysis was performed, and results showed that each category of the values scale is reliable, with Cronbach’s Alpha being ,774, ,813 and respectively ,886 (>,60).
Other control variables. Besides healthfulness, willingness to pay and personal values, participants were asked about their age (in years) and gender (0=male, 1=female).
5. RESULTS
Hypothesis Independent Variable Dependent Variable
Statistical test
H1 Packaging (Glass 0 = no, 1 = yes)
Control variables: age,
gender, egoistic, altruistic, bioshperic values.
Perceived quality
Multiple regression H2 Organic Labeling (Organic
0 = no, 1 = yes)
Control variables: age,
gender, egoistic, altruistic, bioshperic values.
Perceived quality
H3 Packaging (Glass 0 = no, 1 = yes) and organic labeling (Organic 0 = no, 1 = yes)
Control variables: age,
gender, egoistic, altruistic, bioshperic values. Mediator: Perceived quality DV: Food waste behaviour (0 = no, 1 = yes) Binary logistic regression H4 Organic Labeling (Organic
0 = no, 1 = yes)
Control variables: age,
gender, egoistic, altruistic, bioshperic values.
Food waste
behaviour (0 = no, 1 = yes)
Table 2: The statistical tests performed to test the hypotheses 5.1 Sample Characteristics
The experiment generated 119 observations from participants. All questionnaires were fully completed since the researchers checked the questions when they received them back, and told every participant if they skipped completing a question. Therefore, no participant was removed from the sample due to handing back an incomplete questionnaire.
participants per condition is very similar. The sample has an average age of 22,45 years, with a standard deviation of 3,083, with a minimum age of 18 years and a maximum age of 36 years. Moreover, when looking at table 3 it can be seen that more males (52,9%) than females (47,1%) participated at the study.
Overall N 1. Tetra Pack / No Organic Label 2. Tetra Pack / Organic Label 3. Glass / No Organic Label 4. Glass / Organic Label N 119 30 29 32 28 Mean Age (years) 22,4 22,5 22,6 22,1 22,6 Male 63 (52,9%) 17 (56,6%) 21 (72,4%) 13 (40,6%) 12 (42,9%) Female 56 (47,1%) 13 (43,3%) 8 (27,6%) 19 (59,4%) 16 (57,1%)
Table 3: Study sample characteristics 5.2 Description of the Data
Figure 6: Observed food waste behaviour per condition
Below, figure 7 exhibits the perceived quality average values for each of the four conditions. A one-way ANOVA was used to test the difference between conditions and results showed that the significance level is 0,999 (p-value = ,999 > ,05), therefore differences between conditions are not significant.
Figure 7: The average of perceived quality per condition 23.30%! 31%! 31.30%! 25.00%! 76.70%! 69.00%! 68.70%! 75.00%! 0.00%! 10.00%! 20.00%! 30.00%! 40.00%! 50.00%! 60.00%! 70.00%! 80.00%! 90.00%! 100.00%! Tetra!Pack!/!No!
Organic!Label! Organic!Label!Tetra!Pack!/! Glass!/!No!Organic!Label! Glass!/!Organic!Label!
H u n d re d s( Food!Waste! No!Food!Waste! 4.5583! 4.5345! 4.5545! 4.5268! 4.5! 4.51! 4.52! 4.53! 4.54! 4.55! 4.56! 4.57! 4.58! 4.59! 4.6! Tetra!Pack!/!No!
Figure 8 illustrates the average of healthfulness perception for each condition, the highest value being for the tetra pack packaging having organic labeling (4,0115), and the lowest being for tetra pack packaging without organic labeling (3,8778). To determine if healthfulness differs between conditions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference of healthfulness between conditions, with F(3, 115) = ,061 and p-value = ,980 (> ,05).
Figure 8: The average of healthfulness per condition
In table 4 below, a correlation matrix of all variables is reported. It can be seen that gender negatively correlates (p-value = -,030 < ,05) with food waste, implying that men waste more food than women. As it can be expected, perceived quality positively correlates with willingness to pay (p-value = ,031 < ,05). Also, a positive correlation exists between perceived quality and age (p-value = ,001 < ,05). Between healthfulness and gender, a moderate negative correlation is indicated (pvalue = -,026 < ,05), implying that men perceive orange juice healthier than women. Altruistic values seem to be strongly correlated with age (p-value = ,000 < ,05), whereas biospheric values positively correlate with willingness to pay (p-value = ,043 < ,05) and egoistic values (p-value = ,040 < ,05), but negatively correlate with perceived quality (p-value = -,009 < ,05). Unfortunately, organic labeling negatively correlates with perceived quality (p-value = -,034 < ,05), but it correlates positively with willingness to pay (p-value = ,016 < ,05) and biospheric values (p-value = ,014 < ,05). Moreover, organic labeling also positively correlates with egoistic values (p-value =
3.8778! 4.0115! 3.9479! 3.8929! 3! 3.1! 3.2! 3.3! 3.4! 3.5! 3.6!3.7! 3.8!3.9! 4! 4.1! 4.2! 4.3! 4.4! 4.5! Tetra!Pack!/!No!
,008 < ,05). The other variable of interest for this study, the type of packaging, unfortunately positively correlates with food waste behaviour (p-value = ,044 < ,05), indicating that consumers waste orange juice from glass bottles more than from tetra pack. Interestingly though, a positive correlation between type of packaging and perceived quality exists (p-value = ,025 < ,05), implying that glass packaging fosters a higher perceived quality than tetra pack. Surprisingly, the type of packaging negatively correlates with healthfulness (p-value = -,042 < ,05), indicating that glass packaging does not influence healthfulness more than tetra pack as expected. Between packaging type and biospheric values a negative correlation exists (p-value = -,035 < ,05), implying that the higher biospheric values consumers have, the lower the likelihood of consuming food products from glass packaging. Also interestingly, type of packaging negatively correlates with organic labeling (p-value = -,007 < ,05).
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 1) Food Waste 1 2) WTP -.119 1 3) Gender -.030 .078 1 4) Age -.776 -.702 -.294 1 5) Perceived Quality -.292 .031 .086 .001 1 6) Healthfulness -.160 -.257 -.026 .204 -.541 1 7) Egoistic Values -.466 -.114 -.130 .432 -.089 .126 1 8) Altruistic Values -.290 .093 .256 .000 -.066 .093 -.070 1 9) Biospheric Values .087 .043 .060 -.170 -.009 -.128 .040 -.582 1 10) Organic Labeling -.081 .016 -.058 .088 -.034 .086 .008 -.167 .014 1 11) Packaging Type .044 .095 -.143 -.109 .025 -.042 -.263 .056 -.035 -.007 1
Table 4: Correlation Table 5.3 Hypotheses Testing
5.3.1 H1&H2: Packaging, Organic Labeling and Perceived Quality
packaging and organic labeling as independent variables and perceived quality as dependent variable, as seen in table 5. The results indicated that there is no significant effect of the organic labeling or the material of the packaging on the perceived quality people have of orange juice, F(2,116) = ,019, p-value = ,981 (>,05), R2 = ,000. Neither packaging (B = -,012, value = ,876), nor organic labeling (B = -,014, p-value = ,901) added significantly to the prediction of the model. Therefore, the first two hypotheses cannot be supported.
Afterwards, in the model were included the variables age, gender and egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values, to determine the relationship between type of packaging and organic labeling, and perceived quality, while statistically controlling for the other variables. Results indicated that there is still no significant effect of the organic labeling or the material of the packaging on the perceived quality people have of orange juice, F(7,110) = 1,069, p-value = ,388 (>,05), R2 = ,064. As seen in table 5, neither packaging (B = -,037, value = ,837), nor organic labeling (B = -,005, p-value = ,977) added significantly to the prediction of the model, while controlling for the age, gender, egoistic, altruistic and biospheric values of participants.
Multiple Regression Model
Without control variables With control variables
Step and Variables B SE p-value B SE p-value
Intercept 4,567 (0,148) ,000 4,657 (0,895) ,000 Main effects Packaging -,012 (0,171) ,876 -,037 (0,178) ,837 Organic Labeling -,014 (0,171) ,901 -,005 (0,173) ,977 Age -,031 (0,031) ,313 Gender ,262 (0,190) ,170 Egoistic Values ,054 (0,070) ,442 Altruistic Values -,034 (0,090) ,710 Biospheric Values ,094 (0,072) ,191 R2 ,000 ,064
5.3.2 H3: The Mediating Role of Perceived Quality Between Type of Packaging and Organic Labeling, and Food Waste
Perceived quality can have a mediating role between type of packaging as well as organic labeling and food waste only if the type of packaging and organic labeling have a direct effect on the mediator - perceived quality (Preacher and Heyes 2004). Since the first two hypotheses testing results indicate that this direct effect does not exist, it means that no mediation occurred and the third hypothesis cannot be supported.
5.3.3. H4: The Direct Effect of Organic Labeling on Food Waste
To test the fourth hypothesis, meaning if organic labeling has a direct effect on food waste, a logistic regression model was conducted. The model was not statistically significant, with χ2(1) = ,006 p-value = ,937 (<,05), and indicated that organic labeling does not have a significant direct effect (B = -,032, p-value = ,937) on food waste, therefore the fourth hypothesis is rejected.
5.4 Additional Analyses
Since the expected relationships between variables were tested and results indicated that hypotheses could not be supported, additional analyses were performed to determine if other relationships between variables exist.
It was tested if healthfulness influences food waste behaviour, using a binary logistic regression analysis, as seen in table 6. The model was statistically significant, with χ2(1) = 9,312 and p-value = ,002 (<,05). The logistic regression model explained 10,9% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in food waste behaviour, and correctly classified 73,9% of cases. Increased healthfulness perception was associated with a reduction in the likelihood of food waste behaviour. This means that participants who viewed orange juice as bringing a positive contribution to their health were ,506 times more likely to not exhibit food waste behaviour.
juice as having higher perceived quality were ,672 times more likely to not exhibit food waste behaviour.
Dependent variable Food Waste
Logistic Regression Model
B SE p Independent variable Healthfulness -,506 ,175 ,004* p-value Model ,002* Perceived Quality -,672 ,250 ,007* p-value Model ,005* *p < ,05
Table 6: Additional Analyses
6. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Overview of Results
The high amount of food waste, which negatively influences the environment and the economy, raises multiple questions regarding the motives behind this behaviour and what can be done to supress it. However, little academic research is performed on this subject. This study used a field experiment combined with a questionnaire to investigate the problem statement: To what extent do food products’ signals of
exclusiveness influence consumers’ food waste? Therefore, in this research, the
Hypothesis 1 Not confirmed. Packaging does not significantly influence perceived product quality. Hypothesis 2 Not confirmed. The presence of an organic labeling does
not significantly influence perceived product quality.
Hypothesis 3 Not confirmed. Perceived quality does not mediate the effect of packaging and organic labeling on food waste.
Hypothesis 4 Not confirmed. Organic labeling does not have a direct effect on food waste.
Age, gender and values
Not confirmed. Differences in age, gender, and egoistic, altruistic and biospheric values do not influence food waste.
Additional results Perceived quality on food waste
Confirmed at a 95% confidence level.
Perceived product quality negatively influences food waste.
Healthfulness on food waste
Confirmed at a 95% confidence level.
Healthfulness negatively influences food waste.
Table 7: Summary of findings
The first two hypotheses have their origin in the first research question: Do the type of
packaging and organic labeling influence the perceived quality of a product? Results
showed that neither packaging, nor organic labeling significantly influenced perceived product quality, in contrast with previous literature. It was expected that the glass packaging would signal a higher quality than tetra pack packaging, but results did not indicate a difference in quality perception, compared to the study of Aday and Yener (2014) and Venter et al. (2011). Also, organic labeling was expected to induce a higher perceived product quality in consumers’ minds in comparison with the absence of an organic labeling.
Next, the third hypothesis was developed from the third research question: Is the
effect of packaging and organic labeling on food waste mediated by the perceived product quality? Results indicated that perceived product quality does not act as a
a negative direct effect, answering the second research question: Do people waste less
of a food product if they perceive it as having high quality?
Finally, the fourth hypothesis was developed based on the assumption that organic labeling triggers a sustainability cue that leads to a decrease in food waste. However, results did not show a significant direct effect of organic labeling on food waste. In contrast, healthfulness was discovered as having a negative direct effect on food waste, but this effect was not attributed to the presence of an organic label.
6.2 Discussion
Prior research identifies several consumer motives of food waste behaviour. The present study though, showed an association between perceived product quality and food waste. This finding adds another important underlying motive of why consumers waste food, and the fact that their attitudes towards food or drink products influence their food waste behaviour. Therefore, an increased perceived product quality leads to a reduction in the likelihood of food waste.
However, the assumption that a glass packaging or organic labeling conveys higher perceived quality failed to be demonstrated by this study. An association between type of packaging and perceived product quality was not found, in contrast with previous literature (Aday and Yener 2014; Gonzalez, Thornsbury and Twede 2007; Silayoi and Speece 2007; Venter et al. 2011). A possible explanation for this result is that the package and label (100% Orange Juice) used in the study did not have enough elements to express product quality, such as colour, typography, graphic forms and packaging illustrations (Ampuero and Vila 2006), in comparison with the bottles of orange juice from the supermarket. These visual elements are usually combined to transmit the desired product characteristics and influence consumers’ perceptions, which in this case failed to do so. Another possible reason for this result is the novelty of the package and label (100% Orange Juice) that might have negatively influenced consumers who experience food neophobia (Arvola, Lahteenmaki and Tuorila 1999). This type of consumer is reluctant to unfamiliar products and brands, having the tendency to expect food products to taste worse. His conservative personality trait limit himself to correctly assess these products.
shortcoming of finding a significant association could be due to the fact that consumers usually buy conventional orange juice in spite of the organic version, since it is cheaper and the nutritional value is similar (Bi et al. 2015). Consumers choose the low price version because studies show that orange juice is the most consumed fruit juice, for at least two times a week (Gadioli et al. 2012).Therefore, they do not value organic orange juice over conventional one, but place a higher importance on the nutritional information on vitamin C (Gadioli et al. 2012), which was not present on the study’s label.
By recalling the definition of perceived product quality developed by Garvin (1984), this represents the subjective assessment of a product based on image, brand name, or advertising, rather than the objective product’s attributes. Consequently, packaging and organic labeling alone that convey the image did not completely influence the perceived quality as also discovered by the study, since the other components were missing.
Nevertheless, the organic labeling did not elicit a direct effect on food waste as previously assumed. This can be due to the same reasons organic labeling did not influence perceived quality, but also because participants of the study did not have strong biospheric values. Moreover, positive cueing increases consumers’ environmental behaviour only if they practiced that behaviour, otherwise it has no effect on them (Cornelissen et al. 2008). This implies that if participants did not usually consume organic products and in particular organic orange juice, the organic label did not prime a sustainable or ecological behaviour that would later influence food waste.
“low fat” or “high fiber” (Kozup, Creyer and Burton 2003). The labels used for the study had no nutritional information, but participants might have perceived orange juice as healthy because they had prior knowledge of the fact that fruits are a great source of fiber, and type of labeling was not the one eliciting a healthfulness perception.
Lastly, one of the reasons why almost 1 out of 3 participants of the study exhibited food waste behaviour could be because when they were asked to participate at the study they were informed that the time they would invest being part of the research was helping the researcher in completing the master thesis. According to prospective moral licensing theory, “anticipating engaging in a moral behaviour allows people to behave immorally now” (Cascio and Plant 2015, p. 110). Therefore, the willingness to help a fellow student finishing her studies and investing time for other person’s goals could have represented a moral action for participants and in turn made them less concerned into engaging in a secondary moral behaviour (i.e. not wasting food), since they were self-assured by their overall morality.
Theoretical Implications
Second, the study discovered that healthfulness has a negative influence on food waste. Again, the extent to which healthfulness influences food waste should be studied, and understood which elements make consumers regard food and drinks products as healthier. Health claims and nutrition information were found to influence consumers’ degree of healthfulness perceptions (Kozup, Creyer and Burton 2003), but it should be studied if these are directly connected with food waste and what is their importance along food product categories. Moreover, the factors, which motivate consumers to actually read and understand nutrition information from the labels, should be determined.
By enhancing the food waste topic with the influence of perceived product quality and healthfulness, this paper helps scientific literature to reach new conclusions and efficient solutions to overpower the growing trend of food waste.
Managerial Implications
The general insight of this paper is to raise awareness regarding food waste behaviour and in consequence to decrease the amount of food waste. The most important finding for practitioners is that perceived product quality and healthfulness negatively influences food waste. Therefore, both manufactures and retailers can influence the healthfulness and perceived quality of food and drink products through advertising, brand image and other subjective product attributes. Moreover, retailers can highlight and signal the increased quality their products have on the shelf and aisles, and consequently make consumers waste less food. Perhaps, even eliminating from the supermarkets the private brands, which are regarded as being cheap and having a lower quality, could decrease food waste behaviour. Even though private brands are financially accessible for a broad range of consumers, they negatively influence the perceived product quality and in the long term can bring more damage than benefits to the food product categories. Also, consumers have to be educated that leftovers can still be part of a high quality meal; therefore manufacturers could include recipes for leftovers on the packaging, especially for foods that come in big sizes.
example displaying nutrient amounts in percentages rather than metric units (Levy, Fein and Schucker 1996), consumers can be taught to correctly assess the healthfulness degree of food products. Nonetheless, an important limitation of healthfulness is that it depends on the food product category. Therefore, consumers have to become motivated to find the time and interest in reading the nutritional labels and determine which products are best for their healthy nutrition. For vice categories though, the food waste concern is not that salient since they are perceived as “wants” that bring an immediate enjoyable experience (Van Doorn and Verhoef 2011), and are usually consumed very soon after purchasing.
Most certainly, all firms and the whole food industry have to inform consumers about the consequences of food waste and moreover, to make them aware that in some parts of the globe people are dying from hunger. This brutal way of educating the masses may have the desired effect on consumers from industrialised countries that do not appreciate the variety of food and drink products they can buy every day.
6.3 Limitations and Future Research
The present study has several limitations, which will be discussed further on since their presence could have influenced the results and interpretation, but they could be remediated in subsequent studies.
The first limitation of the research is concerning the size of the sample: 119 participants are not representative for a basic population; therefore the study could be extended to a higher number of participants. The second limitation of the research also regards the dataset: the age of the participants. Since the study was held in a university campus, the average age of participants was 22 years old and their behaviour cannot be extended to all age categories, so future studies should include participants of all ages.
The third limitation refers to the bottles of orange juice used for the study. The label and bottle should have a more similar design to what consumers are used to; therefore more effort should be put in the aesthetics. The design could be the variable that influenced the lack of influence for the perceived product quality.
REFERENCES
Aday, M.S., Yener, U. (2014), “Understanding the buying behavior of young consumers regarding packaging attributes and labels,” International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 38, 385–393.
Ampuero, O., Vila, N. (2006), “Consumer perceptions of product packaging,” Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 23 (2), 100-112.
Annunziata, A., Ianuario, S., Pascale, P. (2011), “Consumers' Attitudes Toward Labelling of Ethical Products: The Case of Organic and Fair Trade Products,” Journal
of Food Products Marketing, 17 (5), 518-535.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., Brewer, M.B. (1998), “Experimentation in Social Psychology,” Handbook of Social Pshychology, 3, 99-142.
Arslanagić, M., Peštekb, A., Kadić-Maglajlićc, S. (2014), “Perceptions of healthy food packaging information: do men and women perceive differently?,” Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 78–82.
Arvola, A., Lähteenmäki, L., Tuorila, H. (1999), “Predicting the Intent to Purchase Unfamiliar and Familiar Cheeses: The Effects of Attitudes, Expected Liking and Food Neophobia,” Appetite, 32, 113-126.
Atkinson, L., Rosenthal, S. (2014), “Signaling the Green Sell: The Influence of Eco-Label Source, Argument Specificity, and Product Involvement on Consumer Trust,”
Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 33-45.
Banerjee, S. (2013), “An Empirical Analysis on Attitude of Indian Consumers towards Packaging & Labelling across Different Product Categories,” Journal of
Marketing & Communication, 8 (4), 20-30.
Berkowitz, L. (1972), Advances in experimental social psychology, Ed. 6, New York: Academic Press.
Bi, X., Gao, Z., House, L.A., Hausmann, D.S. (2015), “Tradeoffs between sensory attributes and organic labels: the case of orange juice,” International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 39, 162-171.
Bloom, P.N., Reve, T. (1990), “Transmitting Signals to Consumers for Competitive Advantage,” Business Horizons, 33 (4), 58–66.
Boulding, W., Kirmani, A. (1993), “A Consumer-Side Experimental Examination of Signaling Theory: Do Consumers Perceive Warranties as Signals of Quality?,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 111–123.
Cornelissen, G., Pandelaere, M., Warlop, L., Dewitte, S. (2008), “Positive cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer behaviour by cueing common environmental behaviours as environmental,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25, 46-55.
Coulson, N.S. (2000), “An application of the stages of change model to consumer use of food labels,” British Food Journal, 102 (9), 661-668.
Gadioli, I.L., Pineli, L., Rodrigues, J., Campos, A. Gerolim, I., Chiarello, D. (2012), “Evaluation of packaging attrobutes or orange juice on consumers’ intention to purchase by conjoint analysis and consumer attitudes expectation,” Journal of
Sensory Studies, 28, 57-65.
Garvin, D.A. (1984), “What Does “Product Quality” Really Mean,” Sloan
Management Review, 25-43.
Garvin, D.A. (1987), “Competing on the eight dimensions of quality,” Harvard
Business Review, 6 (65), 101-109.
Gonzalez, M., Thornsbury, S., Twede, D. (2007), “Packaging as a Tool for Product Development: Communicating Value to Consumers,” Journal of Food Distribution
Research, 38 (1), 61-66.
Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D.C, Sparks, P. (2014), “Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste,” Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 84,15–23.
Griffin, M., Sobal, J., Lyson, T. A. (2008), “An analysis of a community food waste stream,” Agriculture and Human Values, 26(1–2), 67–81.
Grossman, R.P., Wisenblit, J.Z. (1999), “What we know about consumers’ colour choices,” Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 3(5), 78-88. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, S., van Otterfijk, R., Meybeck, A. (2011), “Global Food Losses and Food Waste,” Study conducted for the International
Congress ‘Save Food!’ at Interpack, Germany.
Hingley, M., Taylor, S., Ellis, C. (2007), “Radio frequency identification tagging,”
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 10 (35), 803-820.
Honea, H., Horsky, S. (2012), “The power of plain: intensifying product experience with neutral aesthetic context,” Marketing Letters, 1 (23), 223-235.
Keith, M.A. (2009), “Health Benefits of Organic Food: Effects of the Environment (New Resources for Nutrition Educators),” Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior, 5(41), 377e7.
Packaged Food Products and Restaurant Menu Items,” Journal of Marketing, 67, 19-34.
Krystallis, A., Chryssohoidis, G. (2005), “Consumers' willingness to pay for organic food,” British Food Journal, 107 (5), 320–343.
Levy, A.S., Fein, S.B., Schucker, R.E. (1996), “Performance characteristics of seven nutrition label formats,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(1), 1–15.
Lewis, M. (1991), Understanding Brands. London: Kogan Page.
Makatouni, A. (2002), “What motivates consumers to buy organic food in the UK?,”
British Food Journal, 104 (3/4/5), 345–352.
Marques Vieira, L., Dutra De Barcellos, M., Hoppe A., Bitencourt da Silva, S. (2013), “An analysis of value in an organic food supply chain,” British Food Journal, 115 (10), 1454–1472.
Milne, R. (2013), “Arbiters of waste: date labels, the consumer and knowing good, safe food,” The Sociological Review, 60 (2), 84–101.
Mohd, R.S., Jacqueline, J.P., Suhardi, W.M., Shamsul, J.E. (2010), “Purchase intention of organic food; perceived value” Canadian Social Science, 1(6), 70-79. Orth, U.R., Campana, D., Malkewitz, K. (2010), “Formation of consumer price expectation based on package design: attractive and quality routes,” Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 18 (1), 23–40.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S. (2010), “Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B., 365, 3065-3081.
Pearson, D. Henryks, J., Jones, H. (2010), “Organic food: What we know (and do not know) about consumers,” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 26 (2), 171-177. Preacher, K.J. & Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models,” Behaviour Research Methods,
Instruments & Computers, 36 (4), 717–731.
Principato, L., Secondi, L., Pratesi, C.A. (2015), “Reducing food waste: an investigation on the behaviour of Italian youths,” British Food Journal, 117 (2), 731-748.
Rainbolt, G.N., Onozaka, Y., McFadden, D.T. (2012), “Consumer Motivations and Buying Behavior: The Case of the Local Food System Movement,” Journal of Food
Products Marketing, 18 (5), 385-396.
Rampl, L.V., Eberhardt, T., Schütte, R., Kenning, P. (2012), “Consumer trust in food retailers: conceptual framework and empirical evidence,” International Journal of
Rundh, B. (2013), “Linking packaging to marketing: how packaging is influencing the marketing strategy,” British Food Journal, 115 (11), 1547-1563.
Sebastianelli, R., Tamimi, N. (2002), “How product quality dimensions relate to defining quality,” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 4(19), 442 – 453.
Shelby, L.B. (2011), “Beyond Cronbach’s Alpha: Considering Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Segmentation,” Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16, 142-148.
Silayoi, P., Speece, M. (2007), “The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis approach,” European Journal of Marketing, 41 (11/12), 1495-1517.
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, 143–151.
Stefan, V., van Herpen, E., Tudoran, A.A., Lähteenmäki, L. (2013), “Avoiding food waste by Romanian consumers: The importance of planning and shopping routines,”
Food Quality and Preference, 28, 375–381.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse, W. (2005), “Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 415-425.
Thøgersen, J. (1996), “Wasteful food consumption: trends in food and packaging waste. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 12 (3), 291-304.
Underwood, R.L. (2003), “The Communicative Power of Product Packaging: Creating Brand Identity via Lived and Mediated Experience,” Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 11 (1), 62-76.
Van Doorn, J., Verhoef, P.C. (2011), ‘Willingness to pay for Organic Products: Differences between virtue and vice foods,” Intern. J. of Research in Marketing, 28, 167-180.
Van Doorn, J., Verhoef, P.C. (2015), “Drivers of and Barriers to Organic Purchase Behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 1(91), 1-15.
Venter, K., van der Merwe, D., de Beer, H., Kempen, E., Bosman, M. (2011), “Consumers’ perceptions of food packaging: an exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom, South Africa,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35, 273– 281.
Verhoef, P.C. (2005), “Explaining purchases of organic meat by Dutch consumers,”
Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W. (2006), “Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer ‘Attitude–Behavioral Intention’ Gap,” Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 19, 169–194.
Vilnai-Yavetz, I., Koren R. (2013), “Cutting through the clutter: purchase intentions as a function of packaging instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism,” The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 23 (4), 394-417.
Wang, E.S.T. (2013), “The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value, and brand preference,” International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 41 (10), 805-816.
Wells, L.E., Farley, H., Armstrong, G.A. (2007), “The importance of packaging design for own-label food brands,” International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 35 (9), 677-690.
WRAP (2007), “Food Behavior Consumer Research: Quantitative Phase,” Report
prepared by Brook Lyndhurst, Banbury.
WRAP (2009), “Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK,” Report prepared by
WRAP, Banbury.
APPENDIX 1: The Experiment
APPENDIX 2: Questionnaire
1. Rate the quality of the juice you just tasted on a scale from 1 to 10 (Van Doorn and Verhoef 2011):
(1 representing poor quality and 10 representing excellent quality) ……..
2. What did the label on the bottle state? Organic & 100% Orange
100% Orange
3. What material did the bottle have? Glass
Tetra pack
4. Express your attitude regarding the juice you just tasted on the following attributes (Zeithaml 1988): Rich/Full Flavor 1 (strongly disagree) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (strongly agree) Natural & Fresh Taste 1 (strongly disagree) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (strongly agree) Good Aroma 1 (strongly disagree) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (strongly agree) Appetizing Appearance 1 (strongly disagree) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (strongly agree)
5. How do you perceive the juice you just tasted on the following characteristics? (Zeithaml 1988) Flavor 1 (poor) 2 (fair) 3 (good) 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Color 1
(poor) (fair) 2 (good) 3 (very good) 4 (excellent) 5
Texture 1 (poor) 2 (fair) 3 (good) 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Degree of Sweetness 1
(poor) (fair) 2 (good) 3 (very good) 4 (excellent) 5
Presence of Pulp 1 (poor) 2 (fair) 3 (good) 4 (very good) 5 (excellent)
